The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a nonprofit organization that works to create standards for fishing that protects ocean life. Fisheries that want to show they follow these standards are evaluated by teams called Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs).
The MSC's goal is to use its ecolabel, which earns money when companies pay to use it on their products, and its certification program to support fisheries that use sustainable methods.
The MSC has been criticized before, mostly because of its strong connections to the fishing industry and concerns about conflicts of interest caused by the money the industry pays for the MSC's certification label.
Environmental benefits
A study paid for and organized by MSC found that fisheries with MSC certification show improvements that help protect the ocean. These improvements include: more fish in the sea; better ways to manage fish populations; less accidental catching of other sea animals; more areas set aside to protect the environment; and fishers learning more about how their work affects the ocean.
Key facts and figures
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was created in 1996 because of the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery. In 1999, it became separate from its original partners, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Unilever. The MSC has about 140 employees working at its London headquarters, regional offices in London, Seattle, Singapore, and Sydney, and local offices in Edinburgh, Berlin, The Hague, Paris, Cape Town, Tokyo, Reykjavik, and the Baltic region.
Fisheries that want certification and to use the MSC ecolabel pay between $20,000 and over $100,000 to a separate company that works for profit. This company checks the fishery against the MSC standard and decides if certification is recommended. The assessors are approved by Accreditation Services International (ASI) to perform these evaluations. After certification, fisheries have yearly checks that cost $75,000 each and are recertified every five years.
Effect on fraud
As of March 2019, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has used DNA barcoding to help identify fish species correctly. This method has lowered incorrect labeling to less than 1%, compared to the industry average of about 30%.
Finances
The MSC is a registered charity and non-profit organization that relies on different sources of money. Between April 2011 and March 2012, the MSC received a total of £15 million. During the same time, the organization spent £12 million. The MSC Board believes it is important to save money, called reserves, to help avoid financial problems in the future. Keeping enough reserves to cover 6 to 9 months of expenses is seen as a necessary goal. This is because the MSC does not have members who pay regular fees, and it is difficult to predict how much income it will receive from its programs.
Independent opinion and criticisms
In 2009, Greenpeace published a detailed report about the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The report noted several positive effects of the MSC but also identified areas where the MSC needs improvement.
In his 2005 book Collapse, Jared Diamond discussed the MSC and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as examples of working together between environmentalists and businesses to create an economy that protects the environment.
Andrew Balmford’s book Wild Hope includes a chapter that describes the MSC as an effective method for achieving conservation goals through teamwork and market-based solutions.
Critics say the MSC has certified fisheries that harm the environment and have high levels of bycatch, which is the accidental killing of non-target species like dolphins and turtles. These concerns are made worse by the fact that the fishing industry pays the MSC for certification, which creates a conflict of interest. Also, there is no guarantee that the seafood is ethical, as animal welfare is not considered, and fish are often killed using suffocation, a method that causes pain and suffering.
Since 2009, the MSC has been criticized for certifying fisheries that some people believe are not sustainable. One of the most controversial certifications was for the Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish fishery. Some scientists and seafood industry members say the fishery is not well understood. However, toothfish has been fished commercially for over 30 years and has been carefully managed by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources since 1982. Scientists accused the assessor who recommended the fishery for certification of ignoring negative data. An independent reviewer later sent the recommendation back for reconsideration. The fishery was certified with changes to its scoring and new requirements for scientific research on toothfish populations.
The MSC faced criticism from Greenpeace and the Pew Environment Group for certifying the Antarctic krill fishery. Although the fishery may be healthy, critics said there was not enough scientific data about its impact, and the decision was based on assumptions. Because of this, Whole Foods Market decided to stop selling krill oil supplements, even if they had the MSC label.
As part of the MSC certification, the krill fishery agreed to do more scientific research and ensure 100% observer coverage to address concerns about risks to other species. Fishing pressure on krill is very low—less than 1% of the estimated total population—and management rules set by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) help protect krill and other species.
In early 2010, environmental groups like the Sierra Club criticized the MSC for certifying the British Columbia sockeye salmon fishery when salmon stocks in the Fraser River had been declining since the 1990s. The year before, only 1.4 million salmon returned to the Fraser River, compared to an expected 11 million, which led the Canadian Prime Minister to launch a legal investigation. In 2010, 30 million salmon returned, and in 2011, more than 4 million returned. A group at Simon Fraser University said the large 2010 return was mainly due to a natural cycle peak from the Adams River and was only high for some areas. The group also said there are still many unknowns about how climate change, aquaculture, and fishing management affect salmon populations.
To address the decline in salmon stocks, the fishery was closed to let the population recover. Now, the fishery operates successfully and has a plan to protect weak populations and reduce bycatch. Catch limits are set each year based on the size of the salmon run.
In February 2011, several European chapters of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) objected to the MSC certifying the Denmark North Sea plaice fishery. The concerns were addressed, and the fishery implemented a habitat protection plan to safeguard vulnerable areas through measures like closed zones, gear changes, and research.
However, in a 2009 study of seven seafood certification programs commissioned by WWF International and done by Accenture Development Partnerships, the MSC scored highest across all 103 criteria. The study was repeated in 2012, and the MSC again scored highest, twice as much as the next best program.
Some scientists, like Sidney Holt and Daniel Pauly, say that when assessments are done by commercial contractors paid by the fisheries, it creates a conflict of interest because assessors may have a financial incentive to recommend fisheries and get more work. Independent evaluation by certified organizations, separate from the standard setter, is a key part of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines on ecolabeling, which the MSC follows.
In late 2016, The Times and SeafoodSource reported that a leaked internal WWF document said the MSC receives fees from licensing its label (which provides 75% of its income), creating a conflict of interest. The document claimed the MSC has relaxed its sustainability rules to allow more products to carry its label, increasing its income. The MSC’s Science and Standards Director, David Agnew, denied the claims, calling them unsubstantiated. The WWF later said the document was a draft and reflected its understanding of challenges in tuna fisheries certification in the Indian Ocean.
In 2018, Open Seas and the National Trust for Scotland officially objected to MSC-certified scallop dredging practices.
The 2021 documentary Seaspiracy criticized the MSC, saying it gives consumers a misleading sense of confidence about the sustainability of products with the MSC label. The documentary pointed to close ties between the MSC and the fishing industry and weak certification processes.