Eco-Labeling and Small-Scale Fisheries
by Paul Molyneaux

On October 13, in Bangkok, Thailand, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations opened it’s first conference dedicated to small-scale fisheries. The Securing Sustainability in Small-Scale Fisheries Conference (4SSF) was a long time coming, and prior to its opening representatives of small-scale fishers from thirty countries signed off on a statement listing their concerns on a wide variety of topics including eco-labeling. Article 22 of the statement called on the FAO, other United Nations agencies, regional fisheries bodies and national governments to categorically reject eco-labeling schemes.

In Article 22, small-scale fisheries representatives recognized the value of area-specific labeling that could identify ecologically and socially responsible fisheries. But they sent a clear message that eco-labeling by organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) were seen as a tool of the industrial sector, and did not help small-scale fishers. Well-known for slapping eco-labels on trawl fisheries, including some that have collapsed, and a fishery for the notoriously overfished Patagonian toothfish, the MSC—a child of two multi-national parents, Uniliver Inc, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—took a drubbing throughout the conference.

Kurt Bertelson, of the Denmark based NGO, Living Sea, called MSC, a “money machine.”

“Today MSC is closely connected with the privatization and capitalization of Fisheries,” said Bertelson, noting that MSC criteria fails to look at the energy footprints or social impacts of the fisheries it certifies. He added that the need for capital and profit in many of MSC’s certified fisheries would come at a cost to resources and ecosystems. “MSC defended itself, saying ‘they would solve the problems of small-scale fishers.’ But promises without time frames may mean there are no small-scale fishers to let to take care of.”

In general eco-labeling was seen as a short term solution to maintain the status quo of industrial fisheries, and international trade in high value species, that has often led to fishery collapse. They were seen as a means by which powerful countries could continue to exploit and profit from fisheries in developing countries, opening markets for those who can meet eco-labeling’s questionable criteria and closing those same markets to others.

“By no flight of imagination are fisheries in most countries anywhere near the standards that are employed
by MSC to assess certifiability,” said Sebastian Mathew of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF). Noting that efforts to bring certification to small-scale fisheries in developing countries are largely “donor driven,” Mathew suggested that MSC channel its resources into direct assistance to improve fisheries management in developing countries, rather than impose certification schemes that are seen by many as non-democratic. “Once the management regimes are in place,” said Mathew, “let the fishers and their communities decide if it makes sense to go the MSC way, or for that matter, any other way to recognize their products in the marketplace.”

Article 22, offers such an alternative in its mention of area specific labels. Informal area-specific labels can identify products harvested under management regimes that ensure social and ecological sustainability. Such regimes can be, and have been, documented by numerous objective observers, from NGOs to the media, through transparent processes and widely accepted indicators. Informal area-specific labels benefit all participants in well-managed fisheries, particularly small-scale fisheries, without subjecting them to an arbitrary and often expensive hazing. These are the labels appropriate for an open and equitable society.

Corporate driven eco-labeling schemes move in the opposite direction. “I do not believe small scale fisheries will benefit from a scheme like that of MSC,” said Johan Williams, director general of Norway’s Department of Marine Resources and Environ- ment. “Eco-labeling schemes are most complex,” said Williams. “They require a lot of documentation, both on stocks and the actual fishing. Obviously this is easier to accomplish in industrial fisheries.” While Williams believes market forces can be used to promote better management, he does not see any market advantage for small-scale fishers. “It is obvious that the industrial fisheries that supply bigger buyers will win any competition with smaller actors,” he said.

Some markets propose to buy only uncertified fish, locking out potentially sustainable fishers. For those who can pay to play their game, however, such markets create “protection” systems, similar to those used by the Mafia.

On a slightly less sinister level, having organizations with vested interests in promoting and issuing labels, each according to their own criteria, can lead to a confusing array of labels on questionable products. One Swedish NGO eco-labels farmed salmon, mass production of which is clearly unsustainable, and MSC has eco-labeled Alaska Pollack a fishery headed for trouble.

At this rate we will soon need an organization to certify the certifiers. Better yet, as many in attendance suggested, establish a global economy that distributes wealth equitably and balances the interests of seafood trade and local consumption, all based on ecological and social responsibility.