Sunday, 7 June 2015

Yet Another Corrupt Fish Farm Award, Updated June 25, 2015

I have pointed out that fish farm awards and certifications are not real, as fish farms largely put money into them, the BAPs say, and then award themselves their own awards. The WWF, ASCs are also not real because they are awarded to in-ocean fish farms, of which none are sustainable nor environmentally sound.

In-ocean fish farms are in the ocean to use it as a free, open sewer. Just Google sewage problems in the industry, in Norway, Atlantic Canada, Scotland and Chile, for instance. And for BC, Canada, my estimate of the sewage cost of in-ocean fish farms is $10.4 Billion, that we citizens, in essence, pay for. We don't want to pay.

But now, the most well-known and largest, the Marine Stewardship Council that certifies in-ocean fish farms, is on the receiving end of criticism that it is corrupt. Look at this article:

John Sackton, Editor, Seafood news has much to say on the biggest certification scheme for fish farms and fisheries. For example: "The MSC’s ‘pay to play’ is not explicit bribery, but it is a complex structure of exclusivity that gives some clients the ability to hijack public resources for their own gain.  This goes directly against FAO ecolabel guidelines, and this arrangement directly helps the MSC sell certifications, and thereby derive logo revenues.

We have no news yet on how the Marine Stewardship Council is going to resolve its horrendous mis-management of Alaska Salmon certifications. Its current inaction however shows that its commercial model is now morally bankrupt, and must be reformed.
As of today, numerous Alaskan companies, both large and small, are being stonewalled by a rogue client group whose manager, Rob Zuanich, is largely seen in the industry as being driven by personal vendettas."
Sackton goes on to say: " But they are also a registered public charity in the UK, and even more importantly, they make an assertion of absolute credibility for their standard and claim it is the best mechanism for verification as to whether a wild caught fishery is sustainably harvested.  Their business is measuring the effectiveness of public governmental fishery management and giving a third party seal of approval."
As well, there is a problem with credibility: "Like any organization with a product to sell, the MSC has a sales team whose job is to go out and recruit fishery clients.  These are groups who will sponsor MSC certification for their fishery, and who will hire and pay for an assessment body to measure them against the MSC standard.
Without these clients, there would be no revenue to the MSC from the MSC ecolabel." 
And: "This promise of exclusivity to a subset of companies is a key driver of the MSC sales process. Companies have been promised help with market access, or introductions to new retail buyers if they sign on as clients. Without the promise of exclusivity, the MSC might have a harder time recruiting companies to be fisheries clients."
And, now, we move to fish farms. The Global Seafood Sustainablity Initiative (I will deal with their claims in an upcoming post. In essence, it's the same old stuff and environmentally damaging in-ocean fish farms rather than environmentally sound ones on land).
Sackton says: "To avoid multiple certifications for the same fishery, the MSC should simply enact a contractually enforceable mechanism to add eligible clients to the certificate if the client group fails to adhere to the MSC requirements for certificate sharing.  Currently the MSC claims the requirements are ‘guidance’ only, and not legally enforceable.  That is a corrupt and morally bankrupt stance if the MSC aspires to be the leader in seafood sustainability certification."
In other words, like the other awards, schemes and certifications, the senior one, the MSC, is not a real certification. The bottom line is this: if the scheme does not include the requirement that the fish farm be an on-land operating, the award or certification is not valid.
Go back to the index I put on this site in October 2014. You can read my list of 79 on-land fish farms that I have found, that comprise more than 10,000, actual, on-land fish farms around the globe. When Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi), Grieg Seafood, and the othes come out of the water, then let's talk again about environmental award credibility.

See the index:

And here is an update on the byzantine MSC system. Does it sound like an award system to you? Sounds more like antitrust court cases and big time lawyer bills rather than a pristine environment and etc.

Fairness” Alaska Governor Walker Contacts MSC On Salmon Certification

Alaska’s Governor Walker urged “fairness” from the Marine Stewardship Council in the certification of Alaska salmon, in a letter sent to MSC executive Rupert Howes. Gov. Walker’s letter was in response to the failed mediation attempt between the 20 Alaskan salmon processors and the ASPA to work on a deal to allow the processors re-entry into the MSC through the ASPA’s existing salmon certificate. “This is an issue of fairness for fishermen and coastal communities in Alaska, even for Alaska herself,” Walker wrote. Howes responded to the letter and said binding arbitration may be the only solution to the problem at this point. “MCS’s board believes that the only workable solution is time bound, binding arbitration,” Howes wrote. The groups have mutually selected Seattle attorney Lou Peterson to oversee the arbitration.


No comments:

Post a Comment