You gotta love a science paper that has this quote: “if a person only has a hammer, every problem starts to resemble a nail”
Bey bro: Pretty much every Purse Seiner in the Pacific catching skipjack is MSC certified… so should be alright with this ones hei!
I had short but very interesting conversations with one of the authors of this paper, Megan Bailey (yet to know the others)… yet reading their paper seems like a familiar affair. I remember from ecology at university the concept of Guild, which is any group of species that exploit the same resources, or that exploit different resources in related ways.
I’m a very different species to Megan and the crew at her lab in the Marine Affairs Program of Dalhousie University, yet I see things in very similar ways in the ecolabels arena even if coming pretty much from the other end of the fisheries spectrum. And is a great feeling when you see own formed ideas about ecolabels from the operational area (I wrote a lot about that) coming in parallel to the ones they see in academia.
The paper also elaborates well on what relational seafood supply chains (RSSC) are, as it is a growing concept in the field and one that will metamorphosise in unexpected ways yet to be seem
As always, please read the original (this one is for free!!!) … I just quote the bits that hit me the most.
Abstract
Seafood certifications are a prominent tool being used to encourage sustainability in marine fisheries worldwide. However, questions about their efficacy remain the subject of ongoing debate. A main criticism is that they are not well suited for small‐scale fisheries or those in developing nations. This represents a dilemma because a significant share of global fishing activity occurs in these sectors. To overcome this shortcoming and others, a range of “fixes” have been implemented, including reduced payment structures, development of fisheries improvement projects, and head‐start programs that prepare fisheries for certification. These adaptations have not fully solved incompatibilities, instead of creating new challenges that have necessitated additional fixes. We argue that this dynamic is emblematic of a common tendency in natural resource management where particular tools and strategies are emphasized over the conservation outcomes they seek to achieve. This can lead to the creation of “hammers” in management and conservation. We use seafood certifications as an illustrative case to highlight the importance of diverse approaches to sustainability that do not require certification. Focusing on alternative models that address sustainability problems at the local level and increase fishers’ adaptive capacity, social capital, and agency through “relational” supply chains may be a useful starting point
Introduction
Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist from Columbia University, famously observed that if a person only has a hammer, every problem starts to resemble a nail. His point is that too much focus on a single instrument or approach is often problematic. A “hammer” can thus be defined as a tool or strategy that is excessively endorsed or deployed in situations where it is partially or wholly ineffectual. The hammer metaphor has been discussed in a range of contexts and disciplines, including within the realm of marine conservation (Koeller, 2011). Degnbol et al. (2006:535) equate hammers to a type of “tunnel vision,” theorizing that tools become hammers when problem solving occurs in disciplinary silos. We focus on the application of sustainable seafood certifications in marine fisheries and consider how certifications are becoming a contemporary hammer in the marine conservation and stewardship toolbox. Our intent is not to diminish the role that seafood certifications can play, since they have been shown to promote sustainability (Gutierrez et al., 2012). Rather by framing certifications as a potential type of hammer, we aim to bring greater attention to the importance of alternative approaches to sustainability that are distinct from as opposed to derivatives of them.
Expansion of Seafood Certifications
The theoretical basis for certifications is established on the idea that by differentiating “sustainable” seafood from “unsustainable” seafood, fishers that voluntarily engage in better fishing practices will be rewarded with higher prices for their catch. However, this economic incentive has not consistently materialized. Instead, consumers often express a preference for eco‐friendly seafood (Jaffry, Pickering, Ghulam, Whitmarsh, & Wattage, 2004; Wessell, Johnston, & Donath, 1999), but tend to be reluctant to pay more when they go shopping (Jonell, Crona, Brown, Rönnbäck, & Troell, 2016) or prefer locally branded products (McClenachan, Dissanayake, & Chen, 2016). Furthermore, price premiums that have been realized have not generally been distributed to fishers (Bellchambers, Phillips, & Pérez‐Ramírez, 2016; Pérez‐Ramírez, Castrejón, Gutiérrez, & Defeo, 2015). This makes the link between consumer behavior and economic reward for more sustainable production practices tenuous.
Although seafood certifications have other auxiliary benefits, including helping to better organize fisheries management, the gap between theory and practice has necessitated a range of “fixes” geared toward sustaining and increasing participation (Figure 1). Barclay and Miller (2018), for example, point out that the incentive structure for certifications has changed from one based on reward to one based on penalty. This shift is often interpreted as coercion by the fishing sector, which is reflected in the testimony provided by a fishing representative during a hearing on seafood certifications in the United States convened by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee: “We are participating in an MSC evaluation,” states the representative “… because we feel we've been forced into it” (MAFAC 2013: 102). The reorientation of certifications from reward to penalty has been facilitated, in part, by the emergence of alliances between nongovernmental organizations and large retail companies. Through these partnerships, major retailers such as Wal‐Mart that control many consumers’ access to food pledge to source exclusively from certified fisheries, whereby closing off markets to those who are not certified (Ponte, 2012).
Figure 1: Seafood certification programs are theorised to incentivise sustainable fishing practices by way of financial reward. However, certifications have not consistently created financial benefits for fishers. To address the misalignment between theory and practice, a series of “fixes” have been implemented (solid line) or proposed (dotted line), which have created their own challenges. Despite these investments, the success of seafood certifications remains the subject of ongoing debate
Using a conservation tool as a hammer
There is nothing inherently problematic with making deep investments in conservation tools. However, in the case of seafood certifications, these investments are being made despite legitimate concerns about their efficacy and execution (see Wijen & Chiroleu‐Assouline, 2019 for an overview). Furthermore, there is a general consensus that certifications do not work well in small‐scale fisheries or developing world contexts (see Gulbrandsen, 2010 for an overview). Indeed, despite targeted efforts to encourage these sectors to participate, only 8% of the fisheries that are certified by MSC come from developing countries (Duggan & Kochen 2016) and in regions like Latin America and the Caribbean only 4% of fisheries are certified (Pérez‐Ramírez et al., 2015). This represents a significant gap considering an estimated 37 million people participate in small‐scale fisheries (FAO 2012).
Moving beyond hammers
Recognizing that no one approach or strategy will be a panacea to global challenges or complex issues, caution should be taken in trying to apply useful conservation tools, such as seafood certifications or relational seafood supply chains (RSSC) , too broadly. While our focus in this paper is on seafood certifications, we posit that there are likely other hammers being used in fisheries and other natural resource sectors. Avoiding this tendency will require greater investments in designing, testing, and promoting alternative and legitimate approaches that offer solutions for the diversity of fisheries in operation today, and those that will emerge in the future.