Consultation Document Fishery Traceability

Transcription

1 Consultation Document Fishery Traceability Consultation Dates 1 March to 30 April 2016 MSC Contact Alison Roel FOR CONSULTATION Introduction This paper considers risks to traceability between catch, and sale from the fishery client, and potential improvements to the Fishery Certification Requirements. Key Points - MSC s technical reviews have found that fishery assessment information on traceability risks, and exactly how systems mitigate these, can be unclear. The independence of these systems, and incentive for fraud is not currently considered. - A few stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential for fraud. There are also a few cases where accidental misidentification has been noted. Improved processes may prevent this. - There is a lack of clarity on how traceability should be assessed for on-land operations within the client group (through Chain of Custody audit or fishery assessment), and the responsibilities of buyer and seller at first point of sale also need consideration. - The areas of risk, limits of the current system, and potential options for improvement are considered. In this first consultation alternative options are also welcome. 2. Purpose of the consultation This consultation seeks stakeholder feedback on the extent of the traceability risks between catch and first sale (at fishery, transhipment, auction, and on-land handling), the possible ways to better assess these, and to assure effective systems are in place. 3. Background Traceability between catch and first sale by the client group is normally covered by the fishery assessment team, but in some cases (where traceability risks are considered to be higher), the fishery CAB (certifier or Conformance Assessment Body) will require a separate Chain of Custody (CoC) audit. Updates to Version 2.0 of the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements improved clarification of the requirements and process for this. However continued identification of traceability risks through incidents, stakeholder concerns, and MSC technical oversight of the fishery assessments have resulted in this review. 4. Risks to traceability and limits of our current systems The MSC has considered the level of traceability risk (the risk of loss of traceability and product integrity between catch at sea, and sale from the fishery client into the CoC), and has assessed the limits of our current system through analysis of: The technical oversight feedback the MSC provides CABs relating to traceability (for fishery assessments from ); The traceability information contained within fishery assessment reports (review of 40 fishery assessment reports, from a range of regions, types and scale); and Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 1

2 The specific stakeholder concerns and traceability issues identified outside of the fishery assessment process. Full details of this are in Appendix B. In the MSC program, traceability at the level of the fishery client is normally covered within the fishery assessment. However, the fisheries assessment team is required to describe the traceability systems but does not always check nor is required to check that they work (e.g. using a traceability test, interviews); nor does the team have any way to raise non-conformities against the traceability systems in place if they seem inadequate. In higher risk cases where the fishery assessment team identifies that a fishery level CoC audit is required, adequate verification checks are implemented by the audits, and non-conformities can be raised. However, requiring CoC in the fishery has the disadvantage of adding time and cost to the assessment, and very often the need for CoC audit is not identified until the fishery is near certification. Furthermore, the CoC Standard is not customized specifically for at sea operations, and unlike other elements of certification fishery activities, such as compliance of vessels with fishery regulations, fishery level CoC does allow for the engagement of stakeholders in a transparent audit. At-sea traceability problems The MSC raises a high level of technical oversight comments on the traceability reporting in fishery assessments. Important problems have been identified in 80% of all assessments since 2016 (Appendix B, data set 1). The main areas of inadequacy were consideration of whether the fishery has effective traceability systems, and clarity on where CoC starts (Appendix B, data set 2). For instance, most of the omissions we identified were for the provision of adequate explanation of what systems were in place to ensure there was no substitution between certified and non-certified seafood. From the analysis of risk information there appear to be three different categories of at-sea traceability problem in fisheries: Low risk Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 There are a small proportion of fisheries where there are no risks to substitution because for example the whole fishery is included in the certification, and sells directly into a CoC certificate holder at landing. For these fisheries the important point is that the fishery assessment needs to clearly document why and how no risks exist. The majority of fisheries are likely to fit into a category where risks do exist, but there could well be sufficient systems in place to mitigate these. The challenge currently in this is that many of the fishery assessment reports do not clearly show this. A number of actions may be to adequately rectify this (for example training fishery assessors, requiring more traceability competence of the assessment team, re-wording requirements and/or templates, or clarifying the need to verify the traceability, segregation and identification system through traceability tests, interviews or observations). High risk Fisheries where there is a serious risk and potential for substitution at sea or at landing (e.g. vessels going to noncertified catch areas or using non-certified gears on the same trip as they harvest certified catch). These issues are often raised principally by stakeholders to the fishery assessment. This is a particular issue where there is no regulation and/or no independent monitoring to ensure the only fish from the certified gear/ catch area/ vessels can be sold as certified. Concerns are that neither the CoC audit, nor fishery assessment, of the at sea operation considers whether the systems include independent checks that could detect fraud. Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 2

3 On-land traceability problems In addition to these categories of risk for at sea operations, we identified other risk areas related to segregation, identification and traceability for on-land handling and sales. These activities are rarely clearly explained within the existing fishery assessment reports. Furthermore, current requirements on which parties need CoC and how to determine this are often unclear. On-land handling: Many fishery clients will have on-land operations. These may range from low risk (a storage facility which holds sealed identified certified product) to a high risk (the use of a subcontracted processor). In practice most of the highest risk examples such as processing operations do obtain CoC certification, but this is not clearly specified in the requirements. Questions are often raised on who does and does not need CoC certification, and how such a risk based decision is taken. Auctions are sometimes CoC certified and sometimes not, in some cases leaving clients unclear on what is needed to be able to sell their product as MSC certified. Sales from fisheries: In the majority of assessments the whole fishery is not certified, the certification being limited to some catch areas, gears, vessels (or vessel groups), and parties eligible to sell. It is often not clear in the assessment reports, but is critical to understand, how the seller (e.g. the agent) and the buyer is aware of this and able to verify it. This is generally happening in practice, but a few incidents and stakeholder concerns suggest improvements are needed. There are also challenges where certificate sharing arrangements specifically limits sales from some certified parties. The current requirements do not clearly define or verify the responsibilities of selling and buying parties. 5. Potential solutions In the short term, the MSC is working on improved training and guidance for fishery assessment teams. The MSC will seek feedback from CABs on how best to deliver this (e.g. calibration meetings, interpretations). Through this we hope to improve clarity in the traceability reporting within fishery assessments. By mid-2016, the MSC plans to publish website pages specifically on the Unit of Certification of each fishery, including the agents that they sell through. This will make it easier for the buyers to verify that they are buying through the correct party, and will ensure that CABs have reported and are aware of the agents involved. In the mid-term, the MSC is seeking feedback on how the changes to the Fishery Certification Requirements (to be published in 2017) can best address the traceability risks, and help CABs make clear judgements on which parties need CoC. Potentially a risk based questionnaire could be developed (see Appendix C) to determine when additional traceability verification is required. This would then need to trigger either further verification by the assessment team, or a CoC audit (to be considered in this consultation). Verification (already part of CoC audit) includes for example checking relevant procedures and systems, conducting a traceability test, interviewing responsible staff and where feasible making a site visit. In the longer term an option would be to develop standard requirements relating to fishery operations. This would be through either: - Developing a traceability section of the Fishery Standard, some clauses of which would only be applicable in specific cases of risk; - Developing a fishery CoC Standard, which would be required to at sea activity where an integrity risk was identified for this step. This would then allow for clearer compliance decision on each clause, and non-conformance process. The options for implementing more traceability verification (where risks exist) are considered in Appendix D. Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 3

4 Considerations This is only the first phase of consultation and more/alternative options for improvements may still be proposed. Introducing new requirements may have cost and timing implications on the fishery assessment, which will require further impact assessment. Competency to assess traceability at this stage is also important, and whilst all fishery assessment teams must now include someone with training in fishery traceability, this person will not have the same level of understanding of traceability as a CoC auditor. Whilst some fisheries, and some steps between catch and sale, clearly can pose traceability risk, there is not necessarily a risk at every fishery and at every step. Logically additional verification of traceability systems (either with the fishery assessment, or by a separate CoC audit) would only be needed from the stage where the risks were identified. A risk matrix could potentially be developed related to this (see Appendix C). 7. Potential interactions with other work The MSC is in the early stages of investigating better ways to address the risk of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the fishery and CoC. This may also result in certain recommendations relating to traceability requirements. An update on this subject will be provided following Technical Advisory Board working group meetings in June Timeline and next steps Time period March June 2016 July December 2016 Activity Coordinate feedback from stakeholders Continued research into the extent of the issues with regional team and CABs Collaborate with CABs to better understand their challenges and solutions (including any new guidance and calibration) Review of each potential change, practicality and cost of implications, and overall impact assessment on fisheries affected. Present to Technical Advisory Board (TAB) on outcomes of consultation, impact assessment, and proposed refinements to recommendations Consultation on specific changes proposed to the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements Review of outcomes, and sign off on specific changes by the TAB 2017 Issue of updated FCR, including new traceability requirements Consultation responses will be published anonymously on the MSC Program Improvements website after the consultation closes. Following this consultation, we will develop policy options and present these to our Technical Advisory Board Working Group in June. These will be refined further and drafted as changes to the Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) and associated scheme documents where necessary. There will then be a further public consultation period in August-September Changes incorporated into FCR v2.1 are currently scheduled for release mid Who can comment? How do I give feedback? This consultation is public and open to all interested parties. It is particularly relevant to fishery clients, auction owners and agents, buyers from fisheries, fishery and CoC auditors, MSC fishery outreach team, and ASI. Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 4

5 The feedback survey allows you to respond to specific questions on this topic. We also welcome any more detailed comments that you wish to make on this consultation which can be ed directly to: Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 5

6 FOR CONSULTATION 1 March to 30 April 2016 Appendix A Risks and limitations of the current system Risks to traceability Assessing and monitoring risk: The vast majority of fishery assessments identify some risks between catch and sale by the fishery client, it is likely most of these have mitigation systems in place but MSC often finds the information on this in the fishery assessment report is unclear. Risk of at sea certified and non-certified substitution: There is a perceived risk of fraud in some fisheries, especially where the majority of catch may come from a non-certified gear type, or from a noncertified catch area. Some of these fisheries may only have systems of self-reporting of certified and non-certified status (e.g. vessel logbooks), but not necessarily any independent monitoring. The greatest concern is when non-certified and certified are handled on the same fishing vessels on the same trips. There are also potential risks in transhipment and first landing where this is handled together. At least 5 in 40 fisheries sampled had non-certified gear on the same vessels, and 9 had transhipment. In some cases fisheries catch closely related species not included in the Unit of Certification which may then remain unsegregated until after sale (e.g. tuna species). The data in Appendix B shows that there is proportion of fisheries which can use non-certified gears, go to non-certified catch areas, use transhipment and even use non-certified gear within the same fishing trip. In all these cases the CAB has made a judgement that the systems are sufficient to address the risks, the question will be if in each of these cases a description of the system is sufficient or if further checks (e.g. traceback, observation, interview) would be more appropriate. Limitations of current system Fishery assessments document the traceability risks and systems, but do not verify that these systems work (i.e. no traceability test, interviews). It is not normally viable for a fishery assessment team to visit the stages between catch and landing, so segregation is not observed, responsible personnel are not interviewed and traceability documents not checked. Whilst fisheries are required to keep traceability records to the Unit of Certification: - CABs do not currently verify these through a traceability test - MSC has no right to request them (for other supply chain companies CAB contracts give MSC the right to request records for tracebacks) In neither a Fishery assessment, nor a CoC audit, is the following included: - considering the motivation to substitute - considering the independence of the systems to prevent this - requesting and reviewing stakeholder feedback on traceability risks or potential for fraud. There was previously a clause in the fishery assessment on this issue (FCRv ). The fishery assessment often does not consider segregation between closely related/ fish of similar appearance as a risk factor or document this in the assessment. This may especially be an issue where a fishery has more than one target species, but only one is within the unit of certification (e.g. closely related tuna species). Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 6

7 Risks to traceability Stakeholder engagement and transparency of CoC audits at the fishery: Stakeholders have contacted MSC with several traceability concerns between catch and sale by the client group. These concerns are not directly considered when fishery traceability is covered by a CoC audit. Sale from the fishery client, and verification of Unit of Certification: In the majority of assessments the whole fishery is not certified, but the certification is limited by catch areas, gears, vessels (or vessel groups), and parties eligible to sell. Although it is likely this is generally happening in practice, a few incidents and stakeholder concerns suggest improvements are needed. The options for this are considered in the consultation survey. Risk of misidentification is also higher in cases where sales are not pre-arranged between fishery and buyer, and therefore the buyer relies on information available at time of sale or at auction. In some cases certificate sharing agreements place limitations on eligibility of product. One case is where fishing companies not part of the client group, but CoC certified, may catch fish to sell as certified providing it is sold through a particular agent. Limitations of current system A chain of custody audit of at sea activity does not include any stakeholder feedback, is not publically available, and may not necessarily be carried out by the same CAB as the fishery assessment. There are no requirements in 7.12 which specifically relate to risks at point of sale. As shown in Appendix B fishery assessments often do not specify if auctions, or agents are used or if not who is responsible for the first sale. Where auctions are referred to (about a ¼ of reports sampled) only in one or two cases is the auction name mentioned. In none of these cases were auctions covered by a CoC audit. In some regions auctions are obtaining their own CoC certification (such as in parts of Europe) but in others they are not (such as the UK). Where auctions do not have a CoC audit their traceability systems have not always been documented by the fishery assessment team. This auction could also potentially receive product from multiple certified fisheries where if traceability was then covered in these assessments, it would result in duplication of effort. Where auctions do have a chain of custody audit, it is not clear how the requirements are to be applied to facility where trade happens, rather than to the traders themselves. Particularly in cases where it is the agents, not the auction, that manages product identification and traceability documentation. The Chain of Custody standard requires purchase from a certified supplier, there is no requirement for buyers to verify that product is from the Unit of Certification (gear, catch area, vessel, client group). The fishery assessment does not verify the identification of certified status at point of sale from the fishery. There is currently no requirement for fishery clients to publish or share relevant details of certificate sharing agreements which limit eligibility of product. Also there is no part of the CoC audit which considers limitations to who they have to sell through for product to be eligible. Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 7

8 Risks to traceability On land handling activities: Within the fishery client group there can be many on land handling activities, from offloading, basic processing at landing, subcontracted cold stores, processing, sorters, auctions, packaging or even retail. The risks associated with each of these can vary considerably, for instance where only product from the UoC is handled it will be low, but as soon as other similar non-certified fish are handled together the risk is much higher. Storage facilities handling sealed identified certified product will also be far lower risk that processing operation, especially those subcontracted. As in other parts of supply chain, ineffective segregation, identification and traceability systems can result in misidentification of non-certified product as certified. Feedback from SE Asia region was that bonded warehouses can also present traceability risks (where there may not have clear certified and non-certified identification/ segregation of product directly transhipped from the fishery). Limitations of current system There are no requirements in 7.12 which specifically relate to risks of on-land handling, and this is often therefore not described in the assessment reports. The current requirements (FCR ) state that chain of custody may be required at an earlier stage than sale where systems are insufficient at the fishery to make sure all fish and fish products identified as such by the fishery originate from the UoC. However there is no reference to on-land handling, no clear guidance of what is insufficient and no explanation of what the CAB is expected to do to verify this. The fishery assessment team rarely visits the places where certified product is handled on land to verify the traceability, segregation and identification. In practice if a fishery team needed to verify the systems prior to making this judgement this could create duplication of effort, especially for an operation that was clearly high risk such as a contract processor. 167 Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 8

9 Appendix B Data analysis Considering the all Public Comment Draft Reports reviewed since 2010 (totalling 254) Data set 1: Summary of all technical oversight Year Proportion PCDRs where traceability technical oversight raised Within these the average number of issues found per report % % % % % % % 2 Data set 2: Areas where technical oversight was raised on traceability Confirming eligibility date 18% Determing where CoC starts 31% Considering risks, in relation to whether traceability is sufficient 51% Data set 3: Proportion of technical oversight against consideration of specific risks Overarching consideration Robustness of risks management systems Systems in use Vessels outside UoC location or points of landing Transhipment At-sea processing Considering 40 Fishery Assessments, sampled from 2011 to 2015 Substitution certified and non-certified Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 9

10 Data set 4: Review of risks, segregation and identification, missing information Overall 78% of fishery assessments identified some traceability risks to be considered, in all cases they considered systems sufficient. However in 42% of these segregation systems were not fully explained and in 13% there was no explanation of identification. Across all fishery reports it was not possible to know if all risks and mitigation systems were documented, as 85% had some missing or unclear information in the traceability section. Data set 5: Risk areas needing to be considered by fishery assessment team Risk area Percentage of fishery assessments where this risk needed to be considered Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used within the fishery 20% Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or client group fishing the same stock Whether at sea processing occurs 25% Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during storage, transport, or handling activities (including transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction) Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody) Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required Data set 6: At sea activities The fishery assessments showed that in 15% of assessments the same vessels caught with certified and non-certified gear, and that in 55% of cases they did not. The other cases were unclearly documented in the report. In 52% of the fisheries the Unit of Certification did not include the whole fishery, and in only 23% was it clear that it did. In other cases the information was unclear. Transhipment took place in 23% of fisheries, did not take place in 58% of cases. In other cases the information was not clear. Data set 7: On land processing 82% of these fishery assessments there was no on land processing. In only 1 case was on land processing included. Other cases were unclear. 23% 38% 30% 10% 8% 15% Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 10

11 Data set 6: Selling through auction From the 40 fisheries reviewed it was only clear from 11 of these whether an auction was in use or not, and in 9 of these cases it was confirmed that an auction was used (note 5 related to the same region, and probably the same auction). Only however in 1 of these cases was traceability at auction explained, and in none were the auctions covered by a CoC audit. Appendix C Possible risk decision tree approach This is just an initial exploratory draft of the approach. To be expanded with feedback from CABs and stakeholders. Risk stage Questions Outcomes Fishing vessel Transhipment Sales prior to landing Port of landing On-land handling prior to sale by fishery client Sales by agents Does the same vessel catch with a non-certified gear on the same trip? Y/N Is it likely the vessel will catch the same species in an area outside the UoC geographically on the same trip? Y/N Does transhipment take place? Y/N Do transhipping vessels ever hold non-certified of the same species? Y/N Is product received and handled only in sealed boxes with MSC identification on each? Y/N Does the party responsible for the sale ever also handle non-certified materials? Y/N Can fish be landed of the same species from outside the UoC (species, gear, vessel or catch area)? Y/N Is it landed directly to the customer? Y/N Can certified and non-certified of same or similar looking species be processed at a client site? Y/N Are contract processors used? Y/N Are there any agents involved in selling the MSC certified fish? Y/N Do they ever arrange the sales directly (rather than just provide the financial transaction for prearranged sales between a buyer and seller)? If Y to both, additional verification of traceability required. Including considering independence of systems. If Y to first 2, but no to 3 rd additional traceability verification required. If Y additional verification of traceability required If Y to 1 and N to 2 additional verification of traceability required If Y to either some additional verification of traceability required If Y to both additional verification of traceability required Potentially a more advanced approach may consider not only if more verification is required but the level of verification needed. For example risks may be graded based on sufficiency of systems, and motivation to substitution. Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 11

12 Appendix D Additional verification of traceability, and the options for how to implement it for risk areas Option Pros Cons Changes needed Add traceability verification to the fishery assessment Require a CoC audit in fisheries, from the handling step where risks exist Develop a fishery CoC standard for cases where risks exist No need for an additional audit, and can be reviewed in parallel to sustainability factors. Includes stakeholder input and the process is transparent Auditor competence in traceability. On-land operations within the client group equivalent to existing CoC holders in the supply chain. Includes full verification of traceability. Customised standard for traceability at sea. Can add a stakeholder consultation step. Limited competence in traceability within the fishery team. If wanting to make a standard change, delayed until Does not directly consider risks of fraud or independence of systems to address this. No stakeholder consultation step, or transparency of process. Limited knowledge of fisheries within CoC auditors. Requirements not always fit for at sea operations Does not directly consider risks of fraud or independence of systems to address this. More work, longer timeframe to implementation. Potentially additional cost. Add new requirements for traceability initially to fishery certification requirements (traceability test, interviewing responsible personnel etc), and those related to fraud or independence of systems. Longer term consideration whether to include in the Fishery Standard. Consider competency requirements. Update requirements so same CAB must complete CoC audit and publish report on the MSC website. Consider how consideration of fraud and independence of systems. Consider competency requirements. Develop new standard Develop competency requirements (fishery and CoC?) 232 Consultation Document Fishery Traceability 12