IFCNR's Weekly Blog - Summer 2009

THE PROs & CONs OF THE NEW AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

The announcement this past January of the formation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) promised to bring with it a mix of hope and controversy. The hope is that ASC would shepherd global standards for responsible seafood farming and audit aquaculture ventures for compliance once the organization becomes fully functioning within the next two years. The controversy began with a letter of protest signed last week by 70 international environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

ASC is the offspring of the series of Aquaculture Dialogues conducted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). It is based on other "third party" industry monitoring groups - the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the older Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) - founded by WWF.

The controversy dogging ASC is very much like a tropical storm swirling about the Caribbean until it becomes a hurricane. Its intensity portends ominous times ahead for ASC.

The NGO distrust of the formation of ASC brings to the fore some legitimate concerns and some not so hidden agenda items aimed at WWF's long term relationship with the administration of the organization.

The most legitimate concern voiced by the WWF's NGO opposition is the potential for commercial interests with a history of callous disregard of the environment in pursuit of profits seeking to hide destructive business-as-usual practices with a micro-thin cover of sustainability purchased, not earned, via a cozy dollar-based relationship between industry and credible but ever-funding hungry environmental groups. It's a fear based on a well-documented tradition of ignoring the finite nature of commercial marine resources. The image of corporations cutting corners on quality while ignoring the plight of their workers and their negative effect on the environment in their pursuit of profits also resonates with a sizable segment of the public and builds corporate distrust.

The NGOs fear that a less than arms length relationship between for-profit corporations and WWF will result in scenarios where unsustainable and environmentally damaging practices will be swept under the carpet and that corrupt corporations will coax their NGO "partners" to cloak them in the perception of being environmentally friendly.

Environmental treachery by industry rogues plundering marine and terrestrial resources are plentiful: illegally caught and marketed Chilean sea bass, grouper, undersized lobsters, tropical hardwoods illegally cut from South America and Pacific island nations are but a few.

Level One of the forming storm approaching ASC stems from the innate hatred of all things pertaining to aquaculture harbored by the more radical environmental groups. Predictably the NGO protest letter objected to WWF's collaboration with aquaculture practitioners like Marine Harvest and food service provider Sysco.

In the rush to control market share, seafood enterprises quickly recognized the growing concern among consumers that what they purchase should come from environmentally sustainable, Earth-friendly sources. A third party eco-label just might tip a purchase away from the "non-certified" competition. WWF's MSC offered its eco stamp of approval. Industry itself seized on the idea and formed its own "third party" certifiers.

The International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR) recognized the fatal flaw in both. Neither side is truly objective. Each has its own agenda. Just as the seafood industry wants to increase profits, too often at any cost to the planet, so too has the NGO community a track record of deliberate misinformation regarding the status of certain seafood stocks.

A case in point was the Atlantic seafood campaign orchestrated by PEW and other NGOs. Atlantic swordfish stocks were well on their way back from the stress of overfishing thanks to measures imposed by regional and national government regulatory bodies. Yet consumers were told to boycott swordfish because of its endangered status. Later NGO spokesmen admitted they chose the big fish as a symbol to raise awareness of overfishing in general. They ignored its true status. Still they claimed credit for "saving" the species. The public and Nature's wild resources deserve a truly objective arbiter of what seafood is or is not eco-friendly. As a result IFCNR looked to a credible source whose only interest is the securing of a world food supply sufficient to meet the global population's nutritional needs, namely, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. IFCNR's behind-the-scenes efforts convinced FAO that such certification was indeed within its purview.

The line-up of NGOs behind the initial letter of protest is a who's who of salmon and shrimp farm opponents. Mangrove Action Project, an Earth Island Institute (EII) offshoot, is the most vocal of the 70 signatories. One layer removed is the Industrial Shrimp Action Network (ISA Net) whose name evokes an earlier time in NGO anti-aquaculture activity. ISA Net was formed in 1997 by MAP; its fellow EII colleague, the Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP); Greenpeace; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Environmental Defense; Canada's Sierra Club; and WWF.

Shortly thereafter, WWF embarked upon a campaign to act as the seafood industry's third party watchdog via formation of the Marine Stewardship Council. MAP, STRP and others continued to hector shrimp and salmon farming demanding their end as enemies of the environment with the most radical openly espousing an anti-corporate/anti-capitalism ideology.

Once MSC proved successful in attracting various capture fisheries to obtain an MSC seal of approval, its NGO rivals moved in. By 2004, EII joined a bevy of PEW created NGO front groups to wrestle control of MSC from WWF. PEW, with its billions in escrowed capital, prevailed leaving WWF administrators out in the cold.

That WWF might seek wealthy allies from industry to block a similar palace coup once ASC becomes operational should not come as a surprise. Still from the credibility point of view, WWF is undermining ASC's credibility by fostering too close a relationship with Sysco, Marine Harvest or any other member of the farmed seafood industry. Certainly they can seek information and guidance from those engaged in the business of aquaculture just as they can seek advice from the biologists, environmental scientists, and even other NGOs.

But, the NGO community is correct in cautioning WWF from getting too close to industry. The case could be made that ASC would be the worst of the NGO and industry worlds trying to cater to both while delivering nothing in return for consumers or aquaculture. IFCNR's position on the subject remains unchanged. IFCR believes that industry should make environmental sustainability and social justice an integral part of all of its operations and corporate policy. It's called "ethical capitalism" where economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice are exercised in every corporate action.

Industry maintains its position is to provide via profits capitol that allows employees and their families to be clothed, educated, provided health care, sheltered, fed and thrive for generations. NGOs seek to end damage to the environment and to wild resources as well as to find ways for indigenous people to share as peers in economic opportunity. Their goals are the same. The difference is that "ethical capitalism" via profit generation can provide the hard currency necessary to make those aspirations reality. Government or religious handouts are not sustainable. Ethical capitalism is.

Only when commercial interests espouse IFCNR's concept of "ethical capitalism" will resource-reliant corporations stand as true independent and equal peers to environmental NGOs. Anything less suggests an unsavory relationship may well be hidden from sight. This is not to suggest that Sysco does or does not pass the sustainability and social justice test in its behavior. It is an attempt to explain the NGO-harbored suspicions.

It is possible that WWF is reaching out to industry for all the right reasons. It is also possible that WWF's relations with commercial interests is generated by a desire to have wealthy friends to block any future attempt to PEW or its NGO allies from muscling WWF out of ASC. Whatever the dynamic at work the next few years will be a "wait and see" period during which the nature of ASC will evolve for better or worse.