New research published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science shows that fisheries certified to the MSC Standard can improve knowledge about marine ecosystems. It also demonstrates the importance of government regulation and industry investment to support sustainable fishing.
The paper, Eco-labelled fisheries mitigate bycatch and habitat impacts by improving data collection and quality, represents the first global analysis of the actions fisheries took to improve their performance after certification to the MSC Standard.
The MSC program incentivises continual improvement in environmental performance through a condition-setting mechanism. Conditions are issued when a fishery meets the sustainability requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard but requires improved performance in specific areas. To close these conditions, fisheries often seek innovative solutions, investing in new technology or data gathering techniques.
The MSC Fisheries Standard examines fisheries’ performance not just in relation to fish stocks but also how fishing operations might impact the wider ecosystem. Therefore, it is important to understand conditions around ecosystem impacts. The new research, led by MSC scientist Samantha Lees, analysed 324 bycatch and habitat conditions closed between 2000 and 2018.
Finding 1. Data first: certified fisheries are building knowledge about ocean ecosystems
A large amount of information is needed to assess fisheries' impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. Certified fisheries must show, with scientific evidence, that they minimise impacts on other species and habitats. High-quality, independently verified bycatch data is still lacking across much of the world, so evidence gathering by fisheries certified to the MSC Standard can be an effective way to make tangible improvements.
Of the 514 actions taken when closing these conditions, 83% involved improving information gathering, quality or use. Collecting reliable data generates scientific knowledge that often extends beyond the certified fishery.
The West Greenland cold water prawn fishery, for example, closed a habitat condition by funding an assessment that included mapping the diversity of the region's seabed invertebrates. The map can be used by all fisheries in the region - not just those in the MSC program – to avoid vulnerable marine ecosystems.
Finding 2. Proof, not promises - monitoring can show impacts are within limits
The actions that fisheries took on research (24%), monitoring (47%) and impact assessment (15%) typically demonstrated that they met the Standard and were not significantly impacting bycatch species.
Australia's Shark Bay prawn fishery, for example, lacked species-level catch data for sea snakes, so its impact on these threatened species could not be estimated. Working with government, the fishery introduced a Crew Member Observer Program, with fishers trained in the identification, safe handling and reporting of sea snakes.
The data collected showed the fishery met the Standard's requirements and was not causing irreversible harm to these protected species.
Finding 3. Very few changes to gear or fishing technique are needed to close conditions
Fisheries significantly impacting bycatch or habitats to the degree that major technical and management changes are required would not be certifiable in the first place. The changes to fishing gear and techniques that fisheries made when closing conditions were generally small and limited in scope.
The US West Coast pink shrimp trawl fishery, for example, simply installed LED lighting on trawl net foot ropes across 100% of its vessels, after research found this small change would cut unwanted catch of endangered candlefish by about 90% and bycatch of other species by 56%–82%.
Finding 4. Industry is funding its own improvement, with governments acting at scale
Certified fisheries were the most frequent funders and implementers of changes that were specific to them (66%). This suggests certified fisheries and industry are improving their sustainability performance from within, not just through external regulation. Governments were most frequently involved in actions that affected fisheries at a wider scale (58%), commonly working in unison with fisheries and industry.
As an example, the Norwegian Government changed its regulations on fisheries reporting encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats. Complying with these regulations was considered sufficient evidence that the UK Fisheries Ltd/DFFU/Doggerbank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery was highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm. This meant the fishery could close a habitat condition that had been issued against its certificate.
Finding 5. Certification is a starting point, not a finish line
To keep up to date with the best practice widely adopted in sustainable fishing, fisheries may need to make further improvements to increase their performance and maintain their certificate status, regardless of whether they have closed conditions in an earlier assessment cycle.
Even some of the world's best performing fisheries - those that can pass the MSC Fisheries Standard - can improve further and continue to do so after certification.
