MSC - Marine Stewardship Council Consultation feedback & MSC responses - Fishery Process Topics

Transcription

1 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown This document includes the MSC response to late stage consultation feedback received on the following topics: Unit of Certification (UoC) Fishery Traceability Harmonisation Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) and MSC responses consultation question (If Confirmation of Scope Proposed Change MSC response / Actions taken Non-Supportive: The possibility of including more than one species/stock and gear type within the same unit of certification and using CR section to assess it IS NOT considered to have any advantages compared to defining separate UoCs for each species and gear type. The assessment will be equally complex. The aim of this issue which was agreed in the 2012 TAB Working Group is to allow the clients more flexibility in deciding how species are assessed, based on their risk preferences and possible advantages to the supply chain, leading to benefits in speed and cost of assessments. See CR section , A and GCR for clarification.

2 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown Other comments/suggestions: to If the UoC is part of the UoA, duplication should be removed to make clear the difference between the two reptile Herpetile? other entities - This is a bit confusing would eligible fishers always be part of the UoA; other entities need not be i.e. processors etc? Removal of duplication between and The MSC feels the proposed changes to the CR are clear for both the definition of UoA and UoC. UoA relates to what is to be assessed and also includes any other eligible fishers. The UoC determines what is to be covered by the certificate. See GCR Herpetile is an unfamiliar term so the wording was changed to amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other entities refer to the client group, such as processing companies and producer organisations, whereas eligible fishers are part of the UoA (but not part of the UoC) but are eligible to join under a certificate sharing mechanism. The MSC has noted this comment but feels that no change is necessary required - Issue CABs will be influenced by the pre-assessment report. Only an issue if a different CAB is selected to undertake a full assessment. Note: if the same CAB is used (if a CAB is used for the PA), the client should be able to negotiate a discount. From the auditing point of view the less room for flexibility in the definition of the unit of Account for proposed flexibility in the UoC within the The MSC notes this comment; however the focus is to allow increased flexibility to the client and therefore improved access to the programme. In order to keep the CR requirements to a minimum and not add extra detail, clarification is provided in Annex CI of the guidance.

3 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown certification the more consistent CAB performance will be. The definition of the Unit of Certification is the starting point of the assessment and if different CABs define overlapping fishery in a different manner it can create inconsistency in the assessment outcome. The proposed flexibility in defining UoCs should, at least, be accounted for within the harmonisation requirements in an explicit manner Clause states: The fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, and Clause states: Practice (including the fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including any other eligible fishers). Why repeat practice in UoA when it s in ? Is there a special Announcing the Assessment Tree to be used Scoring the Fishery definition? Other comments/suggestions: In relation to Harmonisation the term overlapping fishery should be explicitly defined in Other comments/suggestions: Harmonisation requirements. Remove repetition of practice from UoA CR Define overlapping fishery within CR The comment has been noted. There is no special definition to be aware of in this case and therefore no changes have been made to the wording. The MSC feels this addition is not required and would add unnecessary extra detail to the requirements. See Annex AA of the CR and Annex CI of the guidance for definition and clarification.

4 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown should explicitly refer to CABs scoring the UoA rather than the UoC. Public Certification Report Extension of Scope of Fishery Certificate Other comments/suggestions: c - Is this strictly necessary, as this can be a significant exercise with few benefits? No action taken as this refers to the CAB scoring the applicant fishery within the UoC and not the UoA as a whole. See GCR The MSC notes this comment. Please refer to the Fishery Traceability paper and consultation feedback responses within the Fishery Process Issues topic where clarification is provided. Supportive: Supported The MSC notes this support. Other comments/suggestions: and if all -? species - Single or multiple, presumably i.e. one or more of the target species of the applicant? The MSC notes this comment. Please refer to the Group Certification paper within the Speed and Cost Review. Single or multiple species or stock units are to be included as separate scoring elements within a single UoC as preferred by clients based on the benefits and risks involved (see GCR ). Extension of scope of the fishery certificate is covered in the Group Certification paper of the Speed and cost Review.

5 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown General Non-supportive: Since it is not considered that a broader definition of the UoC have any advantages related to speed and/or cost of the assessment it is recommended not to introduce this proposed change to the scheme. Not to introduce proposed broader definition of the UoC The MSC notes this comment; however the proposals will go ahead as suggested to allow increased client flexibility and accessibility to the programme. Quota trading Other comments/suggestions: If the proposed change is to remain then the scheme document should make clear that the CAB is the party to decide on best approach to the definition of the Unit of Certification. Other comments/suggestions: Quota trading within a client group should not cause a problem. But quota traded from the client group to a vessel/group not in the client group could not carry the logo. Quota traded from a non-client-group to a client group member is not a problem as the entire stock is assessed and the client group has to fish as prescribed. Make clear that the CAB decides on best approach to the definition of the UoC. The intention is to allow the client increased flexibility in defining the UoC, not for the CAB to impose on the client what is to be included. See GCR The MSC notes this and recognises that this is consistent with the proposed guidance at the end of GCR

6 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown Are any special Supportive: issues likely to arise in the implementation of these changes? Should the proposals be changed in any way? CR If a second gear is requested to fall under the UoC, it should be allowed, as with the buoy gear in US swordfish. In this case, the worst score for either gear applies to both. This prevents a good gear from pulling up a less good gear. This was the case for buoy gear in the predominantly longline swordfish certification. This makes imminent sense. The inclusion of multiple potential P1 stocks at announcement of assessment is supported. Other comments/suggestions: GCC bi - Each needs its own assessment. How can you have only one scoring element? The MSC notes this and recognises that this is consistent with the proposed guidance text, see GCR The MSC notes this support. The MSC notes this support. The MSC notes this comment. Please refer to the RBF Species PIs paper within the Risk Based Framework topic. The MSC notes this comment. Most of the guidance appears justified. We have not reviewed the details of the changes to the CR for this proposal. The points of landing do not assist in defining the UoC and are not useful for data analysis, traceability exercises, etc. The The MSC notes this comment. Please refer to the Fishery Traceability paper within the Fishery Process Issues topic.

7 - Fishery Process Topics Project name: Definition of Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC contact: Dan Hoggarth and Simon Brown eligibility for products to enter into further chains of custody can occur both before and after the points of landing (such as the first point of sale); it is superfluous. It is imperative to apply all criteria uniformly in the absence public and corporate support will not be there. Is there anything else that should be taken into consideration related to the UoC topic that is not included in the proposal? Other comments/suggestions: Collection of information for MSC informational purposes rather than information required by the client to meet the standard becomes more and more onerous. Each minor change by the MSC raises additional costs for the client group. The MSC notes this comment. This is the intention of the MSC in all of the work it carries out. The MSC has noted this concern; however the only additional information required through this line of work will be the collection of limited information to identify small-scale fisheries which is not considered to have a significant impact on either cost or time of assessment.

8 Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on Fishery Traceability and MSC responses Late Stage Consultation Question Feedback Q1) Is it reasonable to require a fishery to demonstrate its ability to trace back sales of certified products to the unit of certification? To validate this ability, should the CAB carry out actual tracebacks during audits, or should the CAB simply need to document the systems in place that would allow this level of traceability? Supportive: Without tracebacks you have no accountability It is already the case that product must be traceable to a UoC. It is not the fishery that would demonstrate this ability but the UoC and the first buyer. The CAB should document the systems in place; tracebacks are a function of CoC certification, not fishery. Reasonable to require ability to trace back to UoC? Yes, this is essential to the integrity of the certification in any case where the UoC is smaller than 100% of the output of the fishery. Should CABs carry out actual tracebacks? Yes, testing of the in-fishery traceability systems should be conducted to ensure effectiveness. Non-supportive: Conducting trace-backs as part of fishery assessments would increase time and costs significantly regardless Comment noted. Tracebacks should be possible, and will be instigated by the MSC (see other comments below). This feedback suggests there is a potential discrepancy in the interpretation of CR. Traceability to the Fishery is currently required. It is likely there is an expectation by other stakeholders that traceability is currently back to the UoC, giving weight to the proposed change. Comment noted. It is intended that the MSC will be able to request tracebacks as and when needed. The ability to carry out a traceback to the UoC is being proposed for the CR, not

9 of how detailed they are. It is unclear what sort of documentation would be required. We suspect this would mean the assessment team would have another member (since assessment team members are not supply chain or traceability experts and the MSC has already specified the competency criteria for this). We also suspect this would increase the number of days required for the fishery assessment. We would be faced with hugely increased direct and indirect assessment costs. necessarily carried out. Documentation will be dependent on each fishery and their management systems, similar to the current CR. Fishery assessment teams do currently have CoC staff engaged, so should not involve additional CAB days/ costs. Other comments/suggestions: As it stands today MSC Certification becomes valid from the preceding year on fish in storage. This would hardly qualify as a credible certification! [Plus comments regarding specific case of Under Assessment products being eligible for onwards sale before certification.] Where the UoC is a subset of the fishery, traceability to the UoC is not only a prerequisite to meaningful CoC The creation of a new PI, subject to a trigger mechanism, to require assessments to review in-fishery traceability in all cases where traceability to a sub-fishery UoC has potential significance for the ongoing assessment and/or management of the fishery. Comments noted, UMAF requirements are intended to be strengthened with the proposed CR changes. UMAF has been allowed for MSC fisheries at the discretion of the CAB and client. A PI on traceability would bring in non-environmental focus to MSC assessments. Traceability is

10 certification but may be an essential element of compliance with PI 1.2.3(b) ( monitoring ), PI ( Retained species information / monitoring ), and/or PI 3.2.3(c) ( compliance ). currently considered as an additional part required if the fishery intends to sell product as MSC. Late Stage Consultation Question Feedback Q2) Do you have other suggestions in relation to reporting on traceability issues at early stages of the assessment, or the use of an updated reporting template, and surveillance format? Other comments: A review of traceability issues would be carried out at the site visit. Requiring in-depth analysis by CABs prior to the site visit is not achievable without incurring duplication of effort, and so additional time and cost. It is not credible for a processor or buyer to use the certification certificate for fish harvested prior to [certification]. [Example of regarding specific case of Under Assessment products being eligible for onwards sale before certification.] The changes to the CR do nothing to clarify the roles and accountability for the CAB and client group. There are no details as to the actions we need to take to conform to the new requirements. For example; o It is unclear what the purpose of Is this just data gathering? What purpose does this The creation of a new PI, subject to a trigger mechanism, to require assessments to review in-fishery traceability in all cases where traceability to a sub-fishery UoC has potential significance for the ongoing assessment and/or management of the fishery. If a new PI for in-fishery traceability is not developed, then it is proposed a set of coordinated amendments to CB and to other elements of the MSC Certification Requirements, as set forth in Supplementary Suggestions Regarding In-Fishery Comments noted, expected that reviews may be straight forward if factors have not changed in the fishery, and if factors have changed, their impact on traceability needs to be assessed and reported on. Comments noted. UMAF requirements are intended to be strengthened with the proposed CR changes to ensure there is justification of any allowance in Target Eligibility Dates that may mean UMAF product might exist the fishery. UMAF has been allowed for MSC fisheries at the discretion of the CAB and client. Roles and accountability to be

11 o o o o serve prior to the assessment? It is unclear what purpose the trace-backs serve and how this is different to what we currently do. It is unclear whether there are sanctioning procedures for the client and/or company/vessel. Could our fishery be suspended due to the risk assessment? It is unclear what level of scrutiny would be required (ie. Would all vessels have to provide trace-backs?). It is unclear how these fishery assessments would relate to the CoC certification of our shareholders? Would they no longer need CoC certification? What would happen if there was an issue identified during a CoC or fishery assessment? Would that compromise the other certificate? Traceability [provided to MSC]. Revise wording of Annex A 5.2 Section A: A) non-certified gear USED within the fishery B) non-certified gear USED within the same trips alongside certified gears C) vessels outside of the UoC's clients group THAT fish the same stock D) areas that the fishery vessels may fish in that are outside the unit of certification E) non-certified catch from the fishery that is difficult to distinguish from MSC-eligible catch defined further is intended to assist those buying directly from the fishery to be able to more clearly identify who can supply them MSC products, and reduce the need to either consult Fishery Reports, or contact CABs/ fisheries to clarify their eligibility. Tracebacks are intended to provide assurance that the traceability systems are working. For some fisheries these requirements will be easier (for example where the entire fishery is certified, rather than just certain gear types or regions). Section B: Would make more sense if ordered as f, d, e, c, a, b As at present, and which would continue under the proposals, inadequate traceability systems would not result in suspension of the fishery certificate, but may require Chain of Custody

12 certification at a point within the fishery. Comments noted, as in Q1 above. Ref to proposed changes: It is intended that the proposal ensures the traceability factors in the suggested CR additions are reviewed and assessed mainly through section 27.12, and would keep separate the nonenvironmental factors during assessments. Ref to proposed changes: Suggestions wording and restructure of Sections A and B appreciated and implemented. Late Stage Consultation Question Feedback Q3) Do you have comments regarding a public web space being provided for eligible vessels within the fishery to Supportive: We support this idea. It would seem the only appropriate action to take? The MSC should demand an open access listing of all vessels fishing in the said area and legally licensed to Comments noted- It is intended that CABs can define the level of detail required for each fishery. A statement on either vessel eligibility, actual list of vessels, or where to find a vessel list shall be

13 be listed and kept up-to-date, as per proposed change 4? do so using only gear formats and fishing methods intended. Tracking an issue within a specific fishery gear type and area and the fish interactions- target and non-target, is then open to credible inspection with enforcement, anything less must be invalid. A list must be made available to all to create an environment that finally provides protection for responsible individuals without the current prejudice used by majority to abuse the rights of the responsible minority. required. Non supportive: This is opposed unless it were optional better to have a range of options to identify relevant data sources. The UoC can be defined based on a group of vessels. Requirements to change reporting our tracking of vessels will create additional costs. Also, changes over time would defeat the effectiveness of the space; the product within the supply chain may not relate to the current list of eligible vessels. It is intended that CABs can define the level of detail required for each fishery. A statement on either vessel eligibility, actual list of vessels, or where to find a vessel list shall be required. Comments noted- a clear statement where suitable would help the supply chain understand eligibility, and from where they can source the product. Late Stage Consultation Question Feedback Q4) Do you have any other Do not want shareholder s clients policing our fishery certificate. Continually answering questions about and justifying Comments noted. The intention of the proposal is that there would be less onus

14 comments or suggestions regarding the proposed changes? why certain vessels were or are listed on the register would be onerous and provide no additional accountability. Providing a copy of our certificate is sufficient. on fisheries to continue having to prove their eligibility, with more easily accessible information publically available. It will be difficult, but important, for many fisheries in developing countries to demonstrate traceability back to the UoC. The proposed language is important for ensuring full traceability for all fisheries. What are the cost implications? In-fishery traceability is sometimes essential to eligibility for certification. In such cases, effective infishery traceability is more than just a prerequisite to a reliable CoC, but is itself an element of fisheries assessment and fisheries management that is necessary for fulfilling MSC certification criteria. The changes proposed in the Consultation Draft make headway towards addressing this fact, but do not do so fully or explicitly. Proposed creation of new Performance Indicator recognizing the essential character of in-fishery traceability in certifications where the UoC is smaller than the entire fishery and in particular where the UoC is at a sub-vessel level (i.e., where individual vessels may produce both certifiable and uncertifiable catches) or where transfer at sea occurs. Comments noted. It is expected some fisheries will already have strong traceability systems going back to the Unit of Certification, whereas others may need to implement changes to their systems. Hence requesting when setting scope of the fishery, traceability is reviewed early, to enable systems to be developed in time. Feedback received to UoC paper, with relevance to this project: c Definitions: The points of landing do not assist in defining the UoC and are not useful for data analysis, traceability exercises, etc. The eligibility for The intention of the proposal is to reduce burden on fisheries needing to explain eligibility to

15 products to enter into further chains of custody can occur both before and after the points of landing (such as the first point of sale); it is superfluous. supply chain at a later date Intention of proposal is to ensure fisheries with UMAF entering the supply chain have had their traceability systems reviewed. Additional comments on proposed CR Is this assessment to take place before the site visit? Surely this can only be established in the draft report? Duplicates above? Is this strictly necessary, as this can be a significant exercise with few benefits? Intention is to provide clarification This is judged necessary to enable potential buyers and other eligible fishers to access the fishery products. Advance consideration here (linked to the UoC definitions) and provision of information on the website should also reduce burden on fisheries needing to explain eligibility to supply chain at a later date. Additional comments from outside formal consultation 1. Would propose that a specific point is identified for all fisheries (e.g. point at which product is brought on board), and all subsequent points would need CoC certification. To avoid all vessels and points/ changes 1. Flexibility of the current system allows the point at which Chain of Custody is required to be determined depending on each

16 of ownership needing CoC (which could result in prohibitive costs to fisheries), a Fisheries Chain of Custody (3 rd type of certification) to be developed, along the lines of a Group CoC certification. 2. May be useful to work towards a scoring element for traceability. 3. Yes, CABs should carry out traceback- Documenting may be difficult in some fisheries. Always a risk of substitution if there isn t observation 100% of time. 4. It is a good idea to update the reporting template and have a clearer statement on the fishery. Tracebacks may be difficult for certain fisheries, and Surveillance including traceability may invoke more CAB time. 5. We need more assurance that the product comes from the certified portion of the fishery. At a minimum, need to require traceability back to the client group. The client group is part of the UoC. Somewhere along the line, the first CoC must check authorized landing sites, list of authorized vessels, authorized buyers, etc. 6. Product must be traceable to unit of certification, otherwise there is and will continue to be a large gap in the supply chain information. I don t think it s enough to ask that product can be traced back to the UOC if requested I think it should always be traced back to the UOC. This would be done at the audit of the first fishery s circumstances. 2. Comments noted. 3. Comments as per tracebacks in Q1. 4. Comments noted. 5. Comments noted. Tracebacks could be carried out by MSC from points near to the fisheries. If surveillance includes traceability review, this highlights if there are any changes. If there are changes, the impact these changes have needs to be assessed. 6. Comments noted- intention of project: o Comments noted. The MSC would be able to carry out tracebacks on supply chains to the Unit of Certification level. o The proposal intends to allow formal review of traceability earlier in assessment than at present,

17 step in the supply chain after the fishery. They would have to show documents tracing that product back to a valid part of the UOC using the new database (see #3 below). o o o o Traceability should be considered at the preassessment stage, so clients have time to address any issues prior to entering full certification. Traceability should also be considered at every surveillance audit. It is the only way to ensure that only certified product is entering the supply chain. There must be a database kept up to date with the unit of certification (perhaps within 10 days, as with COC). If CABs are not able to easily find the unit of certification (vessels, fisheries, species, etc.) it is next to impossible to trace product back to the UOC. Perhaps fishery traceability systems should be determined to be sufficient up to the point of landing (maybe offloading is a better term, so capture at-sea transfers) or point of sale, whichever comes first. Traceability systems are different for all fisheries. The criteria which must be checked to prove that products come from the unit of and to be included in surveillance audits. o CAB will still determine point at which subsequent CoC is needed for each fishery and this information to be clearer to find for CoC audits. The MSC database will also allow recording of fisheries as suppliers.

18 certification (what information must be on what documentation + fishery client requirements) needs to be clearly identified by the fishery CAB in the traceability section of fishery report. CoC CABs and primary receivers should not need to read multiple sections of fishery reports to figure out where CoC starts.

19 Project name: Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines MSC contact: Kirsty Koral Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines and MSC responses consultation question (If Should MSC implement the new proposal for the harmonisation of action plans? Supportive: Yes, How can MSC have credibility without fully consistent standard If you allow for different standards with in client action plans you are effectively allowing for unfair completion from others looking to certify the same stock and discounting prior stakeholder input MSC response / Actions taken Stakeholder s views were noted and referred to the MSC TAB for discussion. Having two fisheries enter assessment with exact duplicate UoCs is an extremely rare occurrence and the final TAB decision was to not require harmonisation of CAPs Non Supportive: No. The objective would be to meet the SG80 requirements. This may be achieved by different methods in different situations. If both fisheries achieve the same outcome then harmonisation of CAP could be entirely inappropriate This would prove problematic. Each fishery certification must be assessed on its own merits. Ultimately, it is the certifying CAB s responsibility to ensure correct application of the principles and our role as the client to determine the most suitable course for meeting our conditions. We will not be held ransom to the CAP and timelines of another client or CAB. Other comments/suggestions: Having some level of harmonization is a good idea. For the Stakeholders views were noted and referred to the MSC TAB for discussion. The decision was to not require harmonisation of CAPs Stakeholders views were noted and referred to the MSC TAB for discussion. The decision was to not require harmonisation of CAPs The stakeholder seems to have mixed

20 Project name: Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines MSC contact: Kirsty Koral Is there anything that should be taken into consideration that is not included in this proposal? exact harmonization of CAP, how would the MSC require a subsequent fishery to achieve a score higher than 80, just because the first one set a higher target? Exact harmonization could achieve additional conservation benefits in this case. But, would this exact harmonization prevent subsequent fisheries from committing to higher achievement? Yes. A condition is outcome based, e.g. to: 1. Improve a stock to a target level within five years 2. Reduce the environmental impact of a gear by X amount 3. Implement a catch log book in a local fishery within five years With each of these examples it is clearly understood that the Client Action Plan may differ, as may the milestones to achieving the condition. But where there are aspects of harmonisation in the assessment (e.g. 1. Fishing the same stock, 2. Using the same gear type in the same area or 3. Fishing in the same local fishery) we would expect outcome based indicators e.g. PI to be in full harmonisation with the timelines of achieving the outcome. So for examples above for 1 they must be harmonised whereas 2 and 3 due to misalignment of assessment there may be a need to stagger the implementation of conditions. So yes' in circumstances such as 1 the action plan should be harmonised. No Feedback feedback for the proposal. MSC notes that the stakeholder supports the idea of harmonising client action plans if this had conservational benefits. However, the final TAB decision was to not require harmonisation of CAPs Stakeholder s views were noted but there seemed to be some misunderstanding of the proposal. The MSC TAB decision was to not require harmonisation of CAPs

21 Project name: Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines MSC contact: Kirsty Koral