Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
panels, which included NGO representatives, consultants, academics, and the MSC,
but no participants associated with MSC-certified fisheries. Fishery participants
were invited to attend only as observers. The guidelines for observers stated, among
other things, 'Observers will be seated separately from the panel members (not at
the table) and will not participate directly in the discussions of the panel members'.
While the MSC maintained that the exercise clarifies the MSC sustainability stan-
dard, the Alaska pollock fishery disagreed. APA's comments cited instances where
the intent statements unreasonably narrowed the range of management actions ac-
ceptable under the existing Principles and Criteria. As a fishery constituent of the
programme, APA was concerned that the exclusion of fishery participants resulted
in a process that appeared to change the MSC standard to accommodate NGO
demands rather than simply clarify the existing standard to remove ambiguity or
promote a more consistent application of the standard across fishery assessments.
The second phase of the project is described as guidance to 'create specific
operational interpretations, quantitative where possible, for performance indicators
and scoring guideposts, perhaps categorised by species groups and/or fishery types'
(MSC 2005). Overall, APA is of the view that the MSC is engaged in this Packard
Foundation-funded project that might or might not make the programme more
consistent when applied across all fisheries, while carrying with it the unpalatable
prospect of altering the established MSC sustainability standard.
13.7.3 The environmental benefits project
Another part of the reform agenda is a scheduled two-phase project intended to
quantify the environmental benefits in fisheries that have completed the certifi-
cation process. A report of the first phase of this work, 'Environmental benefits
resulting from certification against MSC's Principles & Criteria for Sustainable
Fishing' drafted by the MSC and the consulting firm, MRAG Ltd, UK (Agnew
et al
. 2006), evaluated ten certified fisheries (Alaska pollock was not included).
The report claims: 'All certified fisheries have shown some environmental gain
resulting from the certification process'. This effort is clearly aimed at convincing
the funding and NGO communities that fishery assessments provide an avenue for
fostering improvements in fisheries management and rebutting the concerns in the
Wildhavens report that the MSC process is not an effective method of achieving
conservation improvements in fisheries.
The MSC is pursuing the 'environmental benefits' initiative with a second phase,
the stated purpose of which is to refine methodologies for quantifying environmental
improvements in fisheries as a result of the certification process. As with its project
to craft intent statements for the Principles and Criteria, the MSC convened a
working group that included a number of members of the NGO community and
no representatives of the client fisheries. It might be expected that client fisheries
would know as well as anyone what conservation improvements are attributable
to MSC participation as opposed to measures instituted as a matter of course by
Search WWH ::
Custom Search