SEAFOODNEWS.COM [News Analysis] by John Sackton May 21, 2015 — The Marine Stewardship Council put out a public statement this morning in response to the request from a group of Alaska Processors who were denied the right to join a client group to sell certified MSC Alaska Salmon this season. They wrote to both parties on May 19th, after a board meeting to craft a response to the appeal of the Alaska Processors who were denied access to the certificate after following all requirements put forward by the MSC.
In a Board Meeting held yesterday, the MSC decided to request that the parties go to mediation.
The MSC offered to pay for this mediation, and asked both parties to submit their timeline for getting this accomplished.
In their statement, the MSC said “the MSC wishes to maximize the use of existing certificates by eligible companies, and minimize the number of overlapping certificates.”
The statement also said “If the certificate has other eligible fishers and/or a certificate sharing mechanism the CAB shall, within 30 days of receiving a request to share the certificate, facilitate the client’s and other eligible fishers’ engagement in good faith efforts to enter into a certificate sharing agreement.”
The MSC Board is in a difficult situation. They have repeatedly stated their desire that all Alaska salmon companies who want to gain MSC status be allowed to do so. However, their legal council argues that they have no mechanism to compel a client group to act in accordance with MSC standards for certificate sharing.
This is something that has been deliberately left vague by the MSC as a means to encourage various fishery clients to come forward. They feared that without the ability to make deals and offer the first clients some exclusivity or payback on the costs of certification, then the MSC would not get sufficient clients.
Yet this desire directly harms fishery managers. The MSC does not manage fisheries, it measures whether they meet a standard. The measurements are done by a Conformance Assessment Body, (CAB) primarily by means of research and interacting with the actual fishery managers to examine the system in light of MSC principles.
In prior assessments, and especially in upcoming assessments under the 2.0 standard, considerable time and effort is required of fishery managers to answer the questions of the examiners, and to explain how their fisheries meet particular goals.
In the Alaska situation, the MSC is likely to encourage the companies illegally denied access to certificate sharing to form their own client group, and take on a new assessment.
How are the ADF&G salmon managers supposed to respond to this? In the middle of their in-season management, are they to be pulled away to answer certifier questions simply because the MSC cannot bring itself to enforce its rules on rogue clients?
In this case, MSC policy is actively harming fishery managers and hurting the ability of fisheries to maintain their excellent practices.
It is grounds to challenge the mission of the MSC, because this type of action is clearly incompatible with their public commitments to sustainability and support for fishery managers.
When the body that owns a standard and earns revenue from logo licensing fees based on that standard puts the revenue stream above their original purpose of encouraging sustainability, someone has lost their moral compass.
Obviously the MSC wants to correct this situation, and is likely to approve some formal enforcement mechanism for certificate sharing in the future. They recognize that this contradiction goes to the heart of their organizational integrity.
But what about the current situation in Alaska? If the Silver Bay Client Group led by Rob Zuanich refuses mediation, drags their feet, or takes other action to avoid any sharing of the certificate this season, the MSC will have to go further.
Given that the companies wishing to join the client group have already offered to pay 100% of the costs going back to 2012, it is hard to see what the mediation will be about. The MSC says “The MSC Board urges both the APSA and the applicant companies to continue dialogue to determine an appropriate cost-sharing mechanism.” Yet what mechanism can be appropriate if the Silver Bay group has rejected an offer to pay all their costs.
In fact, many of the companies who are applying to join the client group already paid for the assessment costs. The MSC paid 75% of the cost for assessments in 2013, and said that they did so with logo license fees paid directly by the Alaska processors, including those who are now seeking to re-join.
In 2013, the MSC put out a special notice to buyers that all Alaska salmon would be considered eligible for MSC chain of custody throughout the entire supply chain during the season, even though the formal certification would not take effect until November.
So the MSC is intimately involved in this problem given its prior history. It paid 75% of the certification costs from fees paid by the Alaska processors as a whole, and in 2013 it changed its chain of custody requirements so that ‘under assessment’ salmon for the entire season would be eligible for MSC labeling, and could be sold throughout the entire supply chain.
Silver Bay and the rogue client group may also be legally at risk, and given the MSC’s payments for the 2013 certification, the MSC could potentially be named as a party in a lawsuit as well.
Silver Bay is legally at risk should any other company be allowed to join their client group while they refuse admission to other applicant companies. That is illegal restraint of trade under US laws, and the MSC could find itself entangled.
This year, the MSC will have to find a way to allow the entire certified Alaskan salmon fishery to reach the market with its certification intact. Otherwise, they will have allowed a rogue client to hijack the publicly supported Alaska Fishery for private gain. Mediation is not likely to be a strong enough response.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.