IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The promise and pitfalls of Marine Stewardship Council certification: Maine lobster as a case study

Listed author(s):
  • Goyert, Wendy
  • Sagarin, Raphael
  • Annala, John
Registered author(s):

    As worldwide population continues to grow, so does demand for seafood by consumers. With this trend, interest in sustainably certified seafood is also increasing. The Maine lobster fishery is currently considering certification based on the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard for sustainable and well-managed fisheries. Although certification is argued to provide a market-based incentive to improve sustainable fishing practices, it is a costly and time-consuming process, and often imposes additional requirements on fisheries in order to meet certification standards. To evaluate whether the costs of Maine lobster fishery certification are worth the presumed benefits, lobster industry members were interviewed to learn their opinions of MSC certification, seafood consumers were surveyed to understand their attitudes and purchasing preferences related to lobster, and lessons learned from other MSC-certified fisheries were compiled. MSC certification of the Maine lobster fishery could potentially provide benefits to the industry by differentiating Maine lobster and maintaining access to markets that are looking to exclusively source certified fish products. However, certification is unlikely to provide price premiums for the fishermen, and does not necessarily represent to consumers the most desirable aspects of Maine lobster. Certification programs may need to adapt to consumer preferences and market conditions if they are to continue to provide incentives for the sustainable management of fisheries.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Marine Policy.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 5 (September)
    Pages: 1103-1109

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:34:y:2010:i:5:p:1103-1109
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:34:y:2010:i:5:p:1103-1109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.