4. MSC Certification of Antarctic and Arctic Fisheries

For example, all information about the Aker Biomarine krill assessment is taken from the (re-)assessment reports for that fishery listed in the reference list. Information on fulfilment of previous conditions is taken from the surveillance audit report of the preceding certification cycle.

It is impossible within the limited space available for this book to provide detailed page reference for every piece of information compiled in the tables. Page references related to conditions are provided in Chapter 5.

The improvement conditions are further discussed in Chapter 5.

The P1 conditions concerned the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission departing from the restraint in the HCR not to raise the cod TAC by more than 15% from one year to another, which it had done in a year with exceptionally high stock biomass. The P3 conditions required lobbying from the client in order to propagate precaution in Russian fisheries legislation and the inclusion of NGOs in consultation mechanisms.

International disagreement on the status of the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard has not been an issue in any of the other Barents Sea assessments, as the assessment teams have observed that the legal disagreement among states has not had adverse impacts on the effectiveness of the management of the Barents Sea fisheries. In the UK/DFFU/Doggerbank fishery, the assessment team, noting that it was not competent to make any legal judgment of the issue, leaned on the fishery client’s opinion and concluded that the quota distribution in the Svalbard zone was ‘unfair’ (1-FA, p. 48) (a rationale that would hardly have passed peer review and MSC Technical Oversight scrutiny today). The condition required the client to engage with EU bodies of governance and urge them to bring ‘the Svalbard dispute’ up with the Norwegian authorities. According to the ensuing annual surveillance reports, the client did that—without the ‘dispute’ being solved or the EU authorities even making an effort to bring this up with Norway. The condition was not repeated when the fishery was re-certified five years later. In later versions of the MSC Standard, the requirements for harmonization among fisheries have become much stricter; it would no longer be possible for only one fishery to have a condition for an alleged shortcoming that is common to all fisheries in the area.

The MSC Interpretations Log (https://​mscportal.​force.​com/​interpret/​s/​) is a tool for CABs, assessment teams and the ASI to ensure consistent interpretation of the Standard and its Guidance. It contains authoritative interpretations of specific requirements based on dilemmas that have emerged in the practical application of the Standard. Interpretations are sometimes included in the Guidance in its subsequent five-year revision.

Murmanseld 2 assessment, 1-FA, p. 289.

The Irish Pelagic Sustainability Alliance fishery received a submission from a local fishermen’s association, which was in essence a question about MSC procedures.

This includes the Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries and the lumpfish fisheries in Greenland, Iceland and Norway, which received substantial attention from environmental NGOs, including several objections. See Hønneland (forthcoming). A summary of the effects of MSC certification on these fisheries is provided below.

Stakeholder announcement—Ref: Extension of the suspension of all NE Atlantic mackerel fisheries within the MINSA group until such time as the MINSA fishery completes re-assessment, Edinburgh: Acoura Marine; available at https://​fisheries.​msc.​org/​en/​fisheries/​minsa-north-east-atlantic-mackerel/​@@assessments (accessed 30 June 2020), p. 1. The announcement was signed by representatives of the three CABs involved in the mackerel assessments: Acoura Marine, DNV GL and Intertek Fisheries Certification. It is unclear who made this decision, but the MSC itself was probably involved, and most likely also made the decision, although this does not follow from the announcement.

Individual fishing companies were clients for the Icelandic and Greenlandic fisheries, whereas the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association was client for the Norwegian fishery.

Iceland lumpfish assessment, 1-FA, p. 259.

Greenland lumpfish assessment, 1-FA, p. 261.

One may wonder how new conditions can be introduced at re-assessment, as any problems in the fishery might be expected to be detected at initial assessment and mitigated by the work to close conditions. The situation in the fishery might have changed, but new conditions are generally the result of revisions of the MSC Standard. With every five-year revision, the requirements of the Standard become stricter—especially for P2, with ecosystem considerations receiving increasing attention.

This time the client was Iceland Sustainable Fisheries (ISF), an industry alliance set up to facilitate MSC certification of all Icelandic fisheries.

Iceland lumpfish assessment, 2-FA, ACDR (draft report), pp. 230–238.

In this list of MSC assessment reports, the short names given in the tables of this chapter are provided first. Then in square brackets follow the official MSC names, for reference in the MSC website’s ‘Track a Fishery’ function (https://​fisheries.​msc.​org/​en/​fisheries/​). FA = full assessment; SA = (annual) surveillance audit; RA = re-assessment. Hence, 2-SA means the second annual surveillance audit in the five-year certification cycle. The names of the certification bodies, as formal publishers of the reports, are also given. ‘1-FA 2010, 1-SA 2011, 2-SA 2012, 3-SA 2013, 4 -SA 2014, Moody Marine; 1-RA 2015, Food Certification International’ means that all reports up until 2014 were published by Moody Marine, while the 2015 report was published by Food Certification International.