Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
groups), the FSC is an open-member organisation, while the MSC structure is
'significantly different and more corporate. Its managerial structure is designed to
insulate the Board of Trustees from the political influence of civil society actors'
(Gale & Haward 2004). Gale and Haward tentatively argue that WWF, having learnt
from the FSC experience, decided to promote a less inclusive and more efficient
governance structure for MSC that could keep up with a fast-moving business
environment. However, this very insulation meant that MSC in its formative years
was not particularly responsive to the needs of developing country fisheries, and
within these, of small-scale ones in particular.
14.2.3
New challenges
In the 2000s, criticism of the MSC initiative has coalesced around two main is-
sues: (1) the actual sustainability of certified fisheries and (2) a failure to certify
a significant number of developing country fisheries and to adapt the standard to
small-scale, data-poor fisheries.
Sustainability
A first line of recent criticism of MSC has come from conservation groups argu-
ing that MSC-certified fisheries are not sustainably managed in reality. The New
Zealand hoki fishery is at the centre of this criticism (together with South Georgia
toothfish and Alaska salmon and pollock - not discussed here, but see SAMUDRA
Report, March 2004). The Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society (Forest and
Bird), a conservation group based in New Zealand, appealed against the certification
of the hoki fishery in 2001 arguing that the fishery was 'clearly unsustainable' (see
Chapter 18). A formal MSC dispute panel was formed in 2002 and confirmed the
certification outcome, although it raised issues in relation to the impact of the fishery
on the surrounding environment. In 2001, the total allowable catch (TAC) for hoki
was 250 000 tonnes. By 2004, the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries had to cut
down the TAC to 100 000 tonnes following reports of rapidly decreasing stocks. For-
est and Bird called on MSC to withdraw its certification of the hoki fishery due to the
dramatic decrease in stocks. The Hoki Fishery Management Company, supported
by the MSC auditors, responded that it was actually a sign of proper management
that the TAC had been cut, and that poor recruitment and consequent reduced stocks
was most likely due to environmental factors rather than fishing impacts.
In 2005, the fishery came up for assessment in view of possible re-certification.
As a result of this assessment, the auditors concluded that the 'the management of
the commercial New Zealand hoki fishery complies overall with the MSC Principles
and Criteria' and recommended the issuance of the 'certificate pending the final
approval . . . of an action plan to meet all Corrective Action Requests (CARs) ...and
clearance of all required MSC Objections Procedures' (MSC 2006). This happened
despite a peer reviewer (although not the fisheries expert peer reviewer) noting that:
Search WWH ::




Custom Search