January 2, 2014 — 8 powerful NGO’s have threatened to walk away from Walmart’s program unless it is made to resemble the scoring criteria of the NGO-founded ISEAL. ISEAL was specifically set up to by-pass WTO conflict of interest rules that would prohibit NGO advisors from being both standards developers and governors.
SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton [News Analysis] Jan 2, 2014 — Walmart has missed its self-imposed end of year deadline to review the sustainability criteria it is using for its seafood purchases.
At the same time, 8 powerful NGO’s have threatened to walk away from Walmart’s program unless it is made to resemble the scoring criteria of the NGO-founded ISEAL. ISEAL was specifically set up to by-pass WTO conflict of interest rules that would prohibit NGO advisors from being both standards developers and governors.
ISO-65, the internationally recognized standards organization set up by governments, requires that standards be developed and applied in a neutral and transparent way, with separation between the advocates – i. e. those wishing particular standards adopted, and the standards and certification body. The governance and criteria for whether a standard is met is completely separate from the committee that developed the standard. The reason is to prevent a company or organization from using the standards process to gain a competitive advantage.
For example – every cell phone has to meet numerous international signal and wireless standards; yet meeting these standards are judged in such a way that no company or organization can gain a competitive advantage. ISO-65 is designed to make a level playing field.
ISEAL was set up to get around this problem – because NGO’s wanted to both develop the standard and to control the governance of the standard as well. This keeps their role as gate-keeper intact, because they never allow the standard to be governed by independent body that may have its own interpretation. ISEAL began when the NGO’s wanted to establish a sustainable forestry standard, but did not want to accept ISO limitations on governance.
Last month, the WWF, EDF, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, Fishwise, the New England Aquarium, Monterey Bay, the Ecology Action Center and the Wild Salmon center, wrote a letter to Walmart and those developing the seafood standard saying they would not accept the general principles being developed because they did not conform to ISEAL.
The issue came up last summer when a Walmart buyer threatened not to purchase Alaska salmon unless it was MSC certified.
However, the vast majority of Alaska salmon packers (over 80%) have left the MSC program and endorsed a separate third party evaluation against FAO sustainability criteria called responsible fisheries management (RFM).
The possibility that companies like Sodexo, Walmart and government purchasing arms like the GSA and the National Park Service would boycott Alaska salmon because it was not sustainable enough sparked outrage and congressional hearings.
The result was first, Sodexo and Walmart pledged to continue their purchases of Alaskan seafood, and Walmart pledged to undertake a review of its seafood purchasing criteria to determine which certification programs they might support, including Alaska's RFM certification. The GSA and the national park service specifically prohibited vendors from limiting purchasing using private certification systems that undermined NOAA’s own science about the sustainability of US fisheries, and government purchasers agreed to follow NOAA’s lead in defining which US fisheries were sustainably managed.
Walmart began a review process in the fall through a group called The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) which is an umbrella group working to develop sustainability guidelines and a scoring system across all products. They added seafood to the group’s mandate for the first time.
The initial draft of principles endorsed by the TSC working group supported US fisheries management.
Among the criteria were science based methodology, a transparent public process involving multiple stakeholders, a mechanism to address problem areas around specific species or habitats, and a periodic review of the management system. All of these criteria are met by Alaska’s fishery management, and are certified by the 3rd party RFM scheme.
Although the principles grew more complex, by the third draft the NGO’s participating in the process were not satisfied, and pushed aggressively to assert NGO control over which fisheries would be acceptable.
They have now threatened to withdraw their support unless their ideas on NGO governance are adopted.
In their December 18th open letter, they say “while we are not opposed to the principles themselves, TSC principles do not at this time have the support of the conservation community signed below.”
The reasons they give and some of our comments are below:
Vagueness leads to a limit in application
As currently written, the principles are only broadly applicable to all types of sustainability tools and therefore so vague that they cannot effectively differentiate between programs and therefore more responsible practices and actors. We believe that the principles should serve as high-level guidance and not be used to determine the credibility of any particular program and/or the integrity of their standard(s). Credible programs should align with the TSC principles, but the TSC principles are not detailed or robust enough to serve as an evaluation framework to fully determine credibility or compliance with broadly accepted, baseline guidance on eco-certification such as that of the United Nations FAO.
Here they are arguing that a general list of what makes fisheries sustainable is not sufficient, but that an entire complex scoring system is needed before Walmart can make a purchasing decision.
Principles require further development to support sourcing decisions.
As they stand, the principles are open to interpretation, susceptible to incorrect analyses, and risk leading the user to make uninformed decisions when considering ways to reduce the impacts of seafood production on the environment. If the principles are intended to inform decision-making, thorough guidance and metrics must be developed by TSC before they are made available for use in order to ensure consistent, credible application. We ask that the road testing phase includes stakeholder consultation to review the application of the principles and results of the analysis.
Here the NGO’s want to manage a scoring process as mentioned above, so they can determine if the TSC program gives them the right answers – which are only acceptable if done through an outside experts scoring system.
Meaningful guidance should be provided by experts.
Due to rampant misinformation about various sustainability programs, it will be incredibly difficult for non-experts in sustainability programs and fisheries science to meaningfully analyze seafood programs against the principles. Expertise should instead be applied to the proper principles by a third party with experience in standards auditing, and the results then provided to interested companies for consideration.
This is the most shocking statement yet. The idea is that no ordinary person – even a trained fisheries manager or NOAA personnel can determine if a fishery is sustainable. Only a third party standards auditing body like Intertek Moody Marine would be acceptable. Such a demand makes any sustainability pledge a lie – if it cannot be simply demonstrated then it is not about sustainability, it is about perpetuating organizational power. Walmart should not fall for this blatant power grab.
Sustainability programs should be evaluated on both technical and process aspects.
Content-based issues (i. e., the aspects of sustainability covered by each program) must be incorporated into the principles in order for meaningful evaluation of various programs.
This is another control scheme. The NGO’s are saying here that an objective standard – i. e. fishing for 35 years below MSY – is not sufficient. Instead, a process aspect must be included as well. In their view, ISEAL, i.e. evaluation by those connected to the NGO’s who developed the standard, is the only acceptable outcome. For example, the MSC (which is judged credible by ISEAL, also helped create ISEAL and there are board members common to both organizations), would be acceptable here, but an ISO-65 body, with true independence, would not. Alaska’s RFM certification is certified by an ISO-65 accredited auditor.
Credible comparisons and guidance already exist.
Resources already exist that provide for the comparison and evaluation of seafood sustainability programs and were developed by experts using credible, science-based processes. These include the ISEAL Credibility Principles and the James Sullivan Consulting benchmarking study. using credible, science-based processes. These include the ISEAL Credibility Principles and the James Sullivan Consulting benchmarking study.
This is the heart of the matter: the NGO’s have already set up their own sustainability standards scheme, and anyone who wants an independent or more useable sustainability certification will be opposed. The studies referred to were not independent at all, but done by insiders, including the WWF, to achieve a predetermined result. The actual differences in programs in the study were almost exclusively due to 'governance' issues.
Due to this rebellion by the NGO’s, and the fact that there has been little industry input, the timetable for the TSC report has slipped.
Unfortunately, there is considerable pressure from the NGO community, including the Walton Foundation that funds many of these groups, to adopt an NGO-centric model of sustainability that requires NGO governance and gatekeeping functions.
However, Walmart as a business is facing a different decision. Do they, and by extension other buyers, really want to overthrow the successful US fisheries management system and replace it with a system only decipherable by NGO certified 'experts'.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, and NOAA’s implementation, have gone a long way to demonstrate true sustainability. Alaska fisheries are managed to these principles both at the state and federal level.
Through the council system, the science advisory panels, and the Alaska board of fish, there is unprecedented stakeholder opportunity and input on every fishery management issue. What the NGO’s cannot abide however, is that the outcome of these inputs is decided in a democratic vote, and sometimes those arguing for a particular outcome lose.
If such losses led to consistently and demonstrable failure – as is happening with some of the tuna RFMO’s, for example, the argument for a more stringent oversight system would be important.
But to argue that the most successfully managed fisheries in the world – the state and federal fisheries of Alaska, which have been sustainably harvested for generations, needs NGO oversight in order to be acceptable is an untenable political position.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski made this point in a recent letter to the new Walmart CEO, and undoubtedly other Senators will follow suit.
“… Sustainable use of our fisheries resources has been a fundamental principle, with the requirement that fisheries be well-managed imbedded in our State Constitution. Alaska has earned the reputation as the benchmark for fishery management, both at the state and federal level, and Alaskans are rightly proud of the seafood we produce,” she said in a letter to Doug McMillon.
The US spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fisheries science, management, and oversight and has a documented record of success. In addition the seafood industry contributes millions more to research and management. To throw this into question because it is not subject to an NGO veto is simply not a tenable commercial position.
NOAA also has to become more aggressive about defending its successful track record in the North Pacific. There is a comment system for regulations, and a very open system for participation in fisheries management, not to mention hundreds of lawsuits. NOAA has to tell NGO stakeholders that when a position is outvoted, but is consistent with the national standards and legal requirements of sustainability, it is not a problem. Rather the problem comes from the stakeholders who hold themselves exempt from the democratic process and are not willing to accept the consequences when their arguments fail. They need to make better arguments.
US buyers, including Walmart, benefit immensely from both Alaska and the US government’s commitment to build sustainable fisheries, and they should not throw over this system lightly. Yet that is what these NGO’s are asking Walmart and the TSC to do.
Lets hope cooler heads prevail, so we have an supply chain focused on sustainable harvests, not on enriching advisers.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.