|
Aker Biomarine is singled out as one of the main companies that benefit from the industry – being responsible for two thirds of the current Antarctic krill landings – and the NGO says that the krill fishing companies use “a range of industry tactics to downplay its damaging impacts, for example by using a range of consumer-based labels to greenwash their product as sustainable”.
It's an accusation that Aker BioMarine is quick to refute.
“We are not a company that needs to greenwash anything, we let CCAMLR’s [the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources] science and precautionary management of krill and the independent and well documented MSC certification of our fishery speak for itself. But we always aim to improve, and we know that we have a responsibility to make the right decisions to secure a positive impact in a period when climate and nature is changing fast. This is why we are happy to engage actively and transparently with stakeholders, also from UK and Scotland, to ensure a best practice of the krill fishery in Antarctica,” Pål Einar Skogrand, VP policy and impact at Aker BioMarine told The Fish Site.
The Marine Stewardship Council, which certifies the fishery, is also adamant that Aker's activities are sustainable.
“Since 2010, the Aker BioMarine Krill fishery has been independently certified against the MSC-standard. The world’s largest, most rigorous, and comprehensive third-party certification program for wild capture fisheries. This fishery is currently part of the 5 percent of fisheries in the MSC that has no current conditions. The fishery is operating at catch levels well below what would generally be regarded as a precautionary upper level relative to the best estimates available of stock size. The fishery is managed within a precautionary and ecosystem approach,” said Gisli Gislason, program director MSC North Atlantic.
However Changing Markets argues that MSC certification lacks credibility.
“The industry has also been pushing the narrative that the current catch limit is precautionary because it is ‘only 1 percent of the krill biomass’, but this fails to reflect its impact on the vulnerable Antarctic ecosystem, particularly in the face of accelerating climate change. This illusion of sustainability is further enabled by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) which certifies krill-based products as sustainable, despite repeated objections by NGOs and scientists,” it declares.
| 
