ASMI has asked for a representative of the London-based MSC to attend and participate in its Dec. 3 board meeting in Seattle, at which time ASMI will make a final decision will be made on whether the institute will take on this responsibility and the estimated $250,000 cost it entails.

The goal of MSC's certification program is to encourage sustainable fisheries practices on a worldwide basis, to protect sustainable fisheries.

Meanwhile ASMI will be talking with its stakeholders - fishermen, processors and state officials - to assure that the cost of certification will be covered by those who will benefit from certification, said Ray Riutta, ASMI executive director.

ASMI's board recognizes that in certain markets, the MSC logo adds value and complements the Alaska seafood brand by recognizing the sustainable management practices inherent in Alaska's fisheries, Riutta said in an Oct. 13 letter to MSC.

"They are taking this action as a service to customers and industry members who want to continue to use the MSC logo," he said. "This client role must be cost neutral to ASMI and must be funded by those who actually use the MSC program itself. This is because ASMI is funded by the entire Alaska seafood industry, not all of whom will benefit directly from the salmon certification."

Since MSC already has a mechanism in place to collect fees from those who use the logo, Riutta wanted to know if is there a way that MSC can collect the fees along with MSC logo licensing fees and transmit the funds to ASMI.

Riutta said ASMI estimates it will cost about $250,000 to cover one full-time MSC program position at ASMI and to cover the contract fees with Moody Marine's technical inspection service for various steps toward certification, as well as administrative costs for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which will still have a certain amount of work to do, even with a new client.

The state Fish and Game Department was the client shepherding Alaska salmon through the annual certification process, but announced earlier this year that it would no longer be able to bear such costs on the agency.

Riutta asked MSC to respond to several concerns that ASMI has regarding identification of Alaska seafoods in the MSC program. For example, some packaging highlights "MSC Wild Salmon" without mentioning that the product originates in Alaska.

"ASMI has worked for many years to differentiate Alaska seafood products from others in the market," Riutta said. "Remaining in the MSC program must not weaken Alaska's own marketing efforts. What accommodation can be made in the MSC process to ensure the origin of our products is not lost? Is it possible to require that the origin be prominently called out on all MSC certified products that originate in Alaska?"

Riutta also asked that the council make management improvements to relieve ASMI of what some ASMI board members perceive as an excessive administrative burden that would detract from marketing institute's other work.

Riutta also asked MSC for a clarification that supports the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's management system and the work of the agency by explaining that the intent of the audit or certification is to verify, rather than second-guess, how the fishery is managed.