Fish Stakes

The pros and cons of the Marine Stewardship Council initiative: a debate from the pages of SAMUDRA Report

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers 27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India

FISH STAKES The pros and cons of the Marine Stewardship Council initiative: a debate from the pages of SAMUDRA Report Published by ICSF, 27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India October 1998 Edited by SAMUDRA Editorial Designed by Satish Babu Printed at Nagaraj and Company Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Information and articles contained in this publication may be reproduced freely. However, acknowledging ICSF would be appreciated. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers 27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India Tel: (91) 44 - 2827 5303 Fax: (91) 44 - 2825 4457 Email: mdsaab06@giasmdo1.vsnl.net.in

Contents

Preface…………………………………………………………………………………..1 Going green about the gills……………………………………………………………...3 New hope for marine fisheries…………………………………………………………..5 Whose labels? Whose benefit?……………………………………………………….….9 The mantle of ‘going green’………………………………………………………….…11 A View from the Third World………………………………………………………….12 A Powerful arrow in the quiver…………………………………………………………16 Cut adrift………………………………………………………………………………...18 Who’s being seduced?……………………………………………………………….…..23 Don’t be harsh on the MSC………………………………………………………….…..25 Open and transparent…………………………………………………………….………26 An appeal for co-operation……………………………………………………………....28 When sandals meet suits…………………………………………………………………32

Preface

In early 1996, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the multinational giant, Unilever, announced their joint commitment to establish the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to design andimplement market-driven incentives for sustainable fishing. Between July 1996 and January 1998,through several issues of SAMUDRA Report, the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers(ICSF) carried out a debate on the MSC process and its relevance to artisanal and small-scale fishworkers,especially in the developing countries. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first-ever debate on theMSC initiative.

The concerns of ICSF are not whether ecolabelling initiatives are relevant or not; rather, they are about thepracticability of a private accreditation programme such as the MSC claiming to promote sustainablefishing, based on universal standards that are developed without due consultation with fishworker organi-zations and that do not take into consideration the diversity of fisheries in the developing countries. ICSFis also concerned about an approach that could curtail the autonomy of fishers in the artisanal and smallscalesector. Given the unequal distribution of purchasing power and economic clout that are inherentlyunfavourable to developing countries, we have further reservations about the use of the Northern marketto ensure better conservation and management of marine capture fisheries in the South.

The writing on the wall is clear. If developing countries do not give sufficient emphasis to fisheriesmanagement questions, powerful environmental organizations and fish trading companies will attemptgreater, conservation of fisheries resources through harnessing consumer power to their advantage. It willhave undesirable consequences for both the governments and fishers of developing countries. We wouldhope for greater efforts to better conserve and manage resources within national waters in consultationwith all significant stakeholders. This would avoid the unpleasantness of unilateral sustainability criteriabeing thrust upon them from outside.

In this context, we felt it would be appropriate to reproduce the articles from SAMUDRA Report in theform of a dossier on the occasion of the Technical Consultation on the Feasibility of Developing Non-discriminatory Technical Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, orga-nized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations from 21 to 23, October 1998.

This dossier is meant mainly for the consideration of the delegates from developing countries. We hope itwill create a better understanding of the implications of a non-State ecolabelling initiative like the MSCfor fisheries in the developing world.

Sebastian MathewExecutive SecretaryInternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)

It takes two hands to clap-and when thesebelong to giants like the multi nationalUnilever and the high-profile WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), the resultcould be a thunderclap. Precisely such ablast can be expected from the Marine Stew-ardship Council (MSC) planned by thesetwo organizations.

Unilever, with global sales of US$ 900 mil-lion in fish products and a 20 per cent shareof the European and US frozen-fish mar-ket, is teaming up with an environmentalNGO to “ensure the longterm viability ofglobal fish populations and the health of themarine ecosystems on which they depend.”

The move has received great media atten-tion in the UK. A columnist in The Timessaid that “these last years of the century aregiving birth to a new alliance: a type of ruth-less, unsentimental, largescale action whichentirely bypasses governments. After yearsof mutual suspicion and tension, the envi-ronmentalists and the industrialists, the san-dals and the suits, are working things outtogether...” The Daily Telegraph hailed theMSC as “one of the most significant initia-tives to halt fish stocks decline since Ice-land went to war over cod in the 1970s.”

Are these claims justified? Perhaps in a situ-ation of monopsony, with Unilever the solebuyer of fish, the MSC may help seal upthe global wholesale market. Unfortunately,this is not the case in the real world. TheJapanese consumer market for fish, by farthe world’s largest, remains totally outsidethe influence of the Anglo-Dutch giant. Sodo the retail markets of the ‘Asian Tigers.’

As an initiative to ‘bell’ the market-for longan elusive link in fisheries management-theMSC is welcome, especially if it comple-ments existing

fisheries regulations and instruments. Ar-guably, fishers who use ecofriendly gearlike gill-nets, longlines, traps and pots mightbenefit from the MSC. If competitive con-

ditions prevail in their domestic markets,they will realize better incomes from‘green’ fishing operations.

This, however, does not mean that fishthus caught will replace those caught bynon-green, ‘dirty’ methods. At best, aniche market for ecoconsumers will de-velop. Like buying organically grownvegetables, the consumer will be able tochoose fish with a ‘green’ stamp. Thisimplies a greater product differentiationin the market, though not the eliminationof ‘dirty’ fish. Ultimately, both ‘green’and ‘dirty’ fish will co-exist. Tamperingwith only the market mechanism, there-fore, will produce only partial results.

If the real interest is the long-termsustainability of marine resources, thenmore needs to be done. Any measure ofsustainability should also include socialcriteria that reflect the livelihood inter-ests of the majority in fishing communi-ties.

Moreover, it should recognize existingfishing technologies that are selective.The principles of sustainable fisheriesought to be developed through consen-sus. The MSC should not unfairly penal-ize fishers who use ‘dirty’ fishing tech-niques. It should also give them an in-centive to switch to ecofriendly methods,with perhaps some kind of income sup-port.

The MSC initiative, however, has notwon the total confidence of fishing com-munities, either in the South or the North,because of their great distrust of Unilever.Many consider the multinational giant tobe a wolf in sheep’s garb. To be sure,sustainability may make good businesssense , but Unilever could just as wellhave waited for the sustainability criteriato ripen on its corporate interests. In anycase, the idea would have been taken farmore seriously by fishworkers’ organiza-tions had WWF consulted them before It

Going green about the gills

Any measure ofs u s t a i n a b i l i t yshould also includesocial criteria thatreflect the liveli-hood interests of themajority in fishingcommunities

This editorial commentappeared in Issue No.15 of SAMUDRA Re-port, July 1996

It is too early to get overexcited about theMSC or to say if it will actually halt thedecline of fish stocks, given that it mayfinally apply potentially to only about aquarter of global fish production.

As one commentator indicates, the MSCpoints to the future of fisheries manage-ment. So far, such efforts have been lacka-daisical. Unless the stakeholders, espe-cially fishworkers, are consulted and en-couraged to participate in managementprogrammes, the state and democratic in-stitutions will only get more marginalizedthrough market-led initiatives.

We would like to tether the market andmake it more accountable, but we can notview market intervention as the only pathto sustainable fisheries. Meanwhile, giventhe ideologically charged and conflictingstances, it is hardly surprising that bothcritics and proponents of the MSC aregoing green about the gills.

It is too early to getoverexcited aboutthe MSC or to say ifit will actually haltthe decline of fishstocks, given that itmay finally applypotentially to onlyabout a quarter ofglobal fish produc-tion

The market is replacing our democratic in-stitutions as the key determinant in our so-ciety.—Elizabeth Dowdeswell, SecretaryGeneral, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Cambridge, Massachusetts,27 October 1995

Two global organizations recently formed a conservationpartnership to create marketincentives for sustainable fishing by es-tablishing an independent Marine Stew-ardship Council (MSC).

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),the world’s largest private, non-profit con-servation organization, seeks a new ap-proach to ensure more effective manage-ment of marine fisheries. Anglo-DutchUnilever, a major buyer of frozen fish andmanufacturer of the world’s best-knownfrozen-fish products under such brands asIglo, Birds Eye and Gorton’s, is interestedin long-term fish stock sustainability toensure a future for its successful fish busi-ness.

World fisheries are in crisis. Fish havenever been more popular as seafood, normore threatened as marine wildlife. Onthe one hand, the world demand for fishproducts is steadily rising. On the otherhand, scientists warn that fish populations.and marine ecosystems are in serioustrouble.

The FAO reports that 70 per cent of theworld’s commercially important marinefish stocks are fully fished, overexploited,depleted or slowly recovering. Nearly ev-erywhere, fisheries that have sustainedcoastal communities for generations have

suffered catastrophic declines. In someareas, excessive fishing has drivenstaple species such as Atlantic cod com-mercially extinct. Clearly, we have ex-ceeded the limits of the seas. To makematters worse, modem fisheries areboth heavily subsidized and enormouslydestructive. Worldwide, governmentspay US$ 54 billion per year in fisheriessubsidies to an industry that catchesonly US$ 70 billion worth of fish. Thesepayments sustain massive fishing fleetsthat continue to ‘hoover’ up fish at analarming rate. Sophisticated vessels,able to stay at sea for months, seek fish-eries farther and farther-afield, often inthe waters of developing countries,where they compete with local fishers.

Contemporary fishing practices kill andwaste an average of 27 million tonnesof fish, sea birds, sea turtles, marinemammals and other ocean life annuallyfully a third of the global catch. Evi-dence is mounting that fisheries signifi-cantly affect the ocean environment andrepresent a serious threat to marine bio-logical diversity.

Fishery managers have been unable toprevent the ‘mining’ of fishery re-sources. Governments have typicallydevised politically expedient’ solutions’and then described them as environ-mentally necessary. These efforts havemostly been too little, too late.

The short term socioeconomic needs ofa region’s commercial fishing industryhas steadfastly resisted change. All toooften, political realities compel fishery-managers to ignore the implications ofthe best available science.

New hope for marine fisheries

Michael Sutton

A new initiative by Unilever and the World Wide Fund for Natureclaims that market incentives will lead to sustainable fishing

Different motiva-tions, but a sharedobjective: to ensurethe long-term vi-ability of global fishpopulations and thehealth of the marineecosystems onwhich they depend.

Michael Sutton is Di-rector of the Endan-gered Seas Campaign,WWF – International

The ProblemFish has never been more popular, normore threatened. Worldwide consumerdemand for fish is steadily rising, but sci-entists warn that fish stocks are in seriousdecline.

In some areas, excessive fishing hasdriven staple species such as Atlantic codcommercially extinct. Nearly every-where,fisheries that have sustained coastal com-munities for generations have sufferedserious declines. Indiscriminate fishingpractices kill and waste vast amounts offish and other marine life annually.

A Global SolutionTwo global organizations have committedto tackling this issue. WWF (the world’slargest non-profit conservation organiza-tion) wants a new approach to ensuremore effective management of marine life.Unilever PLC/NV (a major buyer of frozenfish and manufacturer of many of theworld’s best-known frozen-fish productsunder such brands as lglo, Gorton’s andBirds Eye UK) is committed to long-termfish stock sustainability to ensure a futurefor its successful fish business.

Different motivations, but a shared objec-tive: to ensure the long-term viability ofglobal fish populations and the health ofthe marine ecosystems on which theydepend.

How Will This Partnership Work?The end objective of the partnership be-tween WWF and Unilever is to establish,through consultation, an independentMarine Stewardship Council (MSC) whichwill create market-led economic incentivesfor sustainable fishing.

The MW will be an independent, non-gov-ernment membership body. It will estab-lish a broad set of principles for sustain-able fishing and set standards for indi-vidual fisheries. Only fisheries meetingthese standards will be eligible for certifi-cation by independent, accredited certify-ing firms.

Products from certified fisheries will even-tually be marked with an on-pack logo. Thiswill allow consumers to select those fishproducts which come from a sustainablesource.

Once established, the MSC will be inde-pendent of both industry and conservationorganizations, and be governed by a boardof directors made up of experts from a va-riety of backgrounds.

The MSC will be modelled on the success-ful Forest Stewardship Council (FSC),launched by WWF, other conservationgroups and timber traders in 1993 to pro-mote a market—led solution towards moresustainable forestry practices around theworld.

TO create the MSC, WWF and Unileverwill contribute matching funds into an ex-tensive scoping exercise to explore howthe FSC model can be adapted to meetthe specific sustainability needs of globalmarine fisheries. This study. will be under-taken by a number of consultants, co-rdinated by an independent project man-ager. It will result in a draft set of foundingprinciples for the MSC.

These draft principles will be generated,by and circulated to a broad spectrum ofexperts in fisheries-including fishing andindustry groups, conservationists, regula-tors and academics. An open series ofnational and regional consultations andworkshops around. the. world will then beheld to refine and strengthen the -principlesand agree on a process. for internationalimplementation.

WWF and Unilever are committed to sup-porting the process of agreeing to the prin-ciples and establishing the1 MSC withintwo years. They will actively seek the wid-est possible in involvement from other or-ganizations in achieving these goals.

(Signed by Dr Robin Pellew, on behalf ofWWF International and AntonyBurgmans, Director, Unilever PLC/NV)

Statement of Intent

Politicians, often at the highest levels, fre-quently intervene in decisions about spe-cific fisheries. Society has simply lackedthe political will to forestall the fishingindustry’s tendency to use up all its re-sources and thereby destroy itself.

To reverse the fisheries crisis, we mustdevelop long-term solutions that are en-vironmentally necessary and then,through economic incentives, make thempolitically feasible. Fortunately, an ap-proach is available that has succeeded inother areas: Working in partnership todesign and implement market-driven in-centives for sustainable fishing.

In order to make this work, the conserva-tion community and progressive membersof the seafood industry must forge a stra-tegic alliance. Past experience suggeststhat building such partnerships and har-nessing market forces in favour of con-servation can be very powerful. One thingis certain. Where industry and the marketlead, governments will likely follow.

In early 1996, WWF and Unilever an-nounced their joint commitment to estab-lish the Marine Stewardship Councilwithin two years. The MSC will be anindependent, non-profit, nongovernmen-tal membership body. The organizationwill establish a broad set of principles forsustainable fishing and set standards forindividual fisheries.

Only fisheries meeting these standardswill be eligible for certification by inde-pendent accredited certifying firms. Sea-food companies will be encouraged to joinsustainable buyers’ groups and makecommitments to purchase fish productsonly from certified sources. Ultimately,products from MSC-certified fisherieswill be marked with an on-pack logo.

This will allow seafood consumers to se-lect fish products with the confidence thatthey come from sustainable, well man-aged sources.

A project manager will co-ordinate ateam of consultants that will work onthe development of the MSC. Theproject team will combine expertise incertification (or ecolabelling) schemeswith intimate knowledge of the com-mercial fishing industry. Team mem-bers will consult a broad range of ex-perts representing all stakeholders inmarine fisheries.

Together, the team will draft the set ofbroad principles for sustainable fishingthat will underpin the MSC. The teamwill draw on the standards and guide-lines embodied in existing internationalagreements, such as the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries andthe UN Agreement on Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory FishStocks. The team will also enlist newinformation and expertise in marineconservation biology, economics, sea-food marketing, and commercial viabil-ity, to help move current thinking for-ward.

Both organizations, WWF andUnilever, will circulate the results of thescoping exercise and draft principles toa broad spectrum of stakeholders infisheries: conservationists, fishers, sea-food industry officials, fishery manag-ers, lawmakers, etc.

The partners will then sponsor a seriesof national and regional consultationsand workshops around the world. Thepurpose of these workshops will be torefine and strengthen the principles anddevelop a process for internationalimplementation. WWF and Unileverare actively seeking the widest possibleinvolvement of other organizations inthis exciting initiative.

When Unilever and other major seafoodcompanies make commitments to buytheir fish products only from well-man-aged and MSC-certified fisheries, thefishing industry will be compelled tomodify its current practices. Govern-

The MSC has thepotential to signifi-cantly alter world-wide fishing prac-tices in favour ofmore sustainable,less destructive fish-eries.

ments, laws and treaties aside, the mar-ket itself will begin to determine themeans of fish production. Unilever haspledged to source their fishery productsonly from sustainable, well-managedfisheries certified to MSC standards bythe year 2005. As an interim step, thecompany recently announced that it willcease processing fish oil from Europeanindustrial fisheries by April 1997 andre-examine its use of fish oils from othersources.

The massive industrial ‘hoovering’ ofsand eels and other species for fish oiland meal accounts for over half the to-tal North Sea fish catch and affects andretailers to joinpopulations of cod,haddock and sea in the partnership tobirds which feed on them. Sainsbury,the UK’s largest retail grocery chain,quickly followed Unilever’s lead andagreed to phase out the use of fish oilfrom European sources in 120 prod-uct lines.

We hope these initialsteps will stimulateother seafood pro-cessors harnessmarket forces andconsumer power infavour of healthy,well managed fish-eries for the future.

Under the Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC), Unilever andWWF (World Wide Fund forNature) have decided to create a qualitylabel for fish caught under sustainableconditions and practices. This must beviewed as a major landmark for globalfisheries and the future development ofagricultural and agribusiness activities asa whole. It shows that multinational com-panies (MNCs) are increasingly aware ofconservation principles. Unilever’s re-fusal to henceforth buy oil from the fish-meal oil industry must also be hailed as adecisive step forward.

It is, however, necessary to ponder oversome aspects of this new approach. Forone thing, it will deal a severe blow tothe Danish fleets that specialize in suchactivity. They have, for long, been criti-cized by the majority of European fisher-men. Though these Danish boats prima-rily target fish-meal species, they can alsocatch juveniles of other species. Whensuch by-catches occur on a massive scale,the delicate balance of the food chain inthe oceans is upset. At first glance, there-fore, the move to control fishing activi-ties is clearly a positive measure for Eu-ropean fisherfolk. However, the jointWWF-Unilever approach raises severalquestions.

First, the agreement between the power-ful MNC and the famous international en-vironmental organization seems to haveignored the fisherpeople, though it is pre-cisely their future which is at stake in thisventure.

It may be recalled that the Breton fisher-men, who targeted tuna with drift-nets,

were outraged when another environ-mental group, Greenpeace, campaignedfor a ban on that type of gear. Thesefishermen were, however, able to en-gage with other organizations in a de-bate on the matter.

The evolution of the European market,with a bias in favour of industrial fish-eries, has been a major factor in theprice slump which has affected the wel-fare of fishermen. With initiatives likethe MSC, from now on, environmentalmovements and MNCs may have a de-cisive influence not only on prices butalso on the conditions that determineaccess to the market.

On the other hand, fishermen will findit more and more difficult to becomemasters of their own progress. Unileverand WWF, of course, say they will holdconsultations on a broad basis and es-tablish an independent body for theMSC. But it is most likely that certainactors will outweigh others. For in-stance, fishermen will find it more dif-ficult to promote their case than envi-ronmental groups that are well estab-lished in the media and thus have aneasier task to get their viewpointsacross.

The second area of concern is the prin-ciples on which the MSC will draw towork o ut the modalities of such label-ling. The joint statement of Unileverand WWF refers to relevant UN docu-ments such as the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries. These docu-ments, however, primarily emphasizethe environmental aspects of resourcemanagement, not the social aspects.

Whose labels? Whose benefit?

Alain Le Sann

Quality labels certainly have a future-but only if theirmodus operandi is sufficiently broadbased

Unilever and WWFof course, say theywill hold consulta-tions on a broadbasis and establishan independentbody for the MSC.But it is most likelythat certain actorswill outweigh oth-ers.

Alain Le Sann is theauthor of “A Livelihoodfrom Fishing: Global-ization and SustainableFisheries Policies”,published by Intermedi-ate Technology Publi-cations. He is a memberof ICSF and presentlyserves on its AnimationTeam

Present European efforts to save re-sources are based on limiting the num-ber and capacity of vessels, without dueconsideration for the welfare of fisher-men and market conditions. In fact,while the number of boats and fisher-men- has been decreasing, fishing ef-fort has been increasing. The workloadon board fishing vessels is becomingunbearable and accidents have also in-creased.

In such a context, will social aspects beincluded in defining ecolabels? In viewof the diversity of fishery traditions andsituations around the world, attempts towork out principles at a global levelwill, by nature, face major problems.

Resource management is a complexmatter, and fisherpeople must be closelyand largely involved in the process.Through moves like the MSC, are wenot going to replace a varied, regional-ized, participatory approach with stan-dardized principles that will apply uni-formly to all the seas and oceans, with-out paying due attention to specific con-ditions? Think of the campaign for a banon drift-nets.

Finally, trying to influence fishing prac-tices by introducing new conditions onmarkets will inevitably lead to a bias infavour of financially sound consumers.The major markets are in Europe, Ja-pan and the US. Consumers and largeproducers in these countries will, there-fore. impose their views on responsiblefisheries.

Promoting imports to countries whosefood requirements are already largelymet, while simultaneously refusing toaddress the needs of the more under-privileged countries, does not reallyexemplify the principles of sustainabledevelopment. Are the companies whichhave embarked on this new ecolabelventure really blameless? Significantly,Unilever promoted the development oflarge-scale salmon farming. This was

not really in tune with the principles ofsustainable development.

If this policy of awarding quality labelsto ecofriendly fish is to play a role inpromoting responsible fisheries, thenthere must be wider consultation, withfishermen participating right from theonset of the process.

Such an approach is indeed becomingmore and more frequent. For example,hundreds of Breton fishermen have, forthe past two years, been furnishing a la-bel for sea breams caught by liners. Theyhave thus been able to take on the com-petition from farmed sea breams.

To be sure, there is most certainly a fu-ture for quality labels. But the centralissue remains the decision-making pro-cess. Indeed, the whole MSC affair un-derscores the urgent need for an inter-national fishworkers’ organization towork to influence the policies of majorenvironmental and industrial groups.

... trying to influencefishing practices byintroducing newconditions on mar-kets will inevitablylead to a bias infavour of financiallysound consumers.

The Anglo-Dutch food giant,Unilever, is going ‘green’. It iscommitting itself to eventuallypurchasing only fish caught from fisher-ies certified to be conservation friendly.The fisheries would be certified, or oth-erwise, by an ‘independent’ world coun-cil being spearheaded by the World WideFund for Nature (WWF) and Unilever.

From a Canadian point of view, the callfor ‘codes of conduct’ and sustainablefishing practices seems to be coming fromthe very industry people most directlyimplicated in the devastation of our dem-ersal stocks. The new-found piety andheartfelt concern for the resource is notcompletely credible and the ‘green’mantle seems to be adopted to deflectpublic rage at what has already occurred,while serving to maintain the perpetra-tors in the future fishery.

Clearing an ecologically andconservationally sound fishery is emi-nently sensible and consumers may sup-port such certification. However, I am notsure if Canada’s cod fishery would havebeen so certified even six months beforeits collapse. And I am sure our herringfishery would be certified at present, eventhough some inshore fishermen have beenvirtually eliminated by intense fishing bylarge purse-seiners. The constituency ofinshore and artisanal fishermen facesoverwhelming problems, which oftenarise from the ‘industrialized’ fleets’ in-efficient, backward, archaic and otherlow-level features. So, when the MarineStewardship Council clears a fishery assustainable, will it consider the co-optionof fishing grounds by ‘industrial’ fleetsat the expense of the small-boat fishers

and their communities? Hardlylikely. It will be designated as a politi-cal problem and the people at Unileverand WWF selling with disdain and la-bel the public sector as venal, whilehappily embracing the market as “re-placing our democratic institutions asthe key determinant in our society.”

Goodness knows that there is a need forresource conservation in the marinesector, but fishers in Canada might beexcused if they remain sceptical of en-vironmentalists working through themarketplace to save resources.

At present, a herd of grey seals is grow-ing exponentially on the EasternScotian shelf. Scientists calculated thatthey consume up to 80,000 tonnes ofinfant and juvenile cod each year, whilethis area of the shelf is under a total fish-ing moratorium and the prognosis forthis particular cod species is the bleak-est among all the cod stocks in AtlanticCanada. Yet, whenever a new seal huntis contemplated for market purposes,the WWF takes out hysterical ads in thenational newspapers, decrying suchhunts.

I think fishworkers’ organizations haveenough on their tables simply support-ing the organization of inshore fishers.There seems no need to get into somesort of corporatist venture withagribusinesses and world environmen-talists.

The mantle of ‘going green’

Michael Belliveau

Fishworkers’ organizations need to think hard about themerits of associating with corporate environmental ventures

Michael Belliveau is theExecutive Secretary ofthe MaritimeFishermen’s Union, aninshore fishermen’s or-ganization based in east-ern Canada. He is afounding member ofICSF and presentlyserves on its AnimationTeam

From a Canadianpoint of view, thecall for ‘codes ofconduct’ and sus-tainable fishingpractices seems tobe the’new hope’,will look on gov-ernments the ‘newhope’, will look ongovernments com-ing from the veryindustry peoplemost directly impli-cated in devasta-tion of our demer-sal stocks

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a collaboration between Unilever and the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), is a caseof one giant riding atop another. The re-sulting behemoth can either make deepimpressions on the path it traverses-orstumble and crash for lack of balance.

There is, therefore, considerable world-wide interest to see how these two mul-tinational organizations, which, at firstsight, seem strange bedfellows, plan towork out a strategy to “ensure the long-term viability of global fish populationsand the health of the marine ecosystemson which they depend.”

Congruent to their objectives, both or-ganizations are concerned primarilywith the natural resource and the envi-ronment-fish and oceans-without nec-essarily having any intrinsic, longterminterest in either.

For Unilever, all actions must beweighed against its unfeigned pursuitof profits. The corporation is involvedin the MSC because it is convinced thatsustainable fishing is good business.

For WWF, this is but another specificcase of nature conservation taken up inits larger pursuit of mobilizing publicappreciation for such issues. It feels ithas a winner in the MSC initiative.

For both organizations, the success ofthis initiative will be a major boost tothe ‘markets’ to which they cater, thatis, consumers and well-wishers in theFirst World.

In attempting to respond to the MSC ini-tiative, it is necessary to examine sev-eral issues:

• How does one view, from a ThirdWorld perspective, an initiative whichplaces all its faith in the magic of themarket?

• How should fishworkers’ movementsin the Third World, that have beenopposing destructive fishing under-taken primarily by fleets fishing forexport to the First World, relate to thisinitiative?

• Will the dynamics of this novel part-nership intended to modulate interna-tional trade through the use ofecolabels result more in sustainableprofits and assured fish consumption(for people and pets) in the First Worldor will it enhance incomes for fishingcommunities and ensure adequate pro-tein supplies to needy consumers inthe Third World?

• Will this effort be viewed by fish ex-porting countries in the Third Worldas creating technical barriers to trade,thus violating free trade rules underthe World Trade Organization(WTO)?

In most Third World countries, the mar-ket is seen as one of the economic insti-tutions embedded in society Markets arecreated for society and not the other wayaround. One, therefore, shudders to thinkof the day when the prediction of Eliza-beth Dowdeswell that “the market is re-placing our democratic institutions asthe key determinant in our society” be-comes valid worldwide.

A View from the Third World

John Kurien

Under the sanctuary of ‘sustainable fishing’, the MSC couldwell end up working against the interests of the poor producers of fish

One, therefore,shudders to think ofthe day when theprediction of Eliza-beth Dowdeswellthat “the market isreplacing our demo-cratic institutions asthe key determinantin our society” be-comes valid world-wide.

John Kurien, a memberof ICSF, is an AssociateFellow at the Centre forDevelopment Studies,Trivandrum, India

In democratic institutions, the initial en-dowments, of the participants are thesame. Everybody has one vote. Market in-stitutions are not such levellers. Theyfunction on votes which are expressedonly in money terms (effective purchas-ing power), which, as we all know, ishardly distributed equally.

Thus, those who recommend “free mar-kets as the means to efficiency” forget thatone of the basic premises of that theory isthat economic power is fairly equally dis-tributed among all the participants.

In the Third World, where assets, incomeand purchasing power are so unequallydistributed, this blind faith in the almightymarket’s ability to correct all economicand environmental ills is a far cry fromthe realities which people experience.

Consequently, an initiative which as-sumes that where the market leads, all elsewill follow in setting single, generalizedstandards for an activity undertaken bymillions of small producers in diverse cir-cumstances can not be welcomed with-out cautious circumspection.

The history of unsustainable fishing inThird World tropical waters is closely re-lated to the expansion of the markets inthe First World for fish from these wa-ters. Fishing techniques like bottom trawl-ing and purse-seining were imposed inpreference to the more seasonal, selectiveand passive techniques used by artisanalfishworkers. The latter were seen to be‘less efficient’, since their unit outputfrom the sea was small.

Today, of course, we realize that this wasbecause they were fishing moresustainably and at rates which were intandem with the natural rates of regen-eration of the stocks.

The struggle of fishworkers in Asiancountries to ensure a future both for thefish and for themselves, has meant a uni-lateral opposition to destructive fishingtechniques.

They have achieved partial successesand, on the face of it, the MSC initia-tive need not initially be against theirinterests. In a sense, much of the talkabout sustainable fishing pertains toreverting to, and restoring, this modeof fishing.

Where the contradictions will soon arisepertain to the power that those who buythe fish from these fishworkers will beable to exercise in dictating terms ofharvesting and levels of prices.

The nature of the trade linkages andtieups for supply of ‘sustainably har-vested’ fish can get to be totally deter-mined from the outside. This could cre-ate a complete loss of autonomy forsmall fishers, with respect to the pat-tern of harvest and disposal of the pro-duce of their labour.

Even assuming that their harvest maybe covered by MSC ecolabels, the con-sumer price premiums for this may nottranslate into higher incomes for dis-persed producers. Ecolabelling of ma-rine fish must be undertaken with thetacit cooperation of the fishworkers ororganizations which represent theirmarketing chain.

The MSC initiative, by virtue of the factthat it is initiated and funded byUnilever, one of the largest fish buyersin the world, will obviously be anath-ema to such links and concerns. Thecorporation’s influence (invisible con-trol) over the MSC initiative will giveit a new channel of access to the pro-ducers over whom it has had no controluntil now.

This possibility to make the crucial con-nection between the realm of produc-tion and the realm of sales can also leadto the wiping out of all small-scale com-merce which does not fall in line withthe product differentiation processsought to be achieved by Unilever inthe name of ecolabels for ‘sustainablefishing.’

In the Third World,where assets, in-come and purchas-ing power are sounequally distrib-uted, this blind faithin the almightymarket’s ability tocorrect all eco-nomic and environ-mental ills is a farcry from the reali-ties which interests,and not through thelower-level peopleexperience.

With this achieved, Unilever will retaina quasi-monopoly control over a largesegment of the market and can then setthe environmental standards it likes anddictate the prices it wants, both at theconsumer and the producer end.

Additionally, through the MSC initia-tive, Unilever will have enormous con-trol over information on fish harvest-ing processes and effects on ocean en-vironment which it can command anddisseminate to its advantage in a widevariety of ways. This will further sullythe minds of First World consumersbecause they have been led to believeby the MSC initiative that buyingUnilever brands is the sure way to savethe fish and oceans.

In such a market context dominated byone multinational merchant wieldingenormous influence on economic andnon-economic factors, prices will be setto achieve a high rate of profit. Theycan not be treated as revealing the ‘true’economic significance of goods or re-flect the preferences of ‘end consum-ers.’The only way for fishworkers’ move-ments to stall this dynamic will be totake the initiative of sustainableharvesting methods on to their own turf,at their own pace and terms. They alsoneed to link with consumer movementsin the major consumption countries tofoster greater direct trade between or-ganized groups of fishworkers from theThird World and consumer-based insti-tutions in the First World which are notmerely concerned with consumption perse but also with reassessing lifestylesas well as their own patterns of con-sumption.

Pressure must be exerted to ensure gov-ernmental involvement in fostering thisnexus, on the premise that sustainableharvesting and sustainable consumptionare necessary prerequisites for sustain-able trade in which all governmentshave a high stake. Making the MSC ini-

tiative recognize this would be an im-portant criteria for fishworkers’ organi-zations to extend selective support to it.

On the question of the MSC’s role insupplying protein for the poor, we areconfronted with the classic chicken andegg dilemma. Which came first unsus-tainable fishing or unsustainable fishconsumption? And which do we tacklefirst? Behind all boom-and-bust fisheryhistories of the Third World (and theFirst World too) lie the attraction andpower of strong and usually distant con-sumption centres to which fish flow af-ter they are harvested.

The consumers are not necessarilypeople. They may be pets or animals.The point, however, is that they havegreater purchasing power than needypeople closer to the centres of harvest-ing. For example, a fact rarely high-lighted in the boom-and-bust story of thePeruvian anchovy fishery is that childrenin coastal Peru suffer malnutrition andblindness due to lack of proteins andvitamin A, while the anchovy is fed topigs and cattle in the US and Europe.Will introducing passive fishing tech-niques and providing ecolabels to fish-meal made from fish so harvested, ad-dress this issue?

As consumers, First World citizens needto be convinced and educated that theanswer to the above question is in thenegative. If they really wish to play acrucial role in halting natural resourcedepletion and environmental destructionaround the world, it will necessarilyhave to be through less consumption anda greater emphasis on consumptioncloser to the point of production.

The easy option of buying productsecolabelled by multinationals, withoutthe participation and sanction of the dis-tant producer, is but a sophisticated tech-nique of product and market differen-tiation masquerading as sustainablity.

Pressure must beexerted to ensuregovernmental in-volvement in foster-ing this nexus, onthe premise that sus-tainable harvestingand sustainableconsumption arenecessary prerequi-sites for sustainabletrade in which allgovernments have ahigh stake.

Since marine fish form an important com-ponent in the basket of easily exportablecommodities, Third World governmentsare unlikely to take to this MSC initiativewith open hands. The recent efforts by theUS to unilaterally impose turtle exclud-ing devices (TEDs) on trawls as a pre-requisite for import of shrimp from Indiacreated a furore which prompted the gov-ernment and the industry to consider ap-pealing to the WTO’s provisions on tech-nical barriers to trade. Though many en-vironmentalists and academics in India-myself included-are against trawling, theysaw the US initiative as another case ofUS environmental imperialism, which, tothem, was a greater enemy.

Clearly, efforts to impose environmentalstandards of the First World using‘nonmarket’ methods, which then provideobvious advantages to the trade and con-sumers of the First World alone, will beresisted, however strong and sensible theenvironmental logic of the initiative maybe.

A global initiative to achieve sustainablefishing needs to be far more broadbased,with the participatory support of fish pro-ducers, the processing industry, govern-ments and the consumers. Such initiativescannot be left to the market”, nor do they“just happen.” They have to be carefullycrafted. To the extent that the MSC at-tempts to make a beginning in this direc-tion, it merits the careful attention of allthe fisheries’ stakeholders not involvedin it.

Given Unilever’s economic power and theopinion mobilizing skills of WWF, itwould be naive to brush aside this initia-tive as a non-starter. It is often said withconfidence that “where industry and themarket lead, governments will likely fol-low.” What is still not sure, however, iswhether the people-the millions all overthe world who, on sea and land, toil toharvest and process fish-will obey. Hereinlies the weakness of the MSC initiativeand, ironically, the strength of the mil-

lions, whose food and livelihood de-pend on fish and the oceans, to rejectthe initiative or shape it to their priori-ties.

A global initiativeto achieve sustain-able fishing needsto be far morebroadbased, withthe participatorysupport of fish pro-ducers, the pro-cessing industry,governments andthe consumers.Such initiativescannot be “left tothe market nor dothey “just happen.

The several articles and the editorial on the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) initiativethat appeared in the last issue ofSAMUDRA marked the beginning of athoughtful and important dialogue witha significant group of stakeholders inmarine fisheries.

The timing of this discussion could nothave been better, as the MSC initiativeis in the early stages of its evolution.Much of the useful feedback providedby the SAMUDRA writers has provenextremely valuable to the sponsors ofthe initiative. A great deal of progresshas been made on the development ofthe MSC since the publication of thelast issue of SAMUDRA. A brief up-date might help address some of thesubstantive and procedural issues thatwere raised by the SAMUDRA com-mentators.

In September, the MSC initiative spon-sored the first in a series of internationalworkshops and consultations to discussthe development of principles and cri-teria for sustainable fishing that willeventually underpin the MSC. Thisworkshop, held in Bagshot, UK, wasattended by an international panel offisheries experts. The panel suggestedthat a sustainable fishery should bebased upon:

• the maintenance of the integrity ofecosystems;

• the maintenance, and re-establishmentof healthy populations of targeted spe-cies;

• the development and maintenance ofeffective fisheries management

svstems, taking into account all rel-evant biological, technological, eco-nomic social environmental and com-mercial aspects; and compliance withrelevant international. national and lo-cal laws and standards.

The World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) and Unilever have been carry-ing out an international programme ofpreliminary consultations with inter-ested groups of stakeholders. Staff haveattended seafood shows and fishingexpos worldwide.

Recently, WWF and Unilever were in-vited to present the MSC initiative atannual meetings of the National Fisher-ies Institute (the largest association ofseafood processors in North America)in Seattle, the International Coalition ofFisheries Associations (representingfishing industry associations from 12countries) in Seoul, the Groundfish Fo-rum (the major groundfish quota hold-ers) in London, and the lUCN WorldConservation Congress in Montreal.

In addition, staff briefed the Seafish In-dustry Authority in the UK, at a meet-ing in Copenhagen of industry and gov-ernment officials f rom all Scandinaviancountries, and the World Bank’s Envi-ronment Division in Washington, DC.The latter is considering launching aMarket Transformation Tnitiative ba-pdon the MSC initiative Other interestedparties who will soon be briefed includethe United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and the EU Fisheries Com-missioner, Emma Bonino. The sponsorsof the MSC initiative are also planninga worldwide series of workshops and

A Powerful arrow in the quiver

Michael Sutton and Caroline Whitfield

The MSC initiative is going ahead with its plans to harness market forces andconsumer power to tackle the Global crisis in fisheries

The World WideFund for Nature(WWF) andUnilever have beencarrying out an in-t e r n a t i o n a lprogramme of pre-liminary consulta-tions with interestedgroups of stakehold-ers.

Mike Sutton is Director,Endangered Seas Cam-paign, WWF Interna-tional, and CarolineWhitfield is Interna-tional Manager, Fish In-novation Centre,Unilever

consultations during the remainder of1996 and 1997. The purpose of theseworkshops will be to introduce the MSCinitiative to diverse stakeholders aroundthe world, seek inputs and feedback onthe emerging draft principles and criteriafor sustainable fishing, and solicit the in-volvement of all stakeholders in marinefisheries.

Interested parties are encouraged to con-tact one of the sponsoring organizationsin order to register their interest in thisprocess. WWF and Unilever retainedCoopers and Lybrand, the internationalconsulting firm, to develop an organiza-tional blueprint and implementation planfor the MSC.

Coopers and Lybrand is a world leader inorganizational design, and the sponsorsof the initiative sought the firm’s profes-sional advice from the outset. Its staff in-terviewed a wide range of stakeholders,over the past several months, from allparts of the world. They also conducteddetailed comparative studies of certifica-tion organizations, such as the ForestStewardship Council, in order to learnfrom their mistakes and successes. At thetime of writing this. Coopers andLybrand’s report is still forthcoming.

WWF and Unilever also retained an ex-ecutive recruiting firm to conduct a world-wide search for a senior project managerto lead the development of the MSC. Theresponse was overwhelming: more than400 applications were received from fish-eries professionals around the world. Thatby itself was a sign that many involved infisheries today are seeking a new ap-proach, and looking hopefully to the MSCinitiative to provide leadership. Thesearch is in its final stages, and an an-nouncement of the person who will be ap-pointed to take the MSC from idea to re-ality, is expected before the end of thecurrent year.

Present plans call for the MSC to be for-mally created as an independent entity in

early 1997, when the project managerbegins work. This appointment will befollowed by a search for a board chairand they will begin shaping the organi-zation, guided by the advice receivedfrom Coopers and Lybrand and the re-gional workshops.

The initiative will be looking for indi-viduals of the highest calibre to serveas board members, who can bring vi-sion and new thinking to help shape theway market forces can be harnessed topromote sustainable fishing.

Funding for the MSC initiative and theorganization itself will be from inde-pendent sources such as private foun-dations. The World Bank and the UnitedNations Development Programme haveindicated their preliminary interest inthe initiative, and a fundraising drive isunder way to capitalize on the initia-tive.

An important characteristic of the MSCwill be its independence from both theenvironmental community and the in-dustry. Finding a way to harness mar-ket forces and consumer power in ap-propriate ways to help resolve the cri-sis in marine fisheries may not be theonly arrow in the quiver of marine con-servation, but it could well be a power-ful one.

Our challenge is to ensure that this par-ticipation of all SAMUDRA readers inthis exciting effort.

An important char-acteristic of theMSC will be its in-dependence fromboth the environ-mental communityand the industry.Finding a way toharness marketforces and con-sumer power in ap-propriate ways tohelp resolve the cri-sis in marine fish-eries may not be theonly arrow in thequiver of marineconservation, but itcould well be apowerful one.

“...Women should come together asone and not leave the decision-mak-ing and planning to the men... Ifwomen made some of the decisions,there would be more employment andbetter programmes in place for womenm rural communities.”— a Newfoundland fisherwoman

Throughout the world, the relationships of men and womento fisheries resources, work andwealth differ. Although important cul-tural and class differences exist, womendepend on those resources for food,work, income and identity. Yet they tendto have less control than men over theseresources and the associated wealth.

Despite these realities, initiatives infisheries management and fisheries con-servation are rarely scrutinized for theirpotential impacts on women. The pro-posal for a Marine Stewardship Coun-cil -(MSC) developed by the environ-mental transnational, the World WideFund for Nature, and the giant corpo-rate transnational, Unilever, shares thisweakness.

The assumptions upon which it is basedare flawed, and there are ways in whichit might negatively impact women ofthe North (and South) and, indeed, thefish stocks themselves.

The proposed MSC will consist of anappointed team of ‘experts’ who willcertify fisheries as sustainable and thenencourage seafood companies to joingroups of sustainable buyers, purchasefish only from these sources, and mar-ket such fish with an ecolabel. Con-

sumer demand will presumably providethe major incentive for corporations and,ultimately, governments to participate inthe process of developing sustainablefisheries.

At first glance, the MSC proposal mightbe interpreted as a feminist initiative.Due to their continued responsibility forshopping, food production and servicein the home, the MSC proposal appearsto position women so that they couldhave an unprecedented impact on thefate of the world’s fishery resources.

Guided by expert advice and progres-sive corporate initiatives, women’schoices could restructure the world’sfisheries in the direction ofsustainability.

However, there are some things wrongwith this picture. There is definitely aneed for greater public scrutiny of fish-eries management and corporatebehaviour within the fisheries sector.One way to achieve such scrutiny isthrough consumer education. However,education is only one factor that influ-ences consumption.

The MSC picture ignores the complexrealities of women’s consumption work,its diversity and the differing places theyoccupy in fish product markets. For ex-ample, women in different parts of theworld consume different fish products,in different contexts, and they acquirethese resources in different ways.

Rich women and poor women, urbanwomen and women in fishery-dependentcommunities do not all consume fish in

Cut adrift

Barbara L. Neis

The MSC initiative can be criticised fromthe perspective of fishery-dependent women of the North

The MSC picture ig-nores the complexrealities of women’sconsumption work,its diversity and thediffering places theyoccupy in fish prod-uct markets.

Barbara L. Neis worksin the Department ofSociology, MemorialUniversity, St. John’s,Newfoundland, Canada

the same manner. One way to scrutinizethe implications of the proposed MSC,then, is to examine its potential impactson access to fish for consumption amongthese different groups of women.

It seems probable that women of the North(and in South-east Asia) will be morelikely to consume fish that is ecolabelledthan women of the South. 1 say this be-cause ecolabelling will do nothing to re-duce the cost of fish and might actuallyincrease its cost-already a barrier forwomen of the South and poor women ofthe North.

This will happen also because women ofthe North, particularly urban, wealthywomen, are more likely to consume pro-cessed fish purchased in large supermar-kets, where packaging and labelling ex-ist.

If, as John Kurien has suggested(SAMUDRA No. 15), ecolabelling actu-ally promotes the export of fish productsby fuelling consumer demand in a con-text of resource scarcity women consum-ers in the North could unknowingly con-tribute to reduced food self sufficiencyand reduced economic power amongwomen in the South as well as amongwomen in fishery-dependent regions inthe North.

In his article promoting the MSC(SAMUDRA No. 15), Michael Sutton ar-gues that the MSC will put the market inthe lead and “where the market leads, gov-ernments will likely follow.” In the North,the emphasis on fish exports is being com-bined with the introduction of manage-ment initiatives like Individual Transfer-able Quotas.These moves are drastically limiting theaccess of men, and particularly women,in fishery-dependent communities tothose fish resources that remain, The com-bined impact of these initiatives and theincrease in exports of fish seems to arisefrom the growing political commitmentto the export markets and those who de-pend upon them, and the declining com-

mitment to those in fishery regions whoexperience the cumulative effects ofdisplacement from the industry and lossof access to fish for subsistence.

Women and men need to carefully scru-tinize Sutton’s endorsement of the claimthat “markets are replacing our demo-cratic institutions as the key determi-nant in our society.” While this may behappening, it is not something that weshould necessarily support.

As argued by Czerny, Swift and Clarke,in Getting Started on Social Analysisin Canada, if the market is a democ-racy, it is a democracy in which somehave more votes than others, and inwhich, although consumers can vote,they have little control over who or whatthey vote for. Poor women are particu-larly powerless, democracy, democracyin which marketplace.

Vertically integrated food conglomer-ates are increasingly the primary con-sumers of fish products. These con-glomerates actually have the most votesin the marketplace for fish products.When we recognize that the producersare often also the consumers, what doesthis tell us about the MSC initiative?

Particularly in the North, fish is oftenconsumed in restaurants and fast foodoutlets or in the form of products whosegrowth has been enhanced by the useof fishmeal and fish oils. A companymight commit itself to use only fishfrom certified harvesting sectors, butwill the ecolabelling process follow thisfish from the vessel through process-ing, manufacturing, preparation andservice to the consumer?

For example, will restaurants be certi-fied? Will meat products grown usingfish oil from sustainable fisheries belabelled at the counter or at the restau-rant table? If they are, how will the va-lidity of this certification be ensured?Who will police the corporations andhow will they do this? At what cost?

... if the market is ait is a partly be-cause they have fewvotes in the somehave more votesthan others, and inwhich, althoughconsumers canvote, they have littlecontrol over who orwhat they vote for.

Are there other ways to spend thismoney that might be more effective atpromoting sustainable fisheries? Whynot ask some women what they think?

If, in our proposals for sustainable fish-eries, we do not include differences invoting power within the market and dif-ferences in control over products avail-able for purchase, we could end upblaming stock collapses on consumers.The most probable target would bethose increasing numbers of poor con-sumers, primarily women, whose pur-chases are dictated by low incomes andwho, therefore, can not always affordto distinguish between fish products onthe basis of ecolabelling.

This blame would be misplaced becauseit overstates the power of these womenand also because it ignores the realitythat the poor (both in the North and theSouth) consume relatively little proteincompared to the rich, and the proteinthey consume is more likely to be abyproduct of protein production for thewealthy than the primary source of de-mand. In a world where wild fish re-sources (like other natural resources)are limited, the problem is not just whatfish we eat, but also how much we eatand in what form.

A full discussion of the implications ofthe proposed MSC for women of theNorth needs to look not only at womenas consumers of fish products, but alsoat women who depend on fishery re-sources for employment, culture andcommunity.

The household basis of fisheries in At-lantic Canada, Norway and many otherparts of the North is well documented.Women contribute directly to these fish-eries as workers, organizers and man-agers, in fishery households, industriesand communities. They have fisheryknowledge and skills, and depend onfish resources and industries for theirlivelihoods and, to some extent, for self-sufficiency in food.

The moratoriums on groundfish in At-lantic Canada have demonstrated theprofoundly negative impacts resourcedegradation can have on these women.In Newfoundland and Labrador, the areaof Atlantic Canada hardest hit by the col-lapse of the cod stocks, about 12,000women lost jobs in the industry. The cri-sis also affected women doing unpaidwork in their husbands’ -fishing enter-prises, such as bookkeeping, supplyingand cooking for crews.

Other women lost work in child care andthe retail sector in fishery-dependentcommunities. In addition, out migrationand government cutbacks are reducingthe number of women employed in edu-cation, health and social services. Asworkers, wives and mothers who arerooted in their local communities, thesewomen have a vested interests in sus-tainable fisheries.

When looked at from the perspective ofthese and other fishery-dependentwomen of the North, the underlying as-sumptions of Sutton’s arguments for anMSC are extremely problematic. Suttonis correct in his argument that global fishstocks are in trouble.

However, his explanation for these prob-lems is more difficult to defend. He im-plies that the cause of these problems,particularly in the North, is too muchdemocracy: governments have been un-willing to take the decisions necessaryto prevent overfishing, due to politicalpressure from a fishing industry drivento use up resources and destroy itself.Women in fishery communities do notseem to share this perception that theroots of resource degradation lie in toomuch democracy.

In the case of Atlantic Canada and Nor-way, for example, they feel that deci-sions about the fishery, past and present,have been made by people who are notfamiliar with the strengths and needs ofrural communities and, more specifi-cally, with the needs of women. They

A full discussion ofthe implications ofthe proposed MSCfor women of theNorth needs to looknot only at womenas consumers of ‘fish products, butalso at women whodepend on fisheryresources for em-ployment, cultureand community.

also feel that without the knowledge andthe support of local people, developmentefforts as well as initiatives to create sus-tainable fisheries will not succeed.

If Sutton’s diagnosis of the causes of glo-bal overfishing is incorrect, so is his so-lution. There is no guarantee that the pro-posed MSC will remove politics fromfisheries management. The process of de-fining ‘expertise’ has political dimen-sions, as does the process of defining sus-tainable fishing. In his book Fishing forTruth, for example, Finlayson has shownthat data from small-scale fishers wereunderutilized by fisheries scientists inNewfoundland, Canada because of dis-similarities in the rules, norms and lan-guage of these fishers and those of scien-tists.

Elsewhere, I have shown how latent bi-ases towards the offshore trawler fisheryin the science of stock assessment in New-foundland became evident when this sci-ence was examined from the perspectiveof small-scale, inshore fishers. I have alsoargued that small-scale fishers’ knowl-edge poses problems for fisheries scienceand management that are similar to thoseposed by the ecosystem itself. This is, per-haps, even more true of the knowledge offishery dependent women.

If the expertise of male fishers ismarginalized within fisheries science andmanagement enterprises in the countriesof the North, that of female fishers andfishworkers is excluded.

Women in fishery households must bridgethe growing gap between the costs of fish-ing and the value of landings that occurwhen resources are mismanaged. Womenprocessing workers get less work.

However, when these women attempt todraw upon their knowledge and experi-ence to influence fisheries policy, as hap-pened in Norway during the cod morato-rium, the integrative nature of that knowl-edge (rooted in links between ecology,household, work, markets and communi-

ties) makes it difficult for managers tograsp.

As argued by Siri Gerrard, the percep-tion that such knowledge representsparticular interests, whereas scientificknowledge is objective, contributes tothis marginalization by according sci-ence a greater power.

In Sutton’s account, fisheries-dependentwomen are not explicitly identifiedamong the stakeholders whom the MSCcould consult in formulating its stan-dards and principles for sustainablefishing. Shifting decisions on fisheriesmanagement from elected governmentsto an MSC with no clear accountabilityto fishery communities will augmentexisting limits on democracy located inthe political sphere and in the market,and further erode women’s power. Inso doing, it will undermine the poten-tial for sustainable fisheries.

The marginalization of women’sknowledge and experience will persistdespite women’s continued responsibil-ity for child care, which may enhancetheir commitment to ensuring that re-sources are managed in such a way asto protect future generations-one re-quirement for sustainable development.

A second requirement for sustainabilitythat is not explicitly identified in theMSC proposal is the need to reduce in-equities, including gender-related ones,within the current generation. JamesBoyce has outlined the “intimate tiesbetween environmental degradationand the distribution of wealth andpower.”

Economic inequities and not too muchdemocracy are primarily responsible foroverfishing in countries of the Northand the South. The wealthy tend to ben-efit more than the poor from overfish-ing and the willingness to pay the costsassociated with sustainable fishing isconstrained by the ability to pay

A second require-ment forsustainability thatis not explicitlyidentified in theMSC proposal isthe need to reduceinequities, includ-ing gender-relatedones, within thecurrent generation.

In politics and in the market, wealthspeaks louder than poverty. In Canada,cuts to social and other programmes de-signed to redistribute wealth fromwealthy to poorer, fishery-dependent ar-eas of the country, and from men towomen, are exacerbating economic in-equities at the same time as those vul-nerable to these cuts are reeling fromthe effects of resource degradation. Aninitiative like the MSC that proposes tocreate sustainable fisheries without ad-dressing these deepening economic in-equities will not be effective. As womentend to be poorer than men, and exer-cise less control over natural resourcesand within politics, it is probable thatthey will suffer most from this failure.

A second requirement for sustainabilitythat is not explicitly identified in theMSC proposal is the need to reduce in-equities, including gender related ones,within the current generation.

Ecolabelling could, ironically, under-mine the sustainability of preciselythose fisheries it identifies as adequatelymanaged.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee thatthe potential negative impacts of theMSC will be offset by gains in fisherysustainability. Ecolabelling could, ironi-cally, undermine the sustainability ofprecisely those fisheries it identifies asadequately managed.

There are a number of reasons for be-lieving this might be the case. The col-lapse of the groundfish stocks of Atlan-tic Canada has shown that there is enor-mous scientific uncertainty regardingthe dynamics and status of wild fishstocks.

In addition, most commercial stocks arealready overexploited; there is an arse-nal of underutilized fishing vesselsavailable to target those stocks forwhich there is a strong demand; and thenational and international mechanisms

for preventing the diversion of fishingeffort from one fishery to another areextremely weak.

Defining some fisheries as sustainableand promoting the market for them willprompt increased pressure on thosestocks. Not only will this be difficult tocontrol but the effects of it will also bedifficult to monitor.

In short, winning the ecolabel prizecould be the equivalent of a death sen-tence for those fisheries and for the com-munities that depend upon them.

Ecolabelling could,ironically, under-mine thesustainability ofprecisely those fish-eries it identifies asadequately man-aged.

The Marine Stewardship Council(MSC) is trying to tackle an issue of global concern: the sustain-able use of fishery resources for the ben-efit of current and future generations.

As part of the process of setting up theMSC, ‘Principles and Criteria’ are beingestablished and developed for sustainablefishing. These will eventually provide thelogic for a certifying scheme that will beused to qualify (or disqualify) fisheriesproducts for the MSC ecolabel. This as-pect of the MSC has the potential to makea valuable contribution to the wholesustainability debate, and is to be wel-comed.

The process of consultation being under-taken by the MSC project in devising anddeveloping its Principles and Criteria isbeing conducted in an extremely open andtransparent manner. The project is seek-ing to consult with, and be guided by, theviews of as many stakeholders in the, fish-eries sector as possible. This is also a verypositive aspect of the project and is prov-ing to be highly successful in stimulatingdebate.

However, of considerable concern tomany people is, that the MSC is based ona Northern-driven neoliberal agenda.According to Carl-Christian Schmidt, therecently appointed Project Manager of theMSC, “Ecolabelling is a neoliberal tooland the MSC is going down that path.”

From a neoliberal market perspective,livelihoods and cultural traditions are nodifferent from consumer durables likecars, and, as such, can be valued andtraded. In the neoliberal marketplace, sell-

Who’s being seduced?

Brian O’Riordan

As the Marine Stewardship Council tries to sell itself inthe South, critics are starting to question its market orientation

ing your fish quota (and your livelihoodfrom fishing) is no different from sell-ing your car.

Yet, it is likely that it will be the trad-ing interests, like supermarket chainsand retail outlets, which will support theMSC, and determine whether or not fishwith MSC ecolabels become popularconsumer items. In the UK, supermar-kets account for around 60 per cent offresh fish and 80 per cent of frozen fishsales.

These stores, conscious of their publicimage and their market shares, will bethe ones to welcome the MSCecolabelling scheme, not consumersthemselves. The MSC’s interest in theSouth would seem to be mainly as asource of fish products which could beaccredited. Fish sporting the MSC la-bel will only be marketed in the North.It is unlikely that they will be sold inthe South.

On 8 May, Schmidt, Julia Novy, theconsultant recently appointed to helpthe MSC devise its strategy for theSouth, and several key people fromWWF and Unilever hosted a ‘Less De-veloped Countries Workshop’ in Lon-don. The agenda included three keyquestions: Who are the relevant stake-holders? What are the key issues fac-ing the introduction of the MSC in de-veloping countries? What should be thestrategy and action plan for the MSC indeveloping countries?

Of the 12 participants, six were WWF,Unilever and MSC staffers. Except fora participant from Papua New Guinea,

Brian O’Riordan, Fish-eries Adviser to the In-termediate TechnologyDevelopment Group,UK, is also a memberof ICSF

However, of consid-erable concern tomany people is, thatthe MSC is basedon a Northern-driven neoliberalagenda

the rest were from a variety of UK NG0sand consultancy firms with interests inthe South.

Laura Cooper of the WWF’s Endan-gered Seas Campaign explained that, asfar as the South is concerned, the appli-cation of the MSC to developing coun-tries was being put off until after thecore programme was established.

“We know we don’t know how to do itright (in the South), we know we needto ask a lot of questions,” she said, add-ing that the workshop and subsequentconsultations were designed “to putthem in touch with the people who theyneed to be in touch with.”

Schmidt clarified that the MSC wouldbe limited to taking a “slice of the fish-eries sector. “The MSC might set rightsome, but not all, wrongs. “We are liv-ing in a second-best world and have toapply second-best solutions,” he- said.

MSC accreditation will require partici-pants to buy into the certificationscheme by paying for accreditation andsubsequent monitoring. Smaller fleetsof large ships able to offer bulk supplieswill have an advantage over larger fleetsof small vessels whose supplies mayfluctuate.Small-scale, decentralized,community based fisheries, prevalent inthe South, might be discriminatedagainst, because they would not be ableto buy into the MSC certificationscheme. It could also prove too costlyfor MSC certifying. agents to accreditthe many small-scale, decentralizedfisheries. The MSC may thus favourmore centralized, company owned fish-ing operations.

As the process of developing the MSCPrinciples and Criteria advances,boundaries will need to be drawnaround what the MSC includes andwhat it excludes. This may mean thatenvironmental and technical factors willbe the main determining criteria for

accreditation, while social factors maybe pushed into the background.

Although the MSC deals with inter-gen-erational, not allocation, issues, fisher-ies where allocation issues areresolved through privatization (for ex-ample, through management systemsbased on individual transferable quotas)will be easier to certify. It will also beeasier for the MSC to certify fisherieson scientific evidence, than on more so-cially based traditional knowledgesystems.In the fisheries of developingcountries, traditional community-basedresource allocation systems and sociallybased management systems are wide-spread but not widely recognized or ac-knowledged. With its scientific and tech-nical bias, will the MSC discriminateagainst these?

The question of exporting a Northernagenda to the South is also a major is-sue for many people, who see the MSCas Northern neocolonialism in anotherguise. There are many in the South whodo not share the North-devisedneoliberal agenda on which the MSC isbased, and who would, therefore opposeits imposition. There are also many whofeel that the North should rather be ques-tioning and regulating its own patternsof consumption,’ rather than let consum-erism drive its citizens’ lives.

Clearly, there is a lot of work to be donebefore the MSC will be fully up and run-ning. According to Schmidt, it shouldbe completely independent and func-tional by end 1998, Given this tightdeadline and its inherent partiality, howserious can the MSC initiative be as atool to encourage long-termsustainability, as opposed to being justanother short-term marketing gimmick?

.

Small-scale, decen-tralized, commu-nity-based fisher-ies, prevalent in theSouth, might be dis-criminated against,because they wouldnot be able to buyinto the MSC certi-fication scheme.

As a former fisher, I disagree withthe conclusion drawn by BarbaraNeis in her article ‘Cut Adrift’(SAMUDRA, November 1996), whichanalyzes the potential impacts of the Ma-rine Stewardship Council (MSC) initia-tive. Although Neis points out many ofthe possible benefits of the MSC, she con-cludes that this initiative, designed to har-ness market forces to promote sustainablefishing, disenfranchises women and is‘the equivalent of a death sentence for(sic) fisheries and communities that de-pend upon them.”

The basic fallacy in Neis’s prediction ofthe MSC’s impacts is the assumption thatfisheries are static and that anyprogramme designed to have an impacton fisheries must address all current in-equities associated with fisheries. Thestate of fisheries worldwide is not static.Global fish catches have increased 500per cent in the last 40 years. Fishing com-munities such as those on the Atlanticcoast of Canada and America are alreadyin jeopardy or have collapsed, as havesome fish stocks. The social costs of mis-management are severe; overfishing ru-ins communities and wrecks the lives ofwomen, men and children.

Fisheries are complex and multidimen-sional, encompassing biological, environ-mental, social and economic factors, andscientific uncertainty. The MSC, in de-veloping criteria to evaluate thesustainability of fisheries, is taking thesefactors into account. The mission of theMSC is to work for sustainable marinefisheries by promoting responsible, envi-ronmentally appropriate, socially benefi-cial and economically viable fishing prac-tices.

However, the MSC is not a panacea forour worldwide fisheries crisis. It is de-signed to provide consumers with amore direct way of promotingsustainability in fisheries through mar-ket forces, so that women, men and chil-dren may rely on healthy supplies of fishin the future. It is not designed to re-place existing democratic institutions,which should be encouraged to promotesustainability, and, for that matter, so-cial equality.

As an individual who has fished for aliving, I am intimately aware of theshortcomings of modern fisheries man-agement and applaud a programme de-signed to promote sustainable fishingpractices for the benefit of the resourceand those who depend upon it.

As a consumer, 1 support a mechanismallowing consumers to have a more di-rect impact on fisheries managementthrough the market place. 1 encourageall of those in fishing communities,women and men alike, who have somuch to lose from overfishing and mis-management, and so much to gain fromconservation and sustainability, to sup-port the Marine Stewardship Council.

Don’t be harsh on the MSC

Laura Cooper

Both fishing communities and consumers have much togain from the recent MSC initiative, says a former fisher

Laura Cooper, anexfisher from Alaska,US, is now the Interna-tional Programme Of-ficer of WWF’s Endan-gered Seas Campaign

As a consumer, Isupport a mecha-nism allowing con-sumers to have amore direct impacton fisheries man-agement throughthe market place.

I refer to the article by BrianO’Riordan entitled ‘Who’s BeingSeduced?’, which appeared in theJuly issue of SAMUDRA. I would liketo clarify a number of points related tothe MSC certification which is currentlystill being developed.

Firstly, 1 was happy to see that Brian’sarticle began on a positive note for theMSC. I fully agree with him when heunderlines MSC’s potentially valuablecontribution towards sustainable fish-eries. I was also very pleased to learnthat Brian approved of the consultationprocess which we are currently under-taking and 1 can confirm that the con-sultation process is both open and trans-parent. We are doing our utmost to getas many stakeholders around the worldinvolved in designing the MSC certifi-cation programme.

In addition, we are currently field-test-ing the Marine Stewardship Council’sproposed certification system in vari-ous fisheries settings. These test casesinclude small-scale fisheries as well asfisheries in the developing world. Wehope that these test cases will providevaluable information on the MSC’sPrinciples and Criteria and the certifi-cation methodology, and will help guidefuture development.

These test cases should provide infor-mation on the costs of certification, thefeasibility of the proposed standard andmethodology in a real fisheries settingand also highlight how the certifierswork in this sector, which is new to mostof them. Our resources are, of course,not unlimited, so we do our utmost toget the best value for the money that

has been allocated for the developmentof the MSC.

There are various reasons whyecolabelling systems (by no means con-fined to the proposed MSC certification)have taken off in recent years. One veryimportant aspect of ecolabelling is that,when applied on a voluntary basis, theyare market-neutral and non-discrimina-tory In this respect, it should be notedthat the success of a voluntary scheme,as is the case for the MSC, will, at theend of the day, be judged by the level oftake-up from industry.

The voluntary nature of the MSCscheme ensures that it will not be ‘im-posed’ on anyone. Rather, the consum-ers (final or intermediate) are beingalerted to the environmental conse-quences of their consumption.

This is an attempt to address the devas-tating effects that consumption fromcertain fisheries may have. In this way,the proposal that “the North shouldrather be questioning and regulating itsown patterns of consumption” is defi-nitely very much in line with MSCthinking, but by means of a voluntaryscheme rather than one which is ‘regu-lated’.

Brian’s article notes that privatized fish-eries (e.g. ITQs) will be easier to cer-tify. At present, there is no evidence tosubstantiate this proposition nor is thereany intention to discriminate against anyparticular fisheries management system.The test cases mentioned above may,however, shed some light on these is-sues.

Open and transparent

Carl-Christian Schmidt

The certification procedure of the MSC initiative seeksto involve the many and different stakeholders in fisheries

Carl-Christian Schmidtis Project Manager ofthe Marine StewardshipCouncil. This letter wasaddressed to SebastianMathew, Executive Sec-retary of ICSF, with acopy to Brian O’Riordanof ITDG

One very importantaspect ofecolabelling is that,when applied on avoluntary basis, theyare market neutraland nondiscrimina-tory.

The global applicability or equivalenceof a scheme like the MSC’s is vital. For abetter understanding of how this can beachieved with a general set of principlesand criteria (or standards) against whichcertification takes place, it should be re-membered that the relative importanceof indicators (measures for each of theprinciples and criteria) will be fisheriesspecific. That is why we have consistentlystressed that the certification procedure /methodology is at least as important asthe set of principles and criteria which,unfortunately, seems to be what attractsmost attention.

Contrary to ‘normal’ certifications wherethe measurements are fairly straightfor-ward and can be addressed as a set of yes/no questions and answers, certification asproposed by the MSC will be less straight-forward.

Under the MSC system, the certificationcompanies will set up certification teamswhich will consist of people with relevantknowledge about the local/ regional fish-eries situation and have the ‘approval’ ofstakeholder groups. This will ensure thecredibility of the certification outcomeand that the certification process will takeinto account the local/regional fisheriesconditions and settings.

Let me finally mention that the latestOECD fisheries publication, TowardsSustainable Fisheries, which, inter alia,analyses community-based fisheries man-agement systems, comes to a very posi-tive conclusion with respect to achievingsustainability objectives through suchschemes.

In fact, in the many fisheries meetings anddiscussions I have attended in recentyears, co-management andcommunitybased systems are often high-lighted as being among the best means ofensuring socially and economically ac-ceptable outcomes for those who rely onfishing, and, by the same token, also thefuture of the resource.

Under the MSC sys-tem, the certifica-tion companies willset up certificationteams which willconsist of peoplewith relevantknowledge aboutthe local/regionalfisheries situationand have the ‘ap-proval’ of stake-holder groups.

I received your note on my returnfrom Cape Town, where we held theseventh in our first round of regionalworkshops on the Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC). The discussion therewas most interesting, especially fromthe perspective of native South Africanfishers represented by the Informal Fish-eries Association. They felt that theMSC, by promoting socially respon-sible fisheries, would help them ad-vance the interests of small-scale, localfishers who have heretofore been dis-enfranchised by the South African gov-ernment Fishworkers in other parts ofthe world have had a similar reactionto the MSC.

With that in mind, 1 have to say thatI’ve been very disappointed in your ap-parent unwillingness to help us developthe MSC with the interests offishworkers at heart. ICSF seems to be-lieve that any market-based mechanismsuch as the MSC will necessarily favourlarge-scale, Northern fisheries and theirsophisticated management systems.You seem to have concluded that theMSC will work against the interests ofsmall-scale fishers, especially in the de-veloping world. The fact that Unilever,one of the world’s leading buyers offish, and other key industry players areco-operating in the development of theMSC seems only to have deepened yourmistrust.

My mission is to turn that thinking onits head and persuade you that the MSCis worthy not only of your trust but youractive participation. Let me start bymaking a few salient points about theevolution of the MSC in relation to the

fisheries work of the World Wide Fundfor Nature (WWF).

1. In 1995, WWF launched the Endan-gered Seas Campaign in response to theaccelerating decline of marine fisheriesaround the world. Our goal is to reversethe effects of unsustainable fishing onmarine fish and the environment onwhich they depend. One of our targetsis to build powerful social and economicincentives for sustainable fishing thatwill complement existing regulatory re-gimes.

2. We recognized early on that the richfishery resources of developing coun-tries are increasingly under threat fromthe distant-water fleets of Northern, de-veloped States. The FAO reported ear-lier this year that “in most low-incomefood-deficit countries, production haschanged little over recent years, and, insome of ‘ them, it has dropped consid-erably” As you know, a leading causeof this decline has been the activity ofoffshore fleets that compete with localfishers for dwindling resources.

3. To make matters worse, many North-ern governments heavily subsidize theirfishing fleets. This is particularly trueof the European Union. Having longsince overfished their own waters, thesecountries export their excess fishing ca-pacity to the waters of some of theworld’s poorest nations. That Northerngovernments subsidize overfishing indeveloping countries is one of the mostscandalous aspects of modem fisheries.

4. WWF is addressing unsustainablefishing on a number of fronts: in our field

An appeal for co-operation

Michael Sutton

The Marine Stewardship Council initiative will succeed onlyif it enlists the support of the wide array of stakeholders in fisheries

Michael Sutton is Direc-tor, Endangered SeasCampaign, WWF Inter-national

The fact thatUnilever, one of theworld’s leading buy-ers of fish, and otherkey industry playersare cooperating inthe development ofthe MSC seems onlyto have deepenedyour mistrust. Mymission is to turnthat thinking on itshead and persuadeyou that the MSC isworthy not only ofyour trust but youractive participation.

and policy work, and in both public andprivate sectors. Our field offices aroundthe world are focusing more and more onfisheries and the marine environment Forexample, last week our affiliate in Thai-land (Wildlife Fund Thailand) issued acall for action in the shooting death of anofficial of the Small-Scale Fishermen’sNetwork of Phang Nga Bay by the crewof an offshore trawler. There are manysimilar examples of our work on behalfof local communities from our field of-fices around the world.

5. Meanwhile, we are working in the pub-lic policy sector to eliminate or redirectthe subsidies that send the wrong eco-nomic signals to world fisheries. We re-cently published a report entitled ‘Subsi-dies and the Depletion of World Fisher-ies’ that highlights this problem. Amongthe four case studies in the report is oneby Gareth Porter of the World Bank fea-turing the impacts of EU fisheries agree-ments with African States. We releasedthis report in early June at a joint newsconference and workshop in Geneva co-sponsored by the United Nations Envi-ronment Programme. The conclusions ofthe workshop and the publicity surround-ing the WWF report stimulated tremen-dous interest and controversy around theworld.

6. The debate over subsidies was particu-larly intense in Brussels. Gareth Porterand Scott Burns (editor of the WWF re-port) briefed senior EU officials there lastmonth and also met with Brian O’Riordanand Coali