Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
21.3.2 Government assessment systems
In the MSC certification process, the decision to submit for MSC assessment must
be fully supported by all elements of the fishery concerned - the fishers, the proces-
sors, the distributors, the government manager/regulator and the various industry
associations that may represent the interests of each of these groups. Typically, the
government managers/regulators are not the main decision maker in this matter, and
while they may provide passive support, the process of MSC assessment of a fishery
will put the government agency under intense external scrutiny by the independent
certifier, and this may represent a significant threat to the internal and external
standing of the government agency concerned. Rarely are government agencies au-
dited in such detail, and the established institutional culture is not usually receptive
to external technical audit of the nature applied by the MSC programme.
Reactions of government fishery managers to the presence of an external and
independent audit range from passive support and tolerance through to active resis-
tance. For example, in Australia's Western Rock Lobster Fishery, the government
managers and regulators were a co-client for the MSC assessment, although their
role subsequently changed to being an information provider. In contrast, in the
Alaska pollock fishery, after some unfavourable comments were made by the inde-
pendent certifier, the government manager and regulator actively resisted the MSC
assessment process by instructing government officers not to cooperate with the
assessment team.
Governments typically feel they have control, and even in situations where there
are quota and other forms of fishery rights that may be delegated to the industry
to manage, governments take the view that the management of fisheries is their
responsibility and independent certification is welcome, provided that it agrees and
confirms the government's successful management, achievements and objectives.
Governments have therefore typically moved to establish their own form of certi-
fication and government-jurisdiction ecolabelling as a counter-measure against the
rigours of private sector certification initiatives and to provide a national minimum
standard for fisheries performance. However, the 'gold-star' ecological standard
cannot be achieved by government systems of certification, because they cannot
be seen to have a major impact on existing markets, employment and profits while
they seek to improve standards. Government systems of certification are gener-
ally designed with performance benchmarks that almost all fisheries within their
jurisdiction can meet, isolating only the worst of performers.
The US government has its own dolphin-safe ecolabel (the National Marine
Fisheries Service dolphin-safe ecolabel; see Chapter 1). The Japan Fisheries As-
sociation launched Japan's first seafood ecolabelling system in 2007 - 'Marine
Eco-label Japan' - 'promoted by all stake holders, including organizations and
companies related to seafood production and distribution, as well as academia and
the Japanese government's Fisheries Agency' (Isaribi 2007). Iceland and Norway,
two of the world's seafood superpowers, in addition to embracing the MSC ecolabel
Search WWH ::




Custom Search