‘s definition of \u0091certification unit’, which, to my eyes, needs rethinking. I would like to summarize some of the findings here.<\/span><\/p>\nEvolution process<\/span><\/b><\/p>\nMSC <\/span>certification of the hake trawl industry in South Africa was the result of an evaluation process that lasted almost two years, and that started with an application prepared by the South African Deep-sea Trawling Industry Association (<\/span>SADSTIA<\/span>), the body representative of most (but not all) hake-trawling companies in the country.<\/span><\/p>\nIt helps understanding the motivations behind seeking <\/span>MSC <\/span>certification that, within <\/span>SADSTIA<\/span>, the drivers of the initiative were large companies that, at that time, had an interest in defending their quota allocation from further erosion to the benefit of other trawling companies and the longline industry. This threat was arising from the process of (belatedly) \u0091transforming’ the post-apartheid hake-trawl industry. The overall cost of fishery certification to the industry was <\/span>US$<\/span>100,000 in direct costs of certification, plus <\/span>US$<\/span>100-200,000 to meet conditions in the mid-term.<\/span><\/p>\nThe assessment conducted by the certification body resulted in a relatively high scoring on the first of the three principles of the <\/span>MSC <\/span>standard stock management (88 points out of 100; the minimum pass is 80). According to industry sources, this was expected, as there has been a relatively long history of proper monitoring of the resource in South Africa. In relation to the second <\/span>MSC <\/span>principle (ecosystem impact), the South African hake industry barely made the grade (80 points). Gaps were identified in four areas: (i) by-catch management; (ii) ecosystem relations; (iii) the impact of trawling on the benthic habitat; and (iv) the impact of trawling on seabird populations. In relation to the third <\/span>MSC <\/span>principle (fishery management system), the industry’s score was relatively high (88 points)<\/span><\/p>\nIn my working paper, I highlighted that <\/span>MSC <\/span>certification of the South African hake industry raises at least two problematic issues: (1) the trawling sector has been certified, but not the longlining sector even though they exploit the same stock; and (2) there are questions about whether the stock is shared with Namibia, which is not certified either. I do understand that the <\/span>MSC <\/span>definition of \u0091certification unit’ allows for the certification of one part of an industry but not another, even though they exploit the same stock. But adopting an unsuitable definition is a technical fix and does not, in itself, ensure \u0091sustainability’ of a fishery.<\/span><\/p>\nParadoxical situation<\/span><\/b><\/p>\nHake longliners (and handliners) have not been certified in South Africa, either because they lacked a strong association that could represent them and guarantee a proper management system or because they are one of the potential threats to the incumbent oligopoly. A paradoxical situation has thus been created, where the trawling sector in a fishery is certified as \u0091sustainable’, while the smaller-scale longline sector catching the same stock is not. Yet, the overall stock is deemed to be \u0091sustainably managed’. Furthermore, since the <\/span>MSC <\/span>approach is to divide up fisheries into management units, even though they may share the same stock, the South African hake industry was certified without its Namibian sister industry, even though it is widely believed that they share the same stock.<\/span><\/p>\nA strict interpretation of sustainable management of stock would suggest that the South African fishery could only be \u0091sustainable’ if both it and the Namibian fishery were certified, but the latter either did not want, or was not invited, to participate in the certification process. Therefore, the certification team stated that \u0093although mixing [of the South African and Namibian stocks] will inevitably occur, from a fishery-management perspective, the South African hake populations may be considered as a discrete stock. Is this \u0091fishery management perspective’ leading to better sustainability of the stock (one of the main objectives of <\/span>MSC<\/span>)? If one believes recent reports suggesting that the hake stock is in danger, and that catches are at historically low levels (<\/span>Southern Africa Fishing Industry News<\/span><\/i>, June 2006, p. 10; <\/span>Mail & Guardian<\/span><\/i>, 30 June 2006), perhaps some doubts are justifiable. Is South African hake going down the same way as New Zealand hoki did? (Both are <\/span>MSC<\/span>-certified.)<\/span><\/p>\nIn 2005, the South African hake industry was subjected to the first surveillance exercise by the certifying team. This resulted in a surveillance report released in May 2005 that covers progress in all the conditions that were set at the time of certification. The overall assessment of the monitoring team was a positive one, and continuation of certification was recommended, despite some major problems (see my working paper for details). No <\/span>MSC<\/span>-certified fishery has been de-certified so far. Is this an instance of \u0091path dependency’ or a sign of improved management?<\/span><\/p>\nSouth African observers of the fish industry made it clear that with the current rate of loss of scientists and managers at Marine and Coastal Management (<\/span>MCM<\/span>), the agency in charge of fisheries management, there will be no capacity to properly monitor the use and possible abuse of quotas. Thirty-five scientists have left <\/span>MCM <\/span>between 1996 and 2005. In January 2005, two of the key management figures at <\/span>MCM <\/span>resigned. According to an industry source, current management at the regulatory agency lacks deep understanding of allocation issues. After the 2006 allocation, which, for the first time, assigned quotas for a period of 15 years (instead of one year, or, more recently, five years), compliance by industry to regulation is likely to decrease. A review of allocation should follow every two or three years to assess compliance with the terms of the allocation policy, but there is no capacity at the regulatory agency at present to undertake that.<\/span><\/p>\nYet, whatever happens to <\/span>MSC <\/span>certification in South Africa, it is important to highlight that the drivers of the initiative have achieved two other objectives anyway. First, the longlining industry has not been allocated a higher proportion of the hake total allowable catch (<\/span>TAC<\/span>) in 2006. But, even more importantly, the regulatory agency, in its own policy that guided the 15-year allocation of 2006, formally embraced the argument that fewer players are better for conservation than a larger number of players. No new entrants were assigned quotas, and some of the smaller existing quotas were not renewed. Although some of the large companies lost a proportion of their quotas (a sizeable volume for one of the main players), the allocation of long-term rights is likely to create a secondary market for quotas. As a result, an even more concentrated industry may emerge in the mid-term (for details on the 2006 allocation of hake rights in South Africa, see Stefano Ponte and Lance van Sittert, \u0093The Chimera of Redistribution, <\/span>DIIS <\/span><\/i>Working Paper <\/span><\/i>2006: 32; available at: www.diis.dk\/ sw29692.asp).<\/span><\/p>\nConservation discourse<\/span><\/b><\/p>\nMSC <\/span>certification, far from being simply a neutral and equal instrument yielding better conservation for humanity, is achieved in the context of global and local competition, special-interest battles, and local politics. In South Africa, although couched in a discourse of conservation, <\/span>MSC <\/span>was one of the instruments used to justify positions in debates that had race relations and possible redressing of past wrongs under apartheid as the main issues at stake. It was played as a tool against the redistribution of quotas away from main, white-owned, quota holders to the possible benefit of black-owned smaller quota holders and new entrants within the deep-sea hake sector. It was also used as a tool to avoid redistribution of quota away from the large, mainly white-owned, deep-sea trawling sector to the advantage of the mostly black-owned longlining sector. Local politics and the situated political economy of conservation do matter for \u0091sustainability’ certifications.<\/span><\/p>\nDeveloping-country fisheries, and small-scale ones, in particular, have been marginalized in the <\/span>MSC <\/span>system. Only three fisheries in South Africa, Argentina and Mexico have been certified so far. Delivering \u0091sustainability’ at no additional cost and in large volumes demands standards that are tough in terms of systems compliance, but actually quite approachable in terms of the thresholds of sustainability indicators. Entry barriers to \u0091sustainability’ entail economies of scale and scope that require managerial resources and access to networks. Since managerial and systemic objectives are harder for developing-country actors to match, this creates a hidden imbalance in favour of more endowed participants.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Analysis : Ecolabelling Being open, transparent, inclusive Developing-country fisheries, and small-scale ones, in particular, have been marginalized in the Marine Stewardship Council certification system This article, by Stefano Ponte (spo@diis.dk), Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, is based on a working paper published by the Trade Law Centre for Southern […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"tags":[],"region":[],"source":[],"country":[],"state":[],"city":[],"samudra_category":[5328],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/samudra\/46232"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/samudra"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/samudra"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/source?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"state","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/state?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"city","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/city?post=46232"},{"taxonomy":"samudra_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/samudra_category?post=46232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}