Will International Markets Protect Africa`s Oceans From Over-Fishing?
blurb:isstoday:250808fishing
26 August 2008: Will International Markets Protect Africa’s Oceans From Over-Fishing?
Consumers in Europe and North America are gradually realizing the magnitude of over-fishing occurring in the world’s oceans. Unless drastic measures are taken, eating fish that is not certified as being eco-friendly, will become less and less fashionable, or affordable. In the past few years, large retailers, including Walmart and Waitrose, have pledged to sell only those products that come from ‘sustainable’ fisheries, those that don’t deplete fish stocks and cause irreversible damage to the marine ecosystem. We have seen the success of dolphin-friendly tuna campaigns, and now there are several organizations providing eco-labels for fish products. One of the leading organizations providing these certifications is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), developed by the World Wildlife Foundation.
Although the growth in demand for certified fish has been remarkable in the last five years –MSC has experienced near 100% growth in the last year and the vale of fish products bearing the MSC is logo is almost $1billion – this is still an emerging market. It remains to be seen if buying eco-labeled fish will become sufficiently popular in North America and Europe, as well as in other key areas of the world. Nevertheless, the trend is blowing over to African fishing companies. For many African exporters, gaining an internationally recognized eco-label offers the promise of premium prices and preferential market access. Indeed, if enough consumers want to buy fish responsibly, some fish exporters may find that gaining the right certification will be vital for survival and growth.
That more African fisheries are interested in certification is evident by the recent opening of a Marine Stewardship Council office in Cape Town. However, to date only one fishery in Southern and Eastern Africa has been given their stamp of approval, the South African deep-sea hake fishery. Others are undergoing the lengthy process, which starts with a pre-assessment, a full in-depth evaluation, several stakeholder meetings and regular re-assessments to make sure the label remains valid.
The costs of certification are born by the industry itself, and success is determined largely by fishing companies considering this a good investment. The process is not cheap, and this is necessary to ensure the highest standards. Yet high costs to gain an eco-label has been criticized as a barrier to small-scale fisheries, those involving people and companies without access to thousands of dollars to pay for the necessary technical evaluations. To some extent this is a valid criticism, but there are innovative ways smaller companies can compete, such as accessing funds from foreign donors. Indeed, the World Wildlife Fund offers subsidies to the right client. Moreover, for the time being the independent firms conducting evaluations are all from the developed world and they charge accordingly. There is sufficient expertise for homegrown companies to offer the same service for a much more reasonable fee.
Funding certification schemes is just one of the challenges behind the success of organizations such as MSC. Another lies in the simple fact that too few African fisheries currently meet even the most rudimentary standards of responsible fishing. We may assume that large buyers in Europe and North America, wary of bad publicity, will not be satisfied with token labels and want to be assured that what is labeled sustainable and environmentally friendly meets strict criteria. However, hope lies in the potential of certification schemes to help key fisheries reform. Certification is not simply about giving the stamp of approval to an already clean fishery, it is very much a process. This may begin with an imperfect fishery only to end with one that operates much better.
For this process to work a vital condition is positive participation by governments. Every fishery that is certified must operate in an environment of sound and predictable governance. Artisanal prawn fishing companies in Madagascar, to take an imaginary example, will not want to pay for certification if their government decides to increase the number of license holders or allow more foreign trawlers to operate in their waters. Likewise, certification bodies should take a dim view of systemic corruption and malpractice involving key government officials - a problem that exists in too many countries. But here again, certification schemes may help drive reform. Perhaps with increased monetary incentive, some fisheries sectors will place more demands for better governance or learn to work more closely with officials. Here, however, lies the fundamental paradox, or ‘tension’, to certification schemes.
If African states where able to offer excellent governance and ensure responsible fisheries management, then there should be no need for voluntary certification schemes at all. Indeed, critics may argue that the emergence of voluntary market-led initiatives may further undermine or weaken the role of the state as guardians of a country’s natural resources. Perhaps. Yet those impatient for sustainable fishing may be unwilling to wait any longer for states to do their job effectively. The reason why there is a need for eco-labels is ultimately because in large areas of the ocean, states have failed to enforce the rules, whether this is caused by lack of funding, capacity, or otherwise.
Thus, voluntary market-led initiatives may be a viable alternative, even if it is not the best option. Just how heavily we should rely on consumer demand and free market mechanisms to save Africa’s oceans, remains a matter for further debate and reflection. In the short term at least, environmentalists and fishermen may have good reason to feel positive about the growth of rigorous certification schemes in the region. How many will make the grade remains to be seen. Too few positive results may offer a depressing prognosis.
Dr André Standing, Senior Researcher, Corruption and Governance Programme, ISS Cape Town
