1

Evidence for effects of seafood ecolabeling on managing fisheries’ ecosystem impacts

Abstract 1

Fishing impacts aquatic biodiversity through direct capture, physical disturbance and indirect 2

ecosystem effects. Sustainability certification and ecolabeling schemes are one approach that aims 3

to mitigate biodiversity impacts by incentivizing sustainable practices in the fishing industry. 4

However, due to challenges in data availability and quality, it is difficult to gather robust, large-scale 5

evidence of whether these programs are incentivizing change. Here we assess whether one of the 6

largest seafood ecolabeling programs, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), plays a role in 7

advancing mitigation of fisheries impacts on bycatch species and benthic habitats. Around 90% of all 8

MSC certified fisheries are required to take actions to improve their performance to ‘best practice’ in 9

order to maintain their certificate, which are documented through public reports. Improvements 10

made between 2002 and 2015 were analyzed to identify types of initiatives taken and the likelihood 11

that the MSC played a role in incentivizing them. 82% of changes contributing to increased 12

sustainability performance were information-related, i.e., implementing new research, monitoring 13

systems, or impact assessments. For at least half of these fisheries, MSC certification is likely to have 14

provided an incentive to implement change, although this may be a conservative estimate. This new 15

insight into the role of private certification initiatives in bolstering management of fisheries’ 16

environmental impacts can provides a transparent and reproducible basis for future impact 17

evaluations of sustainability standards, and inform wider strategies for implementation of 18

ecosystem-based fisheries management. 19

Introduction 20

Fishing impacts marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning through direct effects on harvested 21

and non-target species, disturbance to seabed structure, and indirect effects reverberating through 22

the food-web (Jennings & Kaiser 1998; Halpern et al. 2008; Longo et al. 2015; FAO 2016). Bycatch 23

from fishing is one of the greatest global threats to marine species of conservation concern, such as 24

2

mammals, birds and reptiles (Lascelles et al. 2014; Lewison et al. 2014). Marine habitats have been a 25

focus for conservation since the release of UN General Assembly resolution 61/105, which called on 26

states to prevent significant adverse impacts to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the deep 27

sea (UN General Assembly 2006). 28

Addressing these threats by adopting an Ecosystem-Based approach to Fisheries Management 29

(EBFM) is a widely recognized need, not only to minimize biodiversity impacts, but also for the long-30

term sustainability of fisheries themselves (Garcia et al. 2003; Fogarty 2014). Despite progress in 31

embedding ecosystem-based strategies in several countries’ management (Ruckelshaus et al. 2008; 32

Leslie & McLeod 2011; Berg et al. 2015; Longo et al. 2015), there remain several challenges to 33

implementation of EBFM, such as management cost, and inertia to change (Garcia et al. 2003, 2014; 34

Tallis et al. 2010; Fogarty 2014; Soomai 2017). However, change can also be driven by the fishing 35

industry, through economic and reputational incentives such as ecolabeling. 36

Here we investigate the role of an internationally recognized sustainability standard and ecolabeling 37

program, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), in incentivising fisheries to better monitor and 38

mitigate their environmental impacts. Although ecosystem effects of fishing are wide ranging, we 39

chose to focus on benthic community impacts and direct mortality of bycatch species because these 40

are common conservation concerns for commercial fisheries, and are explicitly addressed in sections 41

of the MSC Standard for Sustainable Fishing. 42

The MSC was established to provide a market-based incentive for wild capture fisheries to adopt 43

sustainable practices, by recognizing products from certified fisheries with an ecolabel. The MSC 44

Fishery Standard was based on the principles laid out in the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for 45

Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995), operationalising EBFM into a set of clearly auditable Performance 46

Indicators (PIs) (Agnew & Gutiérrez 2013). These PIs are grouped into three principles: the first 47

defines the heath of the stock being certified (P1); the second evaluates fishery impacts on non-48

certified species, habitats, and ecosystems (P2); and the third evaluates fishery-specific management 49

3

and governance (P3) (MSC 2014). A fishery wishing to become certified is audited by an 50

independent, accredited, third party certification body (CAB), that scores it according to the 51

certification requirements. 52

To become certified, a fishery must reach a minimum performance level in all PIs, and the average 53

performance within each Principle must reach best practice. For each PI where performance has not 54

reached best practice, the fishery is assigned a ‘Condition of Certification’, and must develop an 55

action plan to ‘close’ the condition by the end of its 5-year certification period. Action plans are 56

vetted by the CAB, and progress is reported annually in Surveillance Audits. If any condition is not 57

closed within the agreed period, the fishery loses its certification. 58

The aims of this study are twofold: (i) to describe the changes made by certified fisheries to meet 59

best practice; and (ii) to assess the evidence that these changes were in any part incentivized by the 60

MSC certification process. 61

Other evaluations of the effectiveness of MSC certification in mitigating ecosystem impacts exist in 62

peer-reviewed literature (Agnew et al. 2006; Kaiser & Edwards-Jones 2006; Martin et al. 2012; 63

Bellchambers et al. 2014, 2016; Selden et al. 2016). Establishing clearly whether MSC certification is 64

an important driver of change has always been a challenge, as certification is one of many drivers, 65

and data comparing unintended fishery impacts for both certified and uncertified fisheries is often 66

difficult to obtain (Martin et al. 2012; Selden et al. 2016). This study explores a larger set of fisheries 67

than was available for earlier studies, describes actions in detail (rather than just scores), and 68

provides an approach to determine the attribution of causality using an explicit framework of 69

categorical variables. In doing so, we try to shed light on the role of voluntary certification 70

programs, such as the MSC, in shifting fisheries towards sustainable, ecosystem-based management 71

practices, even when conventional management bodies may not be driving such changes. 72

4

Methods 73

Using MSC Public Certification Reports and Surveillance Audit reports as data sources, we identified 74

all fisheries which had been assigned conditions relevant to bycatch and habitats impacts, and which 75

had closed these conditions before the end of 2015 (Supporting Information). MSC PIs each have a 76

code, beginning with the Principle number. Most fisheries included in this analysis used the MSC 77

Fisheries Standard v1.3; under this version, PIs relevant to bycatch and habitats are 2.2.1 through 78

2.4.3 (Supporting Information). Relevant conditions from fisheries using previous Standard versions 79

were also included, although the PI codes differ. 80

Actions to meet MSC standards can happen both before and after certification (Martin et al. 2012); 81

the current study focuses only on changes made during certification in response to specific 82

Conditions of Certification, as these are described in detail and tracked through time in certification 83

documents. 84

The analyses to address the study aims were progressed in two stages. Firstly, the activities recorded 85

by certifiers to meet the conditions of certification were organized into categories, enabling us to 86

describe and quantify the changes made by certified fisheries. Secondly, we constructed a set of 87

criteria to determine the likelihood that the MSC played some role in incentivizing those changes, 88

and applied these criteria to all fisheries in the sample. 89

For the purposes of this study we define a ‘fishery’ as all fishing operations linked to a single MSC 90

certificate. A certificate may apply to multiple gears, target species, or fishing companies. We use 91

this definition because changes to all the operations under a certificate are usually necessary to 92

meet best practice performance for a PI. 93

Content Analysis 94

We defined 5 high-level categories for actions taken to close conditions, and 34 more specific action 95

sub-categories that had similar objectives, effort, and types of expertise involved (Table 1). These 96

5

categories were based on a qualitative content analysis of rationales for condition closure, given in 97

Surveillance Audit report and in supplementary documents cited by CABs. Content analysis is an 98

inductive process of identifying thematic patterns in text; although it has been more commonly used 99

in social and behavioural sciences, this approach can be used to ‘code’ any type of text into 100

categories for analysis (Neuendorf 2017). This approach was selected because we wanted to 101

describe the ways in which certified fisheries change to meet the MSC requirements, rather than 102

test a preconceived hypothesis of the types of expected change (Shannon & Hsieh 2005). 103

The list of categories was considered complete when new fisheries’ actions could consistently be 104

allocated to one of the categories already defined. 105

Attribution of Causality 106

We selected three categorical descriptors that we consider to be indicators of likelihood that MSC 107

played any contributing role in incentivising a given action. To have a transparent and reproducible 108

approach, we only considered descriptors that could be gleaned from reading MSC fishery reports, 109

or publicly available supporting documents. These were (1) the scale of change, (2) the source of 110

funding (for information-related actions), and (3) responsibility for implementation (for 111

management-related actions) (Table 2). Timing could not be used to determine causality, as all 112

changes cited in closure rationales are of necessity made within the five-year window of 113

certification. 114

We then devised a qualitative method that, based on the values of all three descriptors, determined 115

whether there was strong, some or insufficient evidence to reject the baseline assumption (or null 116

hypothesis) that MSC had no role in incentivising the action observed. Where the value of one or 117

more descriptors was missing, evidence was also categorized as insufficient. Thus, our analysis 118

provides a conservative estimate of MSC’s role in driving changes. 119

6

The observed scale of activities was either specific to the certified fishery, for example an analysis of 120

logbook data from certified vessels; or applied to a wider set of fisheries, for example a regional 121

biodiversity assessment. Fishery-specific actions were considered more likely to be related to 122

certification, as the MSC Standard only requires compliance by the company(ies) being assessed for 123

certification (hereafter referred to as the fishery client), not, for example, by an entire fleet or 124

region. However, actions specific to a certified fishery were not, on their own, sufficient to indicate 125

causality, as client fisheries could receive individual attention from fisheries managers or other 126

NGOs. 127

Where research was funded by the MSC client, rather than any other actor such as government, 128

NGOs, or academia, this was considered to provide evidence for causality because it suggested the 129

initiative was taken by the fishery itself, and only by the portion of the fleet that was certified. The 130

group of people carrying out the research was considered immaterial, as fishery clients often pay for 131

consultants or academic researchers to conduct research. These considerations apply to both 132

Research and Impact Assessment action categories. Similarly, in the case of Technical, Governance 133

or Monitoring actions, changes enacted by the MSC fishery client were considered to provide some 134

evidence for causality. The MSC is a voluntary program which engages with private companies, 135

therefore we considered it more likely that fishery-specific changes, where the company had direct 136

control, would be related to certification. Changes enacted by management agencies, or even by 137

larger industry groups where some of the members were not certified, were considered less likely to 138

be related to certification, as some or all of the actors responsible for implementation were not 139

involved with, and did not have anything to gain from, MSC certification. 140

We required that two causality factors be present for an action to have ‘some evidence’ to reject the 141

null hypothesis. Where only factor pointed to MSC as the driver, or where one of the factors was not 142

described (e.g. where the source of funding was unclear), evidence was considered insufficient to 143

reject the null hypothesis. In a small number of cases, causality was directly addressed in the 144

7

documents reviewed. Where the MSC was explicitly cited as being a driver for change, this provided 145

‘strong evidence’ to reject the null hypothesis, regardless of other factors (Table 2). 146

Results 147

A total of 247 distinct actions were carried out by 74 fisheries to close conditions relating to the MSC 148

bycatch and habitats requirements between 2002 and 2015. 131 of these related to bycatch, and 149

119 related to impacts on aquatic habitats (a small number of actions related to both types of 150

environmental impact). 151

Bycatch 152

Most actions undertaken by fisheries to close bycatch conditions were within the Monitoring 153

category (60%), followed by Impact assessment (16%), Technical measures (12%), Research (11%), 154

and Governance (1%) categories (Fig. 1). Within the high-level category Monitoring, most fisheries 155

(22) implemented self-reporting systems to track direct impacts on bycatch species, such as self-156

declarations of electronic logbooks. Fifteen fisheries required implementation or increase of 157

observer coverage. 14 fisheries implemented sampling programs for bycatch or discards, usually in 158

collaboration with management agencies or researchers (Table 3). Other actions undertaken in this 159

category related to improving the quality of fishery-dependent data, often in combination with 160

actions on implementing self-reporting. For example, eight fisheries developed new species ID 161

guides, and training was provided for identification and/or handling of bycatch species in three 162

fisheries. 163

Within the Impact Assessment category, fisheries were primarily calculating the fishery-associated 164

risk to bycatch species, either quantitatively (impact analysis, 15 fisheries), or semi-qualitatively (risk 165

assessment, 6 fisheries). 166

The Research category included 8 fisheries using new data to either develop bycatch estimates or 167

improve the robustness of existing bycatch estimates. Implementing short-term research projects (4 168

8

fisheries) or undertaking a knowledge review or gap analysis (3 fisheries) were also ways fisheries 169

addressed conditions in this category. A population analysis on the bycatch species was undertaken 170

in 2 fisheries. 171

Within the Technical category, 5 fisheries addressing conditions on bycatch used temporal or spatial 172

avoidance measures. Mitigation measures or gear selectivity modifications were adopted in 5 cases. 173

Other actions undertaken in relation to Technical measures included implementing a quota to 174

reduce interactions with bycatch species (2 fisheries) and development and implementation of 175

procedures to improve survivability of discarded species (2 fisheries). 176

Habitats 177

The most common actions taken to address conditions on habitats were in the Research category 178

(41%), followed by Impact Assessment (24%), Technical measures (20%), Monitoring (12%), and 179

finally Governance (3%) (Fig. 1). Knowledge reviews or gap analyses were undertaken in 8 fisheries 180

as a first step to determine the types of research necessary to reach a higher level of certainty. 181

Fifteen fisheries produced maps of the extent and intensity of fishing; 11 fisheries generated new or 182

enhanced habitat distribution maps (Table 3). 183

Within the Monitoring category, new systems were put in place to track bycatch of benthic fauna in 184

fishing gear, and to track loss of fishing gear. In 4 cases new logbooks were implemented, and one 185

fishery set up an industry-funded scientific observer program. Three fisheries, introduced a new 186

map-based tracking system where encounters with corals or sponges could be recorded in on-board 187

vessel plotters. (Keus et al. 2014, 2015; Gaudian et al. 2015). 188

Impact assessments looking at habitats were primarily spatial comparisons of the distribution of 189

different habitat types with the extent and intensity of fishing. ‘Risk assessments’ were more data-190

rich than ‘spatial assessments’ as they incorporated additional information on habitat and gear 191

characteristics. Four fisheries went a step further than this, and undertook observational or 192

9

experimental comparisons of benthic biodiversity inside and outside of fished areas. This type of 193

analysis was counted under ‘impact analysis’. 194

Technical measures made to reduce impact on benthic habitats included spatial closures (13 195

fisheries), licencing restrictions (6 fisheries), encounter protocols (4 fisheries), gear modifications (2 196

fisheries), and avoidance procedures (1 fishery) (Table 3). Seven of the 13 spatial closures were 197

voluntary measures on the part of the fishing industry. Six fisheries observed closures as a part of 198

new government policy which coincided with the certification timeline. 199

Four fisheries implemented new encounter protocols (move-on rules) for vulnerable habitats. New 200

licensing restrictions in 6 fisheries increased the burden of proof for granting or renewing licenses in 201

terms of the evidence necessary to show that no detrimental effects would occur, especially in new 202

fishing grounds, and in some cases resulted in the de-facto freezing of the fishing footprint. 203

Only 3 fisheries made gear changes to mitigate benthic impacts in response to conditions. Denmark 204

Limfjord mussel dredge fishery implemented a new lighter model of dredge, which was developed in 205

partnership with DTU Aqua (Andrews et al. 2014). Pelagic doors were trialled in both the Ekofish 206

Group saithe trawl fishery and by the Ocean Trawlers group in the Barents Sea, but were only 207

adopted by the Ekofish group, due to prohibitively low catch rates with the Ocean Trawlers gear 208

(Cappell et al. 2013). 209

Evidence for attribution of causality 210

Based on the indicators explored, approximately half the actions taken to close conditions by 211

certified fisheries (135 of 247) were driven, at least in part, by the need to maintain MSC 212

certification. Thirty-three of these 131 were explicitly reported as having been taken to comply with 213

MSC requirements, either in MSC fishery assessment reports or in supporting documentation. For 214

112 actions (47% of total) there was insufficient evidence to find a role played by MSC certification. 215

Of these, 17 were data deficient. 216

10

Fifty-two percent of Monitoring, 62% of Research, and 66% of Impact Assessment actions had some 217

or strong evidence to suggest that fisheries made changes in order to comply with MSC 218

requirements, as opposed to unrelated policy changes or other factors (Fig. 2). Strong evidence to 219

support the idea of MSC certification as a driver was found most often for Research actions. 220

Technical and Governance changes that occurred during the certification process appeared more 221

often to occur for unrelated reasons: 80% of Governance actions, and 57% of Technical actions did 222

not show sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. 223

Discussion 224

Our analyses indicate that 82% of actions taken to close bycatch and habitats conditions in MSC 225

fisheries were information-related, involving improvements in monitoring, information quality, or 226

information use. Our results are consistent with previous research on MSC-related improvements, 227

(Martin et al. 2012; Bellchambers et al. 2016). At least half of all actions were likely to have been 228

driven by the needs of the certification process. 229

Although most of these actions did not result in a direct reduction of fisheries’ bycatch or habitat 230

impacts, suggesting that most certified fisheries were already at best practice in that regard, this 231

improvement in knowledge is a documented need for implementing and strengthening ecosystem-232

based fishery management. Management agencies often require more information on population 233

status, fishery interactions and resulting mortality in order to manage fishery impacts on bycatch 234

species, but gaps in data collection and the limited level of data sharing remain ongoing barriers 235

(Komoroske & Lewison 2015). The closure of conditions contributes to these objectives, given that 236

60% of bycatch-related actions taken by MSC fisheries help address the bycatch information gap 237

through estimation of current impacts of populations, or through monitoring of ongoing population 238

impacts. 239

For habitats, effective management of fishing impacts on marine habitats requires an understanding 240

of the types and locations of habitats affected, the location and intensity of fishing, and recovery 241

11

rates post-impact (Hobday et al. 2011; Pitcher et al. 2017). Although vulnerable habitats are 242

increasingly being considered in fisheries management approaches, the evidence necessary to 243

implement management measures often does not exist or is considered too costly to obtain (Pitcher 244

et al. 2017). Given the extent of information needed for management of fishing impacts on marine 245

habitats, and the dearth of information available, it is not surprising that the majority of actions 246

taken to address habitat-related conditions in MSC-certified fisheries involve either new research or 247

new monitoring systems. 248

The most common research action taken was mapping the extent and intensity of fishing. Unlike 249

species distribution data, this is usually not because data is unavailable (most larger vessels in 250

developed countries are required to carry Vessel Monitoring Systems (Kaiser et al. 2016)), but 251

because it is not analyzed on a company-specific basis. While this kind of analysis does not 252

necessarily contribute new information to the global understanding of fishing impacts, it is vital for 253

individual fishing companies so that they can take responsibility for their specific impacts and build a 254

successful management strategy (e.g. Cappell et al. 2013). 255

Accurate mapping of benthic habitats was identified as the most pressing current knowledge need 256

for trawl and dredge fisheries (Kaiser et al. 2016); more generally, habitat mapping is one of the 257

most severe data gaps limiting assessment of global ocean health (Frazier et al. 2016). Generation of 258

new or enhanced habitat maps comprised 35% of the actions under Habitats Research, and 70% of 259

these actions were likely related to certification (Supporting Information), demonstrating that MSC is 260

pushing fisheries to contribute to a critical area for research. For example, Sustainable Fisheries 261

Greenland funded an impact assessment for the shrimp trawl fishery in West Greenland, including 262

the first map of benthic invertebrate diversity in that region (Yesson et al. 2015, 2017). 263

Impact Assessment was the high-level action category where evidence was most often found to 264

support MSC-certification as a driver of change (Fig. 2). This is likely due to the fact that closing an 265

MSC condition often requires an increase in the level of certainty around measured impacts, which 266

12

leads fisheries to re-run an impact assessment using better quality or more recent information than 267

was available in the original assessment. 268

The number of Technical and Governance actions that are attributed to meeting conditions was 269

small, suggesting that certification is more often a culmination of ongoing improvements in fishery 270

operations and gear specifications, rather than a catalyst. Encounter protocols for VMEs, for 271

example, were recommended by the UN General Assembly in 2006, and our analysis showed that 272

fisheries management bodies are implementing these in multiple regions, and that implementation 273

was not driven by certification (Supporting Information) (UN General Assembly 2006). 274

This analysis represents a transparent and reproducible evaluation of the role played by MSC in 275

incentivizing improvements in fisheries management, through use of publicly available fishery 276

reports and clearly codified qualitative criteria for attribution of causality. However, there are a few 277

caveats to this approach. Firstly, fisheries likely make more improvements before certification than 278

after (Martin et al. 2012), and these earlier improvements are not necessarily recorded in public 279

fishery documents. It is also possible that fisheries make improvements during certification which 280

do not relate directly to a condition, and so would not appear in the documents reviewed here. In 281

future, studying changes in fisheries’ practices during improvement projects leading to formal 282

assessment could further clarify the role of MSC in driving change. At present, however, data 283

sources such as pre-assessment reports often remain confidential. 284

Secondly, our criteria for attribution of causality were based on expert judgment, but were not 285

formally groundtruthed. To address this concern, we adopted a conservative approach to 286

developing the criteria, assuming MSC played no role whenever attribution was uncertain. For 287

example, when actions were funded or implemented by an actor other than the certified fishery, we 288

assumed that certification was not an important driver, although explicit statements in fishery 289

reports revealed this to be untrue in some cases (Supporting Information). Lastly, this approach 290

could not capture indirect ways that MSC certification is known to influence complex management 291

13

processes, such as multi-national harvest control agreements (MSC 2016). Future research utilizing 292

other data sources, such as stakeholder interviews, or using similar but uncertified fisheries as 293

counterfactuals, may provide a more accurate picture of the circumstances where certification is 294

more likely to have an impact. 295

Despite these limitations, this work provides new insight into the role of private certification 296

initiatives in bolstering management of fisheries’ environmental impacts, and can be expanded upon 297

for future impact evaluations of sustainability standards, informing wider strategies for 298

implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. Although this work does not exhaust 299

all questions around the role of certification in driving change, we hold that it advances significantly 300

our knowledge on the matter. As the global demands for seafood grow, as well as threats to marine 301

species’ and ecosystems’ conservation, it is paramount to understand what management solutions 302

work, be they private or public. 303

304

14

Supporting Information 305

A spreadsheet of all actions taken by all fisheries analyzed, as well as information for attribution of 306

causality (Appendix S1), and a diagram of Performance Indicators in the MSC Fisheries Certification 307

Requirements v1.3 (Appendix S2), are available online. The authors are solely responsible for the 308

content and functionality of these materials. Queries (other than absence of the material) should be 309

directed to the corresponding author. 310

311

15

Literature Cited

Agnew D, Grieve C, Orr P, Parkes G, Barker N. 2006. Environmental Benefits resulting from 312 certification against MSC’s Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. MRAG. London, UK. 313 Available from https://www.msc.org/documents/environmental-314 benefits/MSC_Environmental_Benefits_Report_Phase1_FINAL_4Ma.pdf. (Accessed March 315 2017) 316

Agnew DJ, Gutiérrez NL. 2013. The MSC experience: developing an operational certification standard 317 and a market incentive to improve fishery sustainability. ICES Journal of Marine Science 318 71:216–225. 319

Andrews J, Brand AR, Maar M. 2014. 4th Surveillance Report for the Danish Blue Shell Mussel 320 fishery. Derby, UK. Available from https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/isefjord-and-east-321 jutland-danish-blue-shell-mussel/@@assessments. (Accessed October 2016) 322

Bellchambers LM, Fisher EA, Harry A V, Travaille KL. 2016. Identifying and mitigating potential risks 323 for Marine Stewardship Council assessment and certification. Fisheries Research 182:7–17. 324

Bellchambers LM, Phillips BF, Pérez-Ramírez M, Lozano-Álvarez E, Ley-Cooper K, Vega-Velazquez A. 325 2014. Addressing environmental considerations for Marine Stewardship Council certification: A 326 case study using lobsters. Marine Policy 50:249–260. 327

Berg T, Furhaupter K, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Zampoukas N. 2015. The Marine Strategy Framework 328 Directive and the ecosystem-based approach - pitfalls and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 329 96:18–28. 330

Cappell R, Pawson M, Millner R. 2013. 4th Surveillance Report for the Ekofish group - North Sea (ICES 331 IVb) twin rigged otter trawl plaice fishery. Derby, UK. Available from 332 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/ekofish-group-north-sea-twin-rigged-otter-trawl-333 plaice/@@assessments. (Accessed November 2016) 334

FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organisation. Rome, 335 Italy. 336

FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Food and Agriculture Organisation . 337 Rome, Italy. 338

Fogarty M. 2014. The art of ecoystem-based fishery management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 339 Aquatic Sciences 71:479–490. 340

Frazier M, Longo C, Halpern BS. 2016. Mapping uncertainty due to missing data in the global ocean 341 health index. PLoS ONE 11:e0160377. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160377. 342

Garcia SM, Rice JC, Charles A, editors. 2014. Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity 343 Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution, 1st edition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. 344

Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries: 345 Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. Food 346 and Agriculture Organisation. Rome. Available from 347 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4773e/y4773e00.pdf. (Accessed April 2017) 348

Gaudian G, Keus B, Scarcella G. 2015. 4th Surviellance Report for DFPO Denmark North Sea and 349 Skagerrak Saithe Fishery. Edinburgh, UK. Available from 350 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/dfpo-denmark-north-sea-plaice/@@assessments. 351 (Accessed May 2017) 352

16

Halpern BS et al. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952. 353

Hobday AJ et al. 2011. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research 354 108:372–384. 355

Kaiser MJ et al. 2016. Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom 356 trawling in relation to seabed habitats. Fish and Fisheries 17:637–663. 357

Kaiser MJ, Edwards-Jones G. 2006. The Role of Ecolabeling in Fisheries Management and 358 Conservation. Conservation Biology 20:392–398. 359

Keus B, Gaudian G, Scarcella G. 2014. 3rd Surveillance Report for DFPO Denmark North Sea Sole 360 Fishery. Inverness, UK. Available from https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/dfpo-denmark-361 north-sea-sole/@@assessments. (Accessed May 2017) 362

Keus B, Gaudian G, Scarcella G. 2015. 3rd Surveillance Report for DFPO Denmark North Sea and 363 Skagerrak Haddock Fishery. Edinburgh, UK. Available from 364 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/dfpo-denmark-north-sea-skagerrak-365 haddock/@@assessments. (Accessed May 2017) 366

Komoroske LM, Lewison RL. 2015. Addressing fisheries bycatch in a changing world. Frontiers in 367 Marine Science 2:1–11. 368

Lascelles B et al. 2014. Migratory marine species: Their status, threats and conservation 369 management needs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24:111–127. 370

Leslie HM, McLeod KL. 2011. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based 371 management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:540–548. 372

Lewison RL et al. 2014. Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch reveal 373 taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proceedings of the National Academy of 374 Sciences of the United States of America 111:5271–6. 375

Longo C, Hornborg S, Bartolino V, Tomczak MT, Ciannelli L, Libralato S, Belgrano A. 2015. Role of 376 trophic models and indicators in current marine fisheries management. Marine Ecology 377 Progress Series 538:257–272. 378

Martin SM, Cambridge T, Grieve C, Nimmo FM, Agnew DJ. 2012. An evaluation of environmental 379 changes within fisheries involved in the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme. 380 Reviews in Fisheries Science 20:61–69. 381

MSC. 2014. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0. Marine Stewardship 382 Council. London, UK. Available from https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-383 documents/fisheries-certification-scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-requirements-384 version-2.0. (Accessed October 2017) 385

MSC. 2016. Global Impacts Report 2016. Marine Stewardship Council. London, UK. 386

Neuendorf K. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook, 2nd edition. SAGE Publications Inc, Los 387 Angeles, US. 388

Pitcher CR et al. 2017. Estimating the sustainability of towed fishing-gear impacts on seabed 389 habitats: a simple quantitative risk assessment method applicable to data-limited fisheries. 390 Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8:472–480. 391

Ruckelshaus M, Klinger T, Knowlton N, DeMaster DP. 2008. Marine Ecosystem-based Management in 392 Practice: Scientific and Governance Challenges. BioScience 58:53–56. 393

17

Selden RL, Valencia SR, Larsen AE, Cornejo-Donoso J, Wasserman AA. 2016. Evaluating seafood eco-394 labeling as a mechanism to reduce collateral impacts of fisheries in an ecosystem-based 395 fisheries management context. Marine Policy 64:102–115. 396

Shannon S, Hsieh H-F. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health 397 Research 2015:29–42. 398

Soomai SS. 2017. The science-policy interface in fisheries management: Insights about the influence 399 of organizational structure and culture on information pathways. Marine Policy 81:53–63. 400

Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL, Fluharty DL, Halpern BS. 2010. The many 401 faces of ecosystem-based management: Making the process work today in real places. Marine 402 Policy 34:340–348. 403

UN General Assembly. 2006. Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the 404 Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 405 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and 406 Highl. United Nations General Assembly. New York, US. 407

Yesson C, Fisher J, Gorham T, Turner CJ, Hammeken Arboe N, Blicher ME, Kemp KM. 2017. The 408 impact of trawling on the epibenthic megafauna of the west Greenland shelf. ICES Journal of 409 Marine Science 74:866–876. 410

Yesson C, Simon P, Chemshirova I, Gorham T, Turner CJ, Hammeken Arboe N, Blicher ME, Kemp KM. 411 2015. Community composition of epibenthic megafauna on the West Greenland Shelf. Polar 412 Biology 38:2085–2096. 413

18

Tables

Table 1: Descriptions of high-level categories defined to describe actions used to close conditions

High-level category Description

Research Finite research projects that contributed to the better understanding of the species or habitat involved or the interactions of the fishery with that species or habitat

Monitoring Improvements in ongoing data collection systems which enable the fishery to detect changes in impact risk

Impact Assessment Analysis of information, to answer specific questions about the certainty (likelihood) that a fishery does not have a negative impact on a bycatch species or habitat. Could be quantitative or risk-based (semi-quantitative) analysis.

Governance Improvements in fishery operations or governance structures which help to avoid or better manage impacts on species or habitats.

Technical Measures Alteration or additions to technical specifications of fishery gear or operations with the aim of decreasing unwanted impacts on species or habitats.

Table 2: Level of evidence to reject the null hypothesis that MSC had no role in incentivising fisheries’ actions, for each combination of causality indicator values encountered during analysis.

Causality indicators Evidence to reject

Scale of Change

Funding/Implementation Explicit attribution

Specific Client MSC Strong evidence

Specific Government or Industry MSC Strong evidence

Wider Client MSC Strong evidence

Specific Client None Some evidence

Specific Academia, NGO, Industry, or Government

None Insufficient evidence

Wider Client None Insufficient evidence

Wider Government or Academia None Insufficient evidence

Unclear Any* Any* Insufficient evidence (DD)

Any* Unclear Any* Insufficient evidence (DD)

*’Any’ indicates when any value of the causality indicator leads to the same conclusion in ‘evidence to reject’.

19

Table 3: Number of fisheries that took actions to meet bycatch and habitats conditions, high-level and specific action types

Action Type Bycatch Habitats Number of Fisheries

Monitoring (total) 50 14 54

Mandatory self-reporting 22 8 24

Observer coverage - implement/increase 15 2 16

Bycatch/Discard sampling 14 0 14

Monitor effectiveness of measures 8 0 8

Species ID Guide 8 0 8

Vessel tracking 0 4 4

Tagging/DNA data collection 3 0 3

Training crew - ID/handling 3 0 3

Video surveillance 2 0 2

Gear loss monitoring 0 1 1

Research (total) 15 31 40

Map location/intensity of fishing 0 15 15

Bycatch estimates 8 4 12

Habitat mapping 0 11 11

Knowledge review/gap analysis 3 8 10

Short term research project 4 0 4

Assess nutrient deposition 0 3 3

Population analysis 2 0 2

Coastal development impact assessment 0 1 1

Gear modification 0 1 1

Habitat recovery assessment 0 1 1

Impact assessment (total) 21 25 39

Impact analysis 15 4 19

Spatial overlap assessment 0 17 17

Risk assessment 6 6 10

Assess gear loss 0 1 1

Technical (total) 13 18 28

Spatial closure 1 13 14

Gear modification 5 2 7

Avoidance procedures 5 1 6

Licencing restrictions 0 6 6

Encounter protocol/Move-on rule 0 4 4

Quota implementation 2 0 2

Full retention policy 1 0 1

Improved survivability measures-discards 1 0 1

Governance 1 3 4

Establish advisory body 1 2 3

International agreement signed 0 1 1

Total All Actions

60

39

74

20

Figure Legends

Figure 1: Percentage of actions taken by high level action type

Figure 2: Percentage of actions with strong, some or insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis on role played by of MSC certification, by high-level action type

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of actions taken by high level action type

Figure 2: Percentage of actions with strong, some or insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis on role played by of MSC certification, by high-level action type

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Actions

Per

form

ance

Ind

icat

or

Gro

up

Governance Impact assessment Monitoring Research Technical

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Monitoring

Research

Impact assessment

Governance

Technical

Strong evidence Some evidence Insufficient Evidence Insufficient Evidence - DD

21