The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) aims to drive the adoption of sustainable practices in fisheries through the marketing of certified sustainable products. For certification, a fishery needs to achieve ‘global best practice’ ratings in each of the three core principles. However, for individual assessment criteria, a score of 60, representing ‘minimum acceptable levels’ is possible. In such a case, fisheries get certified with conditions linked to actions that, according to the MSC’s theory of change, will help them achieve best practice levels across all criteria within the terms of certification. We reviewed the publicly available MSC certification reports of all fisheries and units of certification (UoC) to evaluate the extent of the spread of certification with conditions under the MSC certification scheme and whether improvements have been achieved within the stipulated time frame. Our results show that most fisheries do not meet global best practices across all criteria at first certification. Additionally, in contradiction to the MSC Standard’s requirements, only a minority of all UoC improve to achieve this requirement within the first certification cycle. A third of all UoC carry conditions into the second certification cycle, while a fifth withdraw from certification or are suspended. We argue that conditional certification may contradict the theory of change of the MSC. Rather than driving the adoption of fishing practices in line with global best practices, conditional certification may become a hindrance. Enjoying the same market access privileges as fisheries with no conditions, affected fisheries appear to not improve to best practice levels within a timely manner. While our study did not investigate the underlying reasons or what the implications are for the environment, we recommend further investigation. Insights into these aspects could help strengthen the MSC certification program and might contribute to regaining its credibility.
Read full abstract