Marine Stewardship Council

Transcription

1 Last updated 30 th October 2014 Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has launched its Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 (FCRv2.0), which includes changes that have taken place during the Fisheries Standard Review (FSR) and the Speed and Cost Review (SCR). The MSC standard retains at its core a fundamental reliance on rigorous and objective science and demonstration of sustainable outcomes. The intent and scientific justification for the Standard has been clarified significantly and the audit process has been both simplified and made more rigorous, with additional reliance on third-party review of the assessment results. The updated standard launches 1 October 2014 and will be effective from 1 April 2015 Frequently Asked Questions Contents: 1. Standard development and related FSR questions a) How was the MSC fisheries standard developed? b) What are the MSC Certification Requirements? c) What was the FSR? d) What was the SCR? e) Why were the reviews carried out? f) Has the review raised the bar for MSC certification? g) When will the next review of the fisheries standard take place and will there be any to the standard changes in-between? h) Sustainability comprises environmental, social and economic factors, why is the MSC standard limited to environmental factors? i) How was stakeholder input reflected in the new standard? j) Who contributed to the FSR? 2. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 questions a) What is Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0? b) How much time do certified fisheries get until they have to demonstrate compliance with the updated standard? c) Allowing up to three years for transition to the updated standard means that environmental benefits resulting from the new Certification Requirements may 1

2 only very gradually become reality. Will this limit the impact of the FSR? d) How might the SCR affect the timeframe for fisheries assessments? e) How will the updated Certification Requirements affect the costs for assessments, surveillance audits and re-assessments? f) How well do the MSC s requirements for stock status meet correspond with the definitions of overfished and overfishing that are used around the globe? g) How do MSC s requirements for stock status sit with the requirements of the reformed CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) of the EU? h) For some stocks of species the regeneration time can take many years. Does this not mean that fisheries can continue overexploiting their stock during this period? i) The bycatch taken by one certified fishery might not hinder the recovery of the bycatch species. However, the bycatch of a certain species taken by all certified fisheries might very well do so. How has this been reflected in the updated standard? j) What about the impact from more than one certified fishery on the benthic environment? The combined impacts of all certified fisheries in a specific area might cause serious harm to the area. How has this been reflected in the standard? k) Can the MSC really be considered to be following international best practice regarding benthic impacts? l) What is the MSC doing about shark finning? m) Why is it necessary to have a separate Default Assessment Tree for salmon fisheries? n) How has the traceability requirement changed in FCRv2.0? o) Does this mean traceability is required now for each vessel? 1. Standard development and review questions a) How was the MSC fisheries standard developed? Between 1997 and 1999, the MSC consulted over 200 scientists, environmentalists and other stakeholders to establish a worldwide certification system for fisheries using environmentally sustainable practices. Currently the MSC runs the only certification and ecolabelling program for wild fisheries consistent with the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organizations Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (FAO, 2009). The MSC standard for sustainable fishing is comprised of three core Principles and a set of performance indicators and scoring guidelines, known as the Default Assessment Tree. The three core Principles are: Principle 1 (P1): Health of the target fish stock Principle 2 (P2): Impact of the fishery on the environment Principle 3 (P3): Effective management of the fishery 2

3 These benchmarks correspond to levels of quality and certainty of the likelihood that fisheries management practices can deliver sustainability. They were derived from the experiences of fisheries managers, scientists, and other stakeholders worldwide. Based on this set of Principles, the MSC assessment process applies a set of specific indicators about a fishery s performance and management to determine its degree of sustainability. These Performance Indicators (PIs) are grouped under each of the MSC s three main Principles described above. Each of the PIs are scored on a scale, with the 60, 80, and 100 levels defining key sustainability benchmarks. The final overall score will result in a pass which requires that the average score for each PI is greater than or equal to 80, and that each PI is greater than 60; anything below this level results in a fail. A fishery can pass with some indicators scoring less than 80, in which case the fishery receives a condition requiring improvements so that the score can be raised to an 80 level, normally within five years. The fishery must also implement an agreed upon action plan that will deliver these improvements with time-bound milestones. Assessing a fishery s sustainability is complex, but the concept is simple fishing operations should be at levels that ensure long-term fish populations, while the ecosystems on which they depend remain healthy and productive for today s and future generations needs. A fishery in the MSC program is named after the client s group and may include one or more Units of Certification (UoC) defined by the target fish species and stock, the geographic area of operations, the fishing method, gear and/or vessel type. Each UoC within a fishery, including the whole fishery, can either pass or fail MSC assessment. Fisheries with multiple UoCs can also either pass or fail the MSC assessment. Only seafood from approved UoCs can carry the blue MSC ecolabel. b) What are the MSC Certification Requirements? When assessing fisheries against the MSC fisheries standard, certifiers use the MSC Certification Requirements. It is an evolving set of documents that are periodically reviewed to reflect new consensus on marine science and global best practice in sustainable fishing. The MSC Certification Requirements: Set out how the MSC fisheries standard should be interpreted by certifiers when conducting fisheries assessments Ensure that the performance of fisheries against the MSC standards is properly assessed Ensure that all assessments against the MSC fisheries standard are carried out consistently, irrespective of where, when and by whom the assessment is conducted. The MSC Certification Requirements were developed in 2011 and are structured in accordance with the ISO Guide 65. As MSC is a standard setter and not a certification body, the MSC cannot be accredited to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Guide 65 or other ISO standards. Neither can any other standard setting body. However, the MSC 3

4 recognises the importance of ensuring that certification bodies conducting MSC fishery assessments and Chain of Custody audits conform to ISO Guide 65 and has therefore embedded these requirements in its program. All accredited certifiers conducting MSC assessments therefore have to demonstrate conformity to ISO Guide 65/17065 to Accreditation Services International (ASI), the independent accreditation body which accredits and monitors MSC certifiers. c) What was the FSR? The Fisheries Standard Review (FSR), which took place in 2013 and 2014, was a comprehensive review of the MSC Certification Requirements version 1.3 (CRv1.3) Default Assessment Tree and other fishery client performance requirements. The FSR was an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder process, during which the MSC conducted public consultations where it consulted with over 80 fisheries experts, scientists, advisors, environmental organisations, and retailers across the globe to help inform the content of the review. The independent MSC Stakeholder Council and Technical Advisory Board both provided detailed input into the scope of the FSR. In addition, the MSC commissioned a significant amount of environmental research that also informed the process. The FSR focussed on the following topics: P1: sustainable fish stocks provide clarifications and guidance when assessing the sustainability of fish stock P2: minimising environmental impact - ensure consistency and to reflect best practice throughout P2 P3: effective management consider changes to the performance indicators used to assess fishery management systems Risk-Based Framework improving consistency and applicability of the framework Fishery process issues providing additional guidance and clarification (definition of unit of certification, fishery traceability, harmonisation of condition timelines). By undertaking the FSR, the MSC has ensured its standard remains the world s leading sustainable wild-catch seafood certification program. d) What was the SCR? The Speed and Cost Review (SCR) ran in parallel with the FSR and focussed on reducing the time, cost, and complexity of the fishery assessment, while maintaining the robustness and integrity of the certification process as well as ensuring the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement. The following topics were reviewed: Surveillance audits Fishery re-assessment 4

5 Reporting templates (pre-assessment and full assessment templates) Combination and review of assessment stages Group certification in fisheries (certification extensions) Peer Review College e) Why were the reviews carried out? Over time there are improvements to scientific understanding and changes to fishing practices. It is therefore vital that the MSC certification process is able to adapt so it can adequately assess fisheries against today s understanding of environmental sustainability. Conducting the FSR and the SCR also enabled the MSC to remain consistent with the procedures defined in the FAO ecolabelling guidelines and ISEAL Standard Setting Code. f) Has the review raised the bar for MSC certification? The FSR provided the opportunity to revise areas of the standard that required further clarification or where best practice science and management has changed. For some aspects of the standard this will mean some fisheries may be held to a higher performance standard than before. The MSC has conducted a detailed impact assessment of these fisheries to ensure they have sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements. Some of the notable changes to the current standard by which the bar has been raised has included the treatment of vulnerable marine ecosystems, the cumulative impacts of MSC fisheries on fish stocks and the marine environment, and the need to regularly review alternative bycatch mitigation techniques (more on these subject below). g) When will the next review of the fisheries standard take place and will there be any changes to the standard within this interval? The MSC Board of Trustees will only consider conducting a new FSR after five years from the time of the release of the previous version. This is intended to address concerns from some stakeholders that in the past the rate of change was to the existing standard had been too frequent. There will be scheduled additions to the fisheries standard, such as a new set of requirements for seaweed fisheries, which is expected in And where necessary, the Board of Trustees will consider specific amendments to the new fisheries standard where significant concerns have been raised. h) Since sustainability comprises environmental, social and economic factors, why is the MSC standard limited to environmental factors? 5

6 The MSC standard is based on outcome and best practice science and fishery management. The focus is on ensuring sustainability of seafood products in order to achieve the MSC s mission of using its ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of the world s oceans. This is being achieved by recognising and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood, and working with our partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis. The MSC standard offers fisheries a way to confirm sustainability of their practices using a credible, independent, third-party assessment process. It means sustainable fisheries can be recognised and rewarded in the marketplace, and gives an assurance to buyers and consumers that their seafood comes from a well-managed and sustainable source. By focussing on environmental sustainability, MSC certifications can help improve social and economic factors for a fishery. The MSC standard to which fisheries are certified allows the marine environment to flourish, which helps seafood remain a global nutritional resource, and helps ensure that fishing-related livelihoods thrive for generations to come. As a market based program, the MSC seeks to generate benefits for all its partners, which including market advantages for certified fisheries. In addition, as result of the FSR, the MSC standard now includes a clear policy on the issue of forced labour. Companies successfully prosecuted for forced labour violations shall be ineligible for MSC certification. To ensure that a certification entity remains eligible for MSC certification with respect to forced labour violations, companies, fishery client group members and their subcontracted parties should ensure compliance with national and international laws on forced labour and follow relevant guidance where available. i) How was stakeholder input reflected in the new standard? By reviewing its fisheries standard, the MSC ensures it reflects the most up-to-date understanding of fishery science and management encompassing the expert knowledge of the MSC s diverse global stakeholder network. The MSC follows guidelines set by the FAO and the ISEAL Alliance (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling) that require a balance of interests to be reflected in the development and/or revision of MSC processes. This means that stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of MSC policies and procedures that relate to the MSC fishery and Chain of Custody assessment processes, other aspects of the MSC program. The FSR involved several rounds of public consultation, during which time stakeholders were invited to leave comments and suggestions online (improvements.msc.org), all of which were considered carefully in the evolution of the Certification Requirements. In addition, the MSC also ran workshops in the US, UK and Chile to ensure a broad and balanced geographical representation. j) Who contributed to the fisheries standard review? During the public consultation periods, most comments came from NGOs (37 per cent) and the fishery industry (44 per cent). There were also contributions from MSC 6

7 partners (CABs, accreditation bodies, ISEAL), governments, and scientists/researchers. 2. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 questions a) What is Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0? Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0 is an update from the MSC s preview Certification Requirements version 1.3. The new version includes all the changes that have been agreed upon as part of the FSR. b) How much time do certified fisheries get until they have to demonstrate compliance with the new standard? The new standard was launched 1 October 2014, with a fixed six-month interval in place between the launch and the date at which the new certification requirements become effective. All assessments (first assessment, surveillance audits, certificate extensions, and reassessments) that commence after 1st April 2015 will have to use the new process requirements from FCRv2.0. First full assessments that are announced after the effective date will have to use the new fisheries standard (performance requirements) from FCRv2.0 in addition to the new process. Existing fisheries (in assessment or certified) will have to apply the new standard at their first re-assessment commencing after 1 October Any fishery may elect to use the new process and performance requirements from publication (1 October) if they wish and CABs can confirm their readiness to apply. c) Allowing up to three years for transition to the new standard means that environmental benefits resulting from the new certification requirements may only very gradually become reality. Will this limit the impact of the FSR? Fisheries entering the program after the effective date of 1 April 2015 will need to use the new standard. The transitions period will only apply to fisheries that are already in the MSC program and it will allow these fisheries to adapt to the new requirements. Although these fisheries are able to adopt the new standard earlier, the three year transition period remains a requirement of the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries: Certified fisheries should be given a period of at least three years to come into compliance with the revised standards. All assessments (first assessment, surveillance audits, certificate extensions, and reassessments) that commence after the effective date of 1 April 2015 will have to use the new process requirements from FCRv2.0. First full assessments that are announced after this effective date will have to apply the new fisheries standard (performance requirements) from FCRv2.0 in addition to the new process. 7

8 Existing fisheries (in assessment or certified) will have to apply the new standard at their first re-assessment commencing after 1 October Any fishery may elect to use the new process and performance requirements from publication (1 October) if they wish and CABs can confirm their readiness to apply. d) How might the SCR affect the timeframe for fisheries assessments? The MSC fishery assessment process contains a large number of steps, along with required timelines for these steps. The duration of the process has been reduced from over three years to an average of approximately 13 months. However, a number of fisheries still experience assessments lasting several years. While long assessment times allow fisheries to make improvements during the assessment period, long assessments also tend to be more costly for clients and for stakeholders (as they require repeated engagement). As a result of the SCR, there has been a reduction in the number of assessment steps and time taken from fishery assessment announcement to site visit and a reduced assessment timeline from site visit to certification. e) How will the updated Certification Requirements affect the costs for assessments, surveillance audits and re-assessments? The SCR, which ran concurrently with the FSR, took place in order to seek time and cost reductions for fisheries within the program. As a result, the MSC has reduced the requirements for surveillance and reassessment audits and made allowances for expansion of an existing certificate. This will allow high performing fisheries, which have few conditions and transparent procedures for access to information, to reduce the cost of continued recertification. It will also allow fisheries to more easily extend the certificates to new species, gears or fishers. f) How well do the MSC s requirements for stock status meet correspond with the definitions of overfished and overfishing that are used around the globe? As noted in GFCR guidance section GSA2.2.2, the MSC has chosen not to define the terms overfished and overfishing. These concepts are commonly used elsewhere as follows: Overfishing: fishing mortality higher than F MSY Overfished: biomass stock size lower than a limit defined in relation to MSY. The FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines define an overfished stock as being below a biomass limit reference point. Such limit is often taken to be 50% B MSY, which is the default assumption for the point below which recruitment may be impaired (PRI) as defined by the MSC. The guidance further confirms (see Box GSA3) that there are many ways by which MSY reference points may be estimated, and against which fisheries status may be assessed. For common practice stock assessment methods the MSC expects that F MSY will be treated as a limit reference point. In more comprehensive best practice methods, F MSY could be a target reference point. 8

9 g) How do MSC s requirements for stock status sit with the requirements of the reformed CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) of the EU? The EU CFP 2013 reform confirmed that fisheries should be managed according to a precautionary approach that maintains stocks at levels capable of producing MSY by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by Many ICES assessments are now reported against a reference level B MSY trigger as a point above which a fishery may be regarded as within a zone in which MSY may be achieved, allowing for environmental fluctuations and uncertainties in assessments. The MSC guidance emphasises that the B MSYtrigger concept sets a lower limit to the likely range of values that B MSY may take, and should not be regarded as an estimate of B MSY. Fisheries with B>B MSYtrigger may be regarded as fluctuating around B MSY and thereby achieve an 80 score or unconditional pass on the stock status PI. h) For some stocks of species the regeneration time can take many years. Does this not mean that fisheries can continue overexploiting their stock during this period? Where stocks are not regarded as fluctuating around their target levels (B MSY by default, or higher levels for key LTL stocks) and they score less the unconditional 80 score, stock exploitation levels must be low enough to achieve stock rebuilding within a reasonable timescale. The actual timescale will depend on the life history characteristics of the species, but MSC requires that even very slow growing stocks should have rebuilding plans that aim for a maximum of not more than 20 years. So long as there is evidence that the rebuilding plan is working over this period, and the stocks remain above the PRI, the fishery is regarded as being in a recovery phase and still certifiable. MSC wishes to avoid the situation that fisheries appear in the upper left corner of the standard Kobe plot, with high exploitation rates even when stock size is reduced. Fisheries that find themselves in this situation are expected to reduce exploitation rates and begin effective rebuilding as fast as reasonably possible. Monitoring must be in place for all such fisheries, and evidence of rebuilding must become clearly available within not longer than five years, preferably less. If this is not achieved (i.e. if a condition on the rebuilding PI is not closed out), the fishery would be suspended. i) The bycatch taken by one certified fishery might not hinder the recovery of the bycatch species. However, the bycatch of a certain species taken by all certified fisheries might very well do so. How has this been reflected in the new standard? MSC has with the release of the new standard drafted an extensive set of requirements on addressing the cumulative impacts of certified fisheries. These changes will affect all non-target species in Principle 2, including endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species. These new requirements will ensure that MSC fisheries do not contribute to unsustainable exploitation of impacted species, regardless of whether they are landed or just incidentally caught. j) What about the impact from more than one certified fishery on the benthic environment? The combined impacts of all certified fisheries in a specific area might cause serious harm to the area. How has this been reflected in the standard? The cumulative management of VMEs is assessed in the CR v2.0 management PI to ensure that fisheries comply with the management requirements and measures (e.g., move-on rules, closed areas) to protect VMEs. For example, if another fishery has 9

10 set up a closed area to protect known VMEs, the fishery under assessment must avoid that area as well. k) Can the MSC really be considered to be following international best practice regarding benthic impacts? Yes. FCRv2.0 has introduced the requirements to assess a fishery s outcome on VMEs (PI 2.4.1) and a fishery s management of VMEs (PI 2.4.2). Further, the MSC has adopted the FAO Guidelines definition of VME. l) What is the MSC doing about shark finning? MSC requirements prohibit shark finning. The new standard contains criteria whereby a fishery can now be scored on the level of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. m) Why is it necessary to have a separate Default Assessment Tree for salmon fisheries? There are unique characteristics to salmon fisheries that are not accounted for in the Default Assessment Tree, which has been developed for wholly marine or wholly freshwater species. These unique considerations include enhancement and the complex stock structure of salmon. The new Default Assessment Tree for salmon fisheries is consistent with existing salmon assessments, providing a default where previously CABs had modified the general Default Assessment Tree. The new salmon standard captures scientific and management best practice, accounts for the unique population dynamics and stock structure of salmon and includes special requirements for assessing the impact of enhancement activities. n) How has the traceability requirement changed compared to the work the assessment teams had to do previously for CRv1.3? The assessment team is still responsible for evaluating traceability risks, documenting how the fishery s traceability systems work, and determining where chain of custody is required to begin, just as in the previous requirements. The updated reporting template provides more structure in terms of risk factors to consider and how this information should be recorded - this should improve consistency across CABs and lead to fewer technical oversight comments on traceability sections of reports. With the new requirements, the assessment team also needs to do an initial, quick review of traceability risks earlier in the assessment process. This will help fishery clients to better understand traceability requirements and gives them more time to implement new systems if needed, rather than waiting until the public comment draft report (PCDR) stage. During surveillance audits, any new traceability risks must also now be considered and documented if relevant. Previously, there was no process to review traceability impacts during the entire five year certificate period. Traceability factors that might be relevant to consider during surveillance could include changes in the Unit of Certification or the fishery s management system (such as vessels being allowed to 10

11 fish in both certified and non-certified areas), which might mean the fishery has a greater risk of mixing between certified and non-certified product. Importantly, although the assessment team must continue to document how the traceability system works for each fishery, there is no requirement for auditors to carry out a traceability test or to verify the system during assessment (as is required for a chain of custody audit). Therefore, these changes should not significantly increase the time spent on traceability factors during a fishery assessment. It should be noted that the MSC carries out periodic product tracebacks to verify that MSClabelled products originate from certified fisheries, and in these cases a fishery may be asked to provide the MSC with traceability records directly. o) Does this mean traceability is required now for each vessel? Traceability systems must be sufficient to ensure that any fish or fish products sold by the fishery as certified has originated from the specified Unit of Certification, however this unit is defined. If the Unit of Certification is defined to include specific named vessels, then records would need to demonstrate traceability back to the vessel, or category of vessels, that are included in the Unit of Certification. In other cases, the Unit of Certification may include all vessels and catch areas, and therefore records would only need to be sufficient to trace certified fish back to the fishery itself. It is up to the assessment team to determine, based on the Unit of Certification, whether traceability systems at the fishery are sufficient to allow tracing back to the Unit of Certification. This requirement is important because some fisheries catch both certified and non-certified fish, and existing regulatory or traceability measures (such as logbooks) may not be sufficient to distinguish between certified and non-certified catches. 11