We, at Callander McDowell, don’t think that the picture that Mr Howes paints is that straightforward. Rather, it is the retailers, not consumers who are driving the demand for MSC certified seafood. The main retailers have been previously stung by criticism from the environmental groups that they have not been doing enough to promote sustainable seafood. This cumulated in a roof top protest of Wal Marts Asda headquarters. The negative publicity resulting from this protest was enough to persuade most retailers to start flexing their sustainability credentials if they had not been doing so before. Most supermarkets now have a clear policy on sustainability which usually includes some form of commitment to the MSC.

This commitment is reflected in the increase in the number of fisheries now applying for MSC certification. There is a real concern that without such certification, fisheries may not be able to sell their fish to the major retailers. Mr Howes suggests that between 8 and 10% of fisheries are now in the assessment process or are already certified despite the high costs of the certification process.

This commitment to the MSC process in the current economic climate is also discussed by Tom Seaman in an IntraFish commentary. He was told by Toby Middleton, UK Commercial Manager for the MSC, that so far there has been no adverse reaction to the high costs of certification, despite the current financial crisis. He added that ‘there have been no delistings’.

There may not have been any delistings yet but there is certainly ‘dissent in the ranks’. One of the largest certified fisheries; that of Alaskan salmon, is coming up for renewal and the current ‘client’, the State of Alaska has said that it is no longer willing to act in this role. The various fisheries that comprise the Alaskan salmon industry must therefore find a new client who is prepared to act on their behalf. So far, with only months to go, no-one has stepped forward. In fact, there is a view amongst some Alaskan companies that they don’t need MSC certification to help sell their salmon since Alaskan salmon was viewed as sustainable long before the MSC was even conceived.

It has even been suggested that the MSC needs Alaskan salmon more than Alaskan salmon needs the MSC.

This seems to be confirmed by the latest news that the MSC have asked salmon buyers to ‘lean’ on the Alaskan industry to pressure them into renewing their MSC certification. According to IntraFish, the MSC’s US office has been sending out letter forms which they encourage buyers to complete and then send it to their suppliers. The full letter appears on the IntraFish website but the most significant paragraph states that:

‘ I am writing this letter to make sure you understand how important the MSC certification is to our business and to express my hope that you will do all you can to make sure that certification continues. If Alaskan salmon loses MSC certification, we may be forced to look elsewhere for salmon.’

This letter smacks of desperation on the MSC’s part. The Alaskan salmon fishery is such a significant part of the MSC scheme that if certification was not renewed, it would effectively undermine the credibility of the certified sustainability programme. To illustrate how much impact the loss of this fishery would have on the MSC, seafoodintelligence.com referred to figures from the Alaskan Journal of Commerce suggesting that out of the 2000 products now certified by the MSC, 1500 are made from Alaskan fish and 700 specifically from Alaskan salmon.

However, not only does this letter smack of desperation, its threat is also extremely hollow. According to the MSC website, 287,000 tonnes of Alaskan salmon is MSC certified as sustainable. If the Alaskan salmon fishery is not recertified then buyers will find it very difficult to source alternative supplies of MSC certified salmon. The MSC website does not list any other salmon fishery as certified sustainable so in effect there is no other source. Buyers, prompted by the MSC, may write that we may be forced to look elsewhere for salmon, but it is unclear exactly where they should look.

There are some other salmon fisheries undergoing the MSC certification process but they are not yet certified nor of a scale that can replace the Alaskan salmon fishery. These include the British Coumbia Pink and Chum salmon fishery which amounts to about 11,000 tonnes of Pinks and 4,000 tonnes of Chum salmon; The British Columbia Sockeye salmon fishery, for which a tonnage is not stated; The California Chinook salmon fishery, which is under 3,000 tonnes; and the Iturup Island Pink and Chum salmon fishery which also has no stated harvest level.

The reality is that if Alaskan salmon is not recertified, then there is no alternative. The Alaskan salmon industry has suggested that buyers know that their fish are sustainable and that there is no need for additional proof in the form of MSC certification. Because the Alaskan salmon fishery is so diverse, it did make sense that the Alaskan Government should act as the overall client. Now that the Government has decided to pull out, there is no clear replacement. This is why the MSC are now trying to exert pressure on the Alaskan industry to join together to apply for recertification. Such pressure may not be enough as so far no one has stepped forward.

Enhanced!!!: The big outstanding question regarding the MSC certified Alaskan salmon fishery is whether it is going to be recertified later this year. However, there is an even more fundamental question which seems to have never been asked previously and that is whether the fishery should have ever been certified in the first place?

Seafoodintelligence.com has asked a number of key players some very pertinent questions about certification of this fishery. The first responses published came from Dr Daniel Hoggarth, Fisheries Director of the Marine Stewardship Council. He was asked how the MSC viewed the hatchery raised fish that are part of the fishery. Can they be considered as being truly wild?

Dr Hoggarth replied that the MSC view capture fisheries that have a component of catch originating from culture activities as ‘enhanced fisheries’. We, at Callander McDowell, have a better name for Dr Hoggarth’s view but we can’t repeat it here. The MSC can’t have it both ways. They have refused to consider certifying fish from aquaculture but appear happy to certify fisheries that depend on aquaculture to maintain stocks. This is a clear case of double standards.

The whole point of a sustainable fishery is one that new fish recruitment keeps pace with harvest rates. Thus, the same number, or more, new fish are originating from the reproductive cycle as those that are being caught. The size of the fish population remains the same or grows as compared to a situation where stocks are being fished out and the population declines.

In the case of the MSC’s enhanced fisheries, the natural reproductive cycle is not keeping pace with harvest rates and thus new stock are being artificially propagated. This is not a natural wild fish population but one that is being ‘managed’ outside its normal population dynamic. This is effectively aquaculture, exactly the same process that the MSC refuse to include in their certification process. What they have certified is something that they call a wild fishery but it is far from it.

This is because in the true wild, fish populations can manage themselves. Like all populations, they have ways of regulating themselves in relation to their food and their environment. This enhanced method of fisheries destroys this regulation and this has a knock on effect to the whole population as well as other populations.

Artificially propagated fish are given a head start in life. They are larger and stronger than their truly wild counterparts and therefore they are able to out-compete the others. It has been suggested that stocks of Pacific salmon from further south have declined because the hatchery raised salmon have taken the lion’s share of the food putting the others at a significant disadvantage. It is suggested that these fish do not grow as well and are less successful in breeding.

In addition, the dependence on hatchery raised fish means that the wild genetic stock could be compromised. The environmental lobby are often outraged whenever there is a report of an escape from a salmon farm. They say that the fish are alien and undermine local populations. This is why they advocate that consumers should avoid farmed salmon and opt to buy wild MSC certified salmon instead; the very same fish that are artificially raised and then deliberately released into the open seas. If Alaskan salmon are sustainable then so are farmed salmon. We at Callander McDowell, would even argue that farmed salmon are even more sustainable than wild.

No excuses: Uncertainty of the future of Alaskan salmon as a Marine Stewardship Council certified fishery is the reason why Bird’s Eye Igloo have decided not to use the MSC’s certification on the packaging of their new ‘Simply’ product range. This is because of concerns about the expense and confusion stemming from producing new packaging if the salmon fishery does not renew its certification. Peter Hajiperis, Birds Eye Iglo’s Director of Sustainability told IntraFish that the company has a formal packaging waste reduction programme which requires them to be more vigilant when ordering long packaging runs.

However, it is not just the Alaskan salmon in the new range that will not be carrying its sustainable credentials, neither will the Alaskan Pollock product. This is because some of the fish will be sourced from Russian waters which are not currently certified. Mr Hajiperis said that Birds Eye Iglo have encouraged the Russian suppliers of Alaskan Pollock to seek MSC certification although it may take four years to be fully certified.

The decision to use Russian Pollock was based on the cuts in US Pollock quotas and its subsequent rise in price. Thus it seems that Birds Eye Iglo have taken a decision to opt primarily for commercial considerations rather than those appertaining to sustainability.

This is surprising since Birds Eye, albeit under different ownership, were instrumental in helping set up the Marine Stewardship Council. Since then sustainability issues seem to have fallen by the wayside.

It is understandable that Birds Eye Iglo do not want to risk the wastage of huge amounts of packaging should the Alaskan salmon fish forgo their MSC certification, However, there is no reason why in the interim, Birds Eye Iglo could not apply an MSC sticker to their packaging to show that the fish inside is MSC certified. Such temporary labelling has been used very successfully by a number of UK retailers to show salmon products are Freedom Food accredited. Once the old packaging runs out then new packs have incorporated the Freedom Food logo in their design.

Equally, Birds Eye Iglo could do the same for their Alaskan Pollock products if the fish have been sourced from MSC certified fisheries (unless they have totally forgone US fish in favour of Russian). We have discussed previously how their other pollock products, such as their omega 3 fish fingers, have lacked any reference to sustainability or MSC certification.

This lack of commitment to MSC products does not appear to be restricted to Alaskan salmon and Alaskan Pollock. Birds Eye Iglo also sells a great deal of cod under both their ‘Simply’ label and as fish fingers. Birds Eye Iglo could use MSC certified Pacific cod as the source of their cod but if they do they fail to mention it on their packs. At least one UK supermarket sources MSC certified Pacific cod for all its frozen ranges of breaded and battered products so there is no reason why Birds Eye Iglo could not do the same.

Unfortunately, packs of ‘Simply’ cod make no mention of the source of the fish (Birds Eye Iglo are not obliged to do so) nor how the fish were caught or whether it is sustainably fished. In fact it just says it is cod.

Maybe the excuse of uncertain recertification and cuts in quota are simply a way of avoiding the issue of sustainability. After all, consumers have shown little interest in sustainability especially when it comes to paying for it. Could this be one of the first nails in the sustainability coffin?