Talk:Marine Stewardship Council

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like an advertisement
This is almost similar soap like FSC-article which can be considered as an advertisement. Weasel words and not neutral bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.226.204 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Independent opinion and criticism section – updating of facts and balanced view
In line with Wikipedia’s guidelines which state that all contributions should be based on verifiable sources and offer a balanced and neutral point of view, below are some proposed edits to this section.

Points which require updating, verification, or removal:

1.	The suggestion that the MSC certifies “the practice of "reduction fisheries", or fish farms, a frequently harmful practice of raising non-native fish in ocean pens, feeding them ground-up fish.” This point is misleadingand suggests MSC certifies fish farms, which is not the case.

The MSC does not certify "reduction fisheries" or ‘fish farms’ and is not an aquaculture certification organisation. MSC has a long history of engaging with enhanced fisheries (fisheries which are based on wild capture but use some human intervention) dating back to the certification of the Alaska salmon fishery in 2000. In 2009, the MSC released two policy documents (Policy Advisory 10 and TAB Directive D-001 http://www.msc.org/get-certified/fisheries/eligible-fisheries/?searchterm=Policy%20Advisory%2010%20and%20TAB%20Directive%20D-001) which define the point in the spectrum of enhancement up to which the MSC programme can be applied.

2.	The MSC does not ‘measure success by the percentage of the world catch it certifies.’ Fisheries must meet the MSC’s rigorous standard in order to be certified sustainable and the certification assessment is carried out not, as this entry suggests, by the MSC, but by independent scientists whose analysis of the fishery is peer reviewed and subject to non-industry stakeholder review. Stakeholder input frequently originates from interested individual scientists or scientists working on behalf of environmental organisations. This system of checks and balances ensures that certification decisions are objective, scientifically rigorous, and transparent. If a fishery doesn’t meet the standard, it won’t be certified.

To suggest, as this entry does, that the MSC encourages or is complicit in the certification of unsustainable fisheries in order to achieve a target percentage, and is therefore deliberately misleading consumers, the commercial supply chain, fisheries, stakeholders and the general public is factually incorrect, unsupported by any verification, and unbalanced.

This paragraph does not, in its present form, meet the Wikipedia criteria of being verifiable, balanced and neutral, and should be removed if it is not changed.

3.	Criticism about British Columbia sockeye fishery - There is now new evidence to counter the point about the low salmon returns to the Fraser river in 2009: this year (2010) the salmon returns were the highest since 1913. There is also evidence to suggest that the low return in 2009 wasn’t due to fishing. The link between the low return and MSC’s certification, and why exactly MSC was criticized, needs to be clarified.

Proposed new text to be added: Scientists at a Simon Fraser University (SFU) summit of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon said of the low salmon run: “In 2009 fisheries responded appropriately by greatly restricting fishing to maximize the number of fish available for spawning. The weight of evidence suggests that the problem of reduced productivity occurred after the juvenile fish began their migration toward the sea.”

The total 2010 Fraser River sockeye return was over 35 million fish; the largest return since 1913. Pacific Salmon Commission http://www.psc.org/NewsRel/2010/NewsRelease11.pdf

MSC certification of the B.C. sockeye fishery is confirmation that the management of the fishery aims to ensure that fish stocks remain above critical lower limit levels. Certification was not a conclusion that the stock was currently abundant or that fishing should be taking place at that time.

Those with an interest in the page are invited to discuss these changes and raise any objections. If there are no objections, the proposed edits will be made on 26 November 2010.

AChatburn (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating text and additional sections
The following revised version of this page includes updated text and additional sections. If there are no additions or amendments suggested by other contributors over the next week it will be published on 8 February 2011.

Updated text:

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent not-for-profit organisation which sets a standard for sustainable fishing. Fisheries that wish to demonstrate they are well managed and sustainable against the science-based MSC standard are assessed by a team of experts who are independent of both the fishery and the MSC. Seafood products can display the blue MSC ecolabel only if that seafood can be traced back to a fishery that has been certified against the MSC standard.

How the MSC contributes to change

The MSC mission is to use its ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by recognising and rewarding sustainable fishing practises, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood, and working with partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis. The MSC programme exists to harness market forces to incentivise positive environmental change – as buyers choose to purchase MSC certified fish, well-managed fisheries are rewarded for sustainable practices. In turn, the growing market for certified sustainable seafood is generating a powerful incentive for other fisheries to demonstrate they are fishing sustainably or to improve their performance so that they too can be eligible for MSC certification.

The MSC Standard

The MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing was developed over two years through a consultative process involving more than 300 expert organisations and individuals around the world and is consistent with the ‘Guidelines for the Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Wild Capture Fisheries’ adopted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2005.

Principles of Sustainability

The standard consists of three core principles that each fishery must demonstrate it meets: Principle 1: Sustainable fish stocks The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continue indefinitely and is not overexploiting the resources. Principle 2: Minimising environmental impact Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends. Principle 3: Effective management The fishery must meet all local, national and international laws and must have a management system in place to respond to changing circumstances and maintain sustainability. How sustainability is measured Under the three principles are a total of 31 criteria (Performance Indicators) that the fishery is scored against by the independent team of experts. For each of the 31 Performance Indicators a precautionary level is set where the biological and ecological processes of all components impacted by the fishery are not compromised. This level equates to a score of 60 and if the fishery scores below 60 on any one of the 31 Performance Indicators it is an automatic failure. However, achieving the minimum, 60 performance level is not adequate to become certified against the MSC standard; average scores of at least 80 for the Performance Indicators under each of the three Principles have to be achieved. As a result every fishery certified against the MSC standard is operating at a very high level of precaution. This means the fishery is more resilient to potential changes e.g. natural stock fluctuations, and better able to secure its long-term sustainability.

Encouraging further improvement

Because a certified fishery must achieve average scores of at least 80 across the three principles it is possible for a fishery to be certified with a score of between 60 and 80 for a small number of Performance Indicators. In these cases it is called a conditional certification: conditions are placed on the fishery, which it must fulfil within a set period, in order to remain certified. Even though the fishery is operating sustainably, it must introduce a plan of action that will raise its performance to the more precautionary level demanded by the MSC standard by increasing any score of between 60 and 80 to at least 80 within a set period of time. In almost all cases, scores of 80 have to be achieved for all Performance Indicators by the end of the first certificate period (five years). To remain certified, fisheries also have to undertake an annual surveillance to check that it continues to meet the MSC standard. After 5 years, the fishery must be reassessed in full if it wants to continue to be certified. Transparent and inclusive process To ensure a robust assessment and to ensure that the independent team of experts has all the available information on the fishery, the assessment process is open to other stakeholders to participate – this could be other fisheries, NGOs, governments, or other bodies. Stakeholders are invited to participate in the process from the outset, and throughout the assessment, stakeholders are given the opportunity to submit information and comment on reports, all of which are made public and available for anyone to see on the MSC website (msc.org).

Ensuring Seafood purchased is from a sustainable fishery

The MSC manages a second standard called Chain of Custody for traceability. If seafood is to be sold with the MSC ecolabel, every business in the supply chain must be assessed and certified by an independent body against the MSC Chain of Custody standard. This ensures that only seafood from a certified sustainable fishery is sold with the MSC label.

Governance

The MSC is governed by a Board of Trustees. In addition a Technical Advisory Board and a Stakeholder Council advise the Board. The structure of these bodies involves a wide range of stakeholders with different views so that decisions reflect many sectors and interests. Together the 15 members of the Board of Trustees set the strategic direction of the MSC, monitor progress and ensure the MSC meets its objectives. The MSC Technical Advisory Board is made up of 15 experts in the field and advises the MSC Board on technical and scientific matters. The MSC Stakeholder Council ensures that the opinions of all groups with a stake in sustainable fishing are heard by the MSC Board. It comprises 30-50 members that represent a broad range of sectors and geographical areas including fishing organisations, NGOs, consumer groups, retailers, and others. Through these bodies, the MSC is continually improving its program, and stakeholders are invited to contribute to its development through regular meetings of the Stakeholder Council and public consultations.

History

The MSC was founded in 1997 by the World Wide Fund for Nature and Unilever, and became fully independent in 1999. It has a staff of 80 spread across the HQ in London, and regional offices in London, Seattle, Washington and Sydney, and local offices in Edinburgh, Berlin, The Hague, Paris, Cape Town, Tokyo, and the Baltic region. The MSC program is open to all fisheries regardless of size, scale, location and intensity and runs a Developing World Program to ensure equal access to the program. As of January 2011, there are over 8,100 seafood products available with the MSC ecolabel, sold in 74 countries around the world. Over 100 fisheries have been independently certified as meeting the MSC’s environmental standard for sustainable fishing and over 100 are currently undergoing assessment, (further information on fisheries engaged in the MSC programme). 1,535 companies have met the MSC Chain of Custody standard for seafood traceability. The MSC works in partnership with a number of organisations, businesses and funders around the world but is fully independent of all.

MSC and aquaculture

The MSC is a programme for wild capture fisheries and does not include aquaculture production. There is a well defined point in the enhancement of fisheries up to which the MSC standard for sustainability can be applied:

•	The fishery must rely on catching fish from the wild at some stage either Catch and Grow or Hatch and Catch. •	Species must be native to the geographic region of the fishery. •	It is not possible to substantially augment the fishes’ food or give them medicines (except in the case of Hatch and Catch fisheries such as salmon hatcheries, where the fry are reared only to a small size prior to release to the wild). •	Habitat can be modified but it must be possible to reverse the impact the enhanced fishery has on the habitats and wider ecosystem.

Fish & Kids

The MSC Fish & Kids project teaches children about sustainable seafood issues and helps schools source MSC fish for school meals. Over 4000 schools in the UK and 60 schools in Sweden currently serve MSC labelled seafood.

Independent opinion and criticism

Jared Diamond's Collapse praises MSC and the similar Forest Stewardship Council as good examples of collaboration among environmentalists and businesses for a sustainable economy. In early 2010, the MSC was criticised for including the British Columbia sockeye fishery in the certification process [1]. This is because in 2009, just a fraction of the salmon returned to the Fraser River, which prompted the Prime Minister to launch a judicial enquiry.[2] Scientists at a Simon Fraser University (SFU) summit of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon said of the low salmon run: “In 2009 fisheries responded appropriately by greatly restricting fishing to maximize the number of fish available for spawning. The weight of evidence suggests that the problem of reduced productivity occurred after the juvenile fish began their migration toward the sea.” The total 2010 Fraser River sockeye return was over 35 million fish; the largest return since 1913.[3]

References 1.^ "MSC criticised for sockeye certification." Fish Information and Services 2.^ "Missing salmon stocks to be probed: PM." Fish Information and Services 3.^ "Pacific Salmon Commission."

External links Marine Stewardship Council Website MSC website for teachers and children Where to buy MSC-labelled seafood

AChatburn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How Many Certified Fisheries?
The article now states: As of the end of 2010, more than 1,300 fisheries and companies had achieved a Marine Stewardship Council certification.

However, I notice the statment: There are currently 126 certified fisheries in the MSC program from the MSC page at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified

I belive this distinction should be clarified in the article. --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For-profit or non-profit?
Why does the article say the MSC is non-profit but on the box to the right it presents 3.4 million pounds of profit? Theohariss (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Correcting and amending info box facts
Suggested amendments to MSC page infobox facts:

'Key people'

In line with Wikipedia guidance on the purpose of infoboxes, which suggests the box should highlight facts which are explained elsewhere in the article, I suggest deleting the previous chair of the board as this isn’t relevant or current information. John Gummer has had no involvement with MSC since 2005. The info box should show relevant, scannable key facts, and this is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

'Profit and revenue'

I also suggest removing profit and revenue and adding them to a new section in the article (see below) this is because the terms have been given the wrong definitions. The figures they refer to are actually income and surplus, as detailed on http://www.msc.org/about-us/finances.

The Wikipedia rules of infoboxes suggest the box should highlight facts which are explained elsewhere in the article and as profit and revenue are not included or explained elsewhere in the article, they are not relevant shown in isolation.

It has been suggested above that clarification is needed as to why these figures have been included, as the MSC is non-profit. There isn’t space for this clarification in the infobox, so in order to provide information about finances, I propose the following new section is added to the main body of the text:

Finances

The MSC is a registered charity (ref http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1066806) and non-profit organisation (ref http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/98-0470539/marine-stewardship-council.aspx) and depends on various sources of funding. From 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, the MSC’s total income was £12.7 million. From 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, total expenditure was £9.4 million. The MSC Board recognises it as generally good practice to hold reserves as a protection against any financial difficulties in the future. A reserves target of 6 to 9 months’ cover is considered to be necessary, at least as an aspiration, given the MSC’s lack of membership and uncertainty of its various income streams. (ref http://www.msc.org/about-us/finances)

'Subsidiaries'

I suggest Subsidiaries are deleted from the infobox as they are not short, scannable key facts, and are not detailed or explained elsewhere in the article.

The changes above will be made in the next 24 hours assuming there are no objections.

--MSC99 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested updates to page and new sections
Various facts on the MSC page need updating, and there are several sentences which aren’t clear, seem to be in the wrong section or use out of date information. Most of these are due to changes that were made without following Wikipedia guidelines – they weren’t first discussed on this talk page, they aren’t all properly referenced or backed up with evidence. Therefore the following amendments are suggested:


 * Updating introductory paragraph:
 * 1) Rewording and updating info in introductory text to more accurately outline what MSC does.
 * 2) Deleting the last line about criticism from the introductory paragraph as this is independent opinion and not fact, or referenced, or in context, so moving it to the appropriate ‘independent opinion and criticism’ section where past criticism from environmental organisations is listed along with counter arguments seems like the best course of action.
 * Amending ‘history’ section:
 * 1) Renaming to ‘Key facts and figures’ to better reflect the content
 * 2) Updating statistics to more recent figures
 * 3) Collating statistics used throughout the article under this section
 * 'Editing Principles' section:
 * 1) Deleting the incorrect claim ‘As of 2010, no fishery has ever been denied certification after recommendation’. Fisheries that have exited the MSC programme after recommendation can be found here: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/exiting-the-program.
 * 2) Moving the information on governance, certification process and costs that is currently under ‘principles’ to new, more relevant sections:
 * 3) ‘MSC standards’: explaining the MSC standard, principles, and how these are measured
 * 4) ‘MSC governance’: explaining how MSC is governed.
 * Updating and adding references to the aquaculture section
 * Adding 3 further new sections for explaining:
 * 1) How external stakeholders can feed into the MSC process
 * 2) How MSC seafood is traced from the fishery to the final place of use/sale (information about this is currently at the end of the ‘principles’ section but doesn’t seem to belong there)
 * 3) How MSC contributes to environmental improvements and what improvements have been found.


 * Amending the criticism section as follows:
 * 1) Clarifying the MSC response about Fraser river salmon, which is misquoted
 * 2) Linking to MSC positions to criticism to add balance.
 * 3) Deleting the following sentence and link: ‘The MSC's certification, too lax,[7] was heavily accused: Amélie Lescroël and Sylvain Angerand, Pêche durable : MSC, l'écolabel qui encourage le massacre / Durable fishing: MSC, the ecolabel that promotes the massacre, Rue89 Planète.’ – it’s meaning isn’t clear, it doesn’t follow the procedure of adding references (just pastes the whole link in) and the article it links to isn’t in English so it’s not relevant for the English page.

If there are no objections to these changes they will be made on Friday 24 February 2012.AChatburn (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

COI tag
Based on edit history alone, I'm guessing User:AChatburn is involved with the MSC. If not, a thousand pardons, but in any case, the article does not read as neutral to me. I'll try to fix it shortly. -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If User:MSC99 does indeed represent MSC according to the edit summary of, the tag should remain. – Temporal User (Talk) 03:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Marine Stewardship Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222175430/http://www.ccamlr.org:80/pu/e/gen-intro.htm to http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/gen-intro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204103907/http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/sc/kri-surv-intro.htm to http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/sc/kri-surv-intro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marine Stewardship Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920003643/http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca:80/quick-links/publications/seafood-oceans-1/Response%20to%20MSC%20certification%20of%20sockeye.pdf to http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/quick-links/publications/seafood-oceans-1/Response%20to%20MSC%20certification%20of%20sockeye.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marine Stewardship Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518085600/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2009/7/assessment-of-the-msc.pdf to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2009/7/assessment-of-the-msc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing discussion of certification conditions(!)
The section "Standard for sustainable fishing" needs to be expanded to discuss what the MSC label actually means. Currently the section merely states who does the certifying and who developed the standard. It alludes to "three principles" and "scores" without going further. Trimton (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

POV Neutrality
Having had a quick read through the article, certain aspects seem quite biased and the writing (with the exception of the criticism section) seems to only list positives. I've recommended the article for a POV check, and added a summary statement of criticisms to the lead. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ The edits since this topic was posted now appear to be fixed. Feel free to further the discussion if more is needed or by directly making new edits to the article. Adam MLIS (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)