The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute's "own, locally developed scheme" for certifying fisheries is not comparable to the Marine Stewardship Council's "global standard," the London-based MSC says.
MSC certification catalyzed the long crawl out of the economic salmon dungeon toward the ever more lucrative markets we are enjoying today. The beneficiaries of this regulatory gutting are the big packersand their lobbyists. Too many independent marketers nibbling at their margins. Too much money being paid at the docks due to increased competition. I hope the antitrust folks investigate this sooner than later. How much you skim off this one BT?
Everyone knows that Branch office at the The Hague, is a little close to home for Petersburg Packing.
The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.
CHIEF PP; genetic inbreeding and NOT A PENNY worth of Darwin's science required.
SP+SP=Short Pee Pee
And the PEBBLE PARTNERSHIP, including the new and improved; Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act: where we never met a sea lion, a whale, a beluga, a Albatross, or a Salmon
Global Standards, from the Trailer Trash Party; secret code for another Sewer Pipe Leak SP=SP.
"MSC and others are concerned about schemes that are not scientifically credible, rigorous, independent, and third-party, because of their potential to undermine real environmental change. With no reference to any specific fishery intended, an industry-led standard cannot achieve the level of independence, scientific rigor and credibility that ensures that fisheries are genuinely sustainable."
It is interesting that the Hague is pioneering an "Environmental Law Facility".The effects of environmental devastation parallel the destruction of war. And the death of an ecosystem has equally negative human fallout.It's believed we're a generation or two away from actual war crimes trials for such violations of human environmental rights. But conceivably, trawlers clear cutting the seas today could end up being extremely cautious about which national jurisdiction the dwell or visit in their old age. We are moving now in Alaska from a science based certification system to one based on politics.It appears between the end of one inspection regime and the beginning of the next we'll have virtually nothing. If the state is serious about alternate methods it would be wiser to continue MSC for 5 more years until an authentic, peer reviewed process can be devised.And the politics behind the current regulatory regime shift can be fully explored by investigative journalism.
Marine Stewardship Council Sustainability Certifcation is junk. Similar situation to Moody's and Standard & Poor's AAA rating of mortgage backed securities in 2009. The MSC staff are the pawns of their clients. Anybody rating BSAI Pollock Trawl as Sustainable loses their credibility permanently.
So yeah, let's replace a recognized worldwide standard for 131 fisheries by one designed by a bunch of local yokels nobody takes seriously for one fishery.
Ex vessel value of Alaska salmon in 2011, about 610 million dollars. As MSC labeling is placed further down the sales trail the value at that point is perhaps 3 billion dollars.One half of one percent of that, MSC's fee is fifteen million, give or take. While it's a negligible percentage of dock sales, it's something exporters and importers would prefer to repatriate under a proprietary scheme. Can they create a substitute that gives global markets the same assurance as the status quo? On very short notice? I doubt it. Can they loose important markets? Yes
for the record even with exisiting MSC certification, the 3rd party FAO/ISO accreditation process took more than two years to complete and can provide all the assurances that the status quo can. It can be done as well without any where near the costs, in all forms
MSC certification catalyzed the long crawl out of the economic salmon dungeon toward the ever more lucrative markets we are enjoying today. The beneficiaries of this regulatory gutting are the big packersand their lobbyists. Too many independent marketers nibbling at their margins. Too much money being paid at the docks due to increased competition. I hope the antitrust folks investigate this sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteHow much you skim off this one BT?
Everyone knows that Branch office at the The Hague, is a little close to home for Petersburg Packing.
ReplyDeleteThe Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.
Petersburg Packing;
ReplyDeleteQueen Palin,
King Parnell,
CHIEF PP; genetic inbreeding and NOT A PENNY worth of Darwin's science required.
SP+SP=Short Pee Pee
And the PEBBLE PARTNERSHIP, including the
new and improved;
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act:
where we never met a sea lion, a whale, a beluga, a Albatross, or a Salmon
Global Standards, from the Trailer Trash Party; secret code for another Sewer Pipe Leak SP=SP.
"MSC and others are concerned about schemes that are not scientifically credible, rigorous, independent, and third-party, because of their potential to undermine real environmental change. With no reference to any specific fishery intended, an industry-led standard cannot achieve the level of independence, scientific rigor and credibility that ensures that fisheries are genuinely sustainable."
It is interesting that the Hague is pioneering an "Environmental Law Facility".The effects of environmental devastation parallel the destruction of war. And the death of an ecosystem
ReplyDeletehas equally negative human fallout.It's believed we're a generation or two away from actual war crimes trials for such violations of human environmental rights. But conceivably, trawlers clear cutting the seas today could end up being extremely cautious about which national jurisdiction the dwell or visit in their old age.
We are moving now in Alaska from a science based certification system to one based on politics.It appears between the end of one inspection regime and the beginning of the next we'll have virtually nothing. If the state is serious about alternate methods it would be wiser to continue MSC for 5 more years until an authentic, peer reviewed process can be devised.And the politics behind the current regulatory regime shift can be fully explored by investigative journalism.
What a joke. They're just modern highway tax collectors. Pedal to the metal, tell your own story, sell the product.
ReplyDeleteNext!
Pocket the tax yourself?While buying in the basement?Just when markets are zooming?
ReplyDeleteMarine Stewardship Council Sustainability Certifcation is junk. Similar situation to Moody's and Standard & Poor's AAA rating of mortgage backed securities in 2009. The MSC staff are the pawns of their clients. Anybody rating BSAI Pollock Trawl as Sustainable loses their credibility permanently.
ReplyDelete^^^not to mention the trawl fishery for flats, certified by MSC in 2010.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, let's replace a recognized worldwide standard for 131 fisheries by one designed by a bunch of local yokels nobody takes seriously for one fishery.
ReplyDeleteEx vessel value of Alaska salmon in 2011, about 610 million dollars. As MSC labeling is placed further down the sales trail the value at that point is perhaps 3 billion dollars.One half of one percent of that, MSC's fee is fifteen million, give or take. While it's a negligible percentage of dock sales, it's something exporters and importers would prefer to repatriate under a proprietary scheme. Can they create a substitute that gives global markets the same assurance as the status quo? On very short notice? I doubt it. Can they loose important markets? Yes
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more with the MSC v. MBS. Using history as a guide, I guess that means it's time to BUY alaskan salmon?
ReplyDeletefor the record even with exisiting MSC certification, the 3rd party FAO/ISO accreditation process took more than two years to complete and can provide all the assurances that the status quo can. It can be done as well without any where near the costs, in all forms
ReplyDeleteBut MSC is built into the supply chain of many prime markets. It's a bit late to reinvent the wheel.
ReplyDeleteSince Wes won't allow comments on the Sitka Herring Blog post we'll just put it on here.
ReplyDeleteEHS
EHS
EHS
EHS
EHS
Well said my comrade!
ReplyDeleteEquality for the masses.
Red herring for sale.
EHS or suffer the consequences
ReplyDeleteTime to call buyout Bobby. Competition is soooo unfair.
ReplyDeletese buyback list on www.seiners.net
ReplyDelete