Fishing for recognition: Understanding the use of NGO guidelines in fishery improvement projects

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThis study examines the use of non-governmental organization (NGO) guidelines in a fishery improvement project (FIP) in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery. FIPs recently emerged as a way to assist fisheries in reaching environmental sustainability. The Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions, a group of NGOs dedicated to seafood sustainability, created a set of guidelines for FIPs. These guidelines outline the process necessary for FIPs to receive market recognition as moving towards sustainability. Interviews with stakeholders and FIP documents were analyzed to understand how these guidelines are utilized in practice and how this helps fisheries progress toward sustainability. The guidelines focus on sustainability as defined by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification standard, though certification is not required. Though informants were interested in market benefits, none currently desired MSC certification. Informants were partially motivated by the potential to increase their power in the fishery management process. These motivations, in combination with a clear process to identify, address, and monitor improvement needs, aid progress toward sustainability. In addition, insufficient stakeholder identification and interaction has failed to ease tension among FIP stakeholders with a history of conflict over the fishery's management. However, this does not seem to hinder progress. Lastly, though many FIPs are led by NGOs, NGO participation is not required by the guidelines. Key informants identified NGO participation as helpful for providing knowledge, connecting them to other organizations, monitoring progress, and adding legitimacy to their work. Based on these results, recommendations for improvement and future research needs are identified.

The implementation of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification in Russia: Achievements and considerations

“…At present, several experts in Russia are familiar with the process and are ready to serve as a bridge between the MSC and CABs, on the one hand, and Russian fisheries and stakeholders, on the other. The MSC now has a special 15 See, for example: I. Vladimirov, Cod with white and blue emblem. Meeting in the Union of the Fishermen of the North on ecological certification of fisheries.…”

“…1) Market characteristics. Certification is more attractive to companies oriented to international markets, where eco-labeled products are more in demand than in domestic markets [14,15]. 2) Civil society characteristics.…”

“…There eNGOs often criticize fisheries for practices perceived as unsustainable, motivating them to make management and scientific improvements that could lead to certification [15,21]. At present, ideas about sustainability -related, for instance, to an internal sustainable market -are not sufficiently prevalent in Russia to justify putting such pressure on businesses.…”

“…As a result, the certified Barents Sea fisheries make considerable efforts to meet the MSC conditions via various collaborative activities with WWF and the Polar Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography. 15 It is also important to note that populations of the major commercial species are currently responding positively to warming temperatures, which are very pronounced in the area. Thus it is not easy to adequately estimate the effectiveness of Barents Sea management.…”

Trade intervention: Not a silver bullet to address environmental externalities in global aquaculture

“…There are also other ecolabels for farmed fish, for example, the Friend of the Sea and NaturLand are available for both wild and farmed seafood [57]. Economic incentives for ecolabeling include increased opportunities to enter higher-valued markets, and potentially higher ex-vessel prices [58][59][60][61].…”