Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
stricter certification processes; and (2) the authors argue that 'difficult fisheries'
should be encouraged to apply for MSC certification, because they are the ones
where certification is likely to create the biggest environmental gains. This creates a
dilemma for MSC: on the one hand, certification is deemed to be a good pedagogical
tool for all fisheries, and the worse the fishery, the higher the potential gains. On the
other hand, placing stricter certification conditions to lead to higher environmental
gains makes it more difficult to be certified and thus decreases the incentive for
all fisheries to apply (and especially 'difficult fisheries'). If fisheries do not apply,
the market coverage of MSC-labelled products cannot expand further. In the end,
there is a trade-off between market spread and environmental gain in the MSC
programme.
Developing country, small-scale and data-deficient fisheries
A second line of criticism of the MSC concerns the failure to certify developing
country fisheries, especially small-scale ones. Linked to this concern are issues
of compliance, certification costs and shortcomings of scientific data. As of early
2007, of the 22 fisheries that have been certified by the MSC, only 3 developing
country fisheries have been certified (South African hake, Mexican Baja Red Rock
Lobster (see Chapter 12) and Patagonia Scallop (Argentina)), and two are under-
going certification (Gulf of California (Mexico) sardine and Chilean hake). All
these fisheries are located in upper-middle-income countries. In the early years of
operation, the MSC did not pay much attention to developing country needs despite
the early warnings. Representatives from developing countries were only invited to
one consultative meeting in London. Out of about ten workshops that were carried
out to present the initiative to various fisheries, only one took place in a developing
country (South Africa).
Barriers to achieving MSC certification in developing countries range from in-
stitutional weakness (lack of know-how) to financial costs (MSC does not provide
funding, although it facilitates contacts with potential funders). Recently, a 'Sustain-
able Fisheries Fund' has been set up, independently from MSC, to help developing
country fisheries to go through the certification process. However, the fund can
only make small grants to 'help ensure broad based stakeholder input into fishery
assessments . . . It will not be in a position to support large-scale research projects'
(SAMUDRA Report July 2002).
The costs of MSC certification to the client industry can be broken down in three
components: (1) pre-assessment, (2) fishery assessment and (3) annual audits. Pre-
assessment costs range from a few thousand US dollars to over US$20 000. Direct
costs for a full assessment have varied between under US$35 000 for a small, simple
fishery to almost US$350 000 for a large, complex fishery. Other costs related to
MSC certification are the cost of chain-of-custody assessment and logo licensing.
The cost of chain-of-custody certification varies with size and complexity of the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search