MSC - Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues

Transcription

1 MSC - Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues Consultation Dates: 11 September 26 October 2013 MSC Contact: Kirsty Koral Executive Summary Three Fishery Process projects are being addressed as part of the Fishery Standard Review (FSR). These projects look at proposals to improve the fishery assessment process and will result in additions to section C of the certification requirements/guidance. This consultation is a combination of three main workstreams: Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines, Definition of Unit of certification (UoC) and Fishery Traceability. The first project addresses the current lack of guidance to help Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) make informed decisions on whether to harmonise condition timelines. A new proposal is also introduced regarding the additional harmonisation of action plans (as well as conditions) in the rare, specific case of exact duplicate Units of Certification. The second project proposes a number of clarifications to the Certification Requirements (CR) and Guidance (GCR) relating to different aspects of the Unit of Certification (UoC). The purpose of this project is to provide some minor modifications to the CR and/or related Guidance that will clarify how fisheries are defined and assessed as UoCs and the implications for clients certificate sharing etc. The final project seeks to improve the requirements, processes, and other influences that relate to traceability at the fishery level and the intersection between fisheries and the supply chain. The purpose of this paper is to seek stakeholder input on proposals to update the Certification Requirements and associated Guidance for traceability within the fishery certification process. Contents Table Name of Project Page Harmonisation of Conditions Timelines 2 Definition of Unit of Certification 5 Fishery Traceability 12 1

2 HARMONISATION OF CONDITIONS TIMELINES Summary FOR CONSULTATION This project is part of the fishery standard review that is taking place during In April 2013 the Technical Advisory Body (TAB) agreed that further guidance should be included in the Guidance to the MSC certification requirements to help Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) to make informed decisions on whether to harmonise condition timelines. This proposal was put forward at early stage consultation and received mixed feedback from four stakeholders. In light of the early consultation feedback, a small CAB led impact assessment and some research carried out by MSC staff, a number of proposals are now released for late stage consultation. In this consultation paper MSC propose as before to include guidance to help CABs make informed decisions on whether to harmonise condition timelines, including in RFMO/Multi-jurisdictional management situations. A new proposal is also introduced regarding the additional harmonisation of action plans (as well as conditions) in the rare, specific case of exact duplicate Units of Certification. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to: propose additional guidance that has been developed for Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) on the harmonisation of fishery conditions and conditions timelines. consult on additional guidance being proposed for CABs on the harmonisation of action plans in the rare, specific case of exact duplicate unit of Certification. Background The requirements for harmonisation are currently covered under Annex CI of the MSC Certification Requirements V1.3 (previously TAB D-15v2). These note that the timeframe and milestones required in conditions are an important factor in delivering the outcome of the condition; and that harmonisation of condition timeframes should be at least considered by CABs when examining harmonisation with other fisheries. The research carried out suggests that in the majority of cases (86%) CABs took timelines into consideration in their harmonisation work. In April 2013 the TAB agreed that further guidance should be included to help CABs to make informed decisions on whether to harmonise condition timelines. It was agreed that CABs should consider the time difference involved between two clients certifications and whether the deliverables for the later client can still be achieved during the same timeframe. The original policy proposal that went to early stage consultation was that guidance would be added to Annex CI. Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 2

3 Considerations Four written responses were received from stakeholders during the early stage consultation. Two stakeholders both stated that MSC shouldn t implement the proposed policy changes but should provide guidance for the harmonisation of conditions timelines in an RFMO/Multijurisdictional management situation. One stakeholder suggested that guidance explaining which conditions must be harmonised and those that may not need to be harmonised should be developed for the late stage consultation. A small impact assessment was carried out by a CAB on the scores of two fisheries that had previously harmonised their conditions timelines. The CAB concluded that the proposed guidance changes seem reasonable and useful and should not lead to excessive increases in complexity or cost. The fact that the changes essentially require consideration followed by justification seems reasonable One stakeholder provided a general comment, requesting that MSC consider complete harmonisation of action plans in the rare, specific case of exact duplicate Units of Certification. Proposal Based on the feedback received and further research carried out, the MSC is now making two separate proposals as outlined below. Harmonisation of conditions timelines The following guidance is now proposed for insertion in the Annex CI Guidance: As a condition is outcome based, not process based, two clients may propose different methods for achieving the same condition outcome. However, in some cases harmonisation of timelines may be possible and desirable. When deciding on harmonisation of conditions and condition timelines, CABs should consider the time difference involved between two clients certifications and whether the deliverables can be achieved during the same timeframe. The team should provide a rationale and justification for when conditions timelines are not harmonised. In addition, to resolve an omission in the current harmonisation logic, the following requirement is proposed for insertion into Annex CI: ACI3.2.3 CABs shall take similar steps as detailed above to ensure that the result of surveillance reports are, to the extent possible, harmonised with assessment and surveillance outcomes of overlapping fisheries. Guidance is also suggested, to read as follows: Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 3

4 The purpose of this guidance is to assist CABs in the harmonisation of conditions in overlapping fisheries. The general principle in clauses CI3.2.3 and ACI3.2.3 is that any new assessment or audit within a harmonised group should take into consideration the conclusions of any previous assessment or audit such that harmonisation is maintained over time. Harmonisation of action plans During early consultation a proposal was received requesting that MSC consider harmonisation of action plans in the rare, specific case of exact duplicate Units of Certification. In this case the following policy would be adopted: Require second and successive fishery clients entering an exact duplicate fishery into assessment to match the action plan of the initial certificate and Provide guidance on what constitutes exactly duplicative unit(s) of assessment and unit(s) of certification. Annex CI would require a few small edits to include the term client action plan to sections and If approved, guidance would be included on how/when to address this requirement. Consultation Questions 1. Should MSC implement the new proposal for the harmonisation of action plans? 2. Is there anything that should be taken into consideration that is not included in this proposal? Potential interactions with other FSR/SCR workstreams N/A Who can comment? This consultation is open to any interested stakeholders Next steps Following this consultation and based on the stakeholder input new requirements and guidance will be drafted. This will be submitted to the MSC Technical Advisory Board for final approval and subsequent publication in Further Information Kirsty Koral Kirsty.koral@msc.org Supporting Documentation MSC Certification Requirements Part C Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements Part C Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 4

5 DEFINITION OF UNIT OF CERTIFICATION (UoC) Summary This paper proposes clarifications to the Certification Requirements (CR) and Guidance (GCR) relating to the Unit of Certification (UoC). 1) Definitions: The current definitions of terms such as UoC, client, client group and other eligible fishers do not make it easy for clients or other stakeholders to understand the options for certificate sharing and access to the certificate. Proposed revisions include the development of a Unit of Assessment (UoA) term and (new in this consultation) the collection of information to identify small-scale fisheries. 2) Scoring elements in Principle 1 (P1): It should be possible for multiple species or stock units to be included as separate scoring elements within a single UoC, as preferred by clients based on the benefits and risks involved. The consultation document also proposes that the final list of species to be included in P1 may be confirmed after the site visit. 3) UoCs based on catch content: Fisheries should not be able to decide which catches will be counted in the UoC based on the species contained in the catch. 4) Gear variations in UoCs: It has not been clear whether more than one gear type, or some variation of a gear type, can be included within a single UoC. It is proposed that some limited flexibility is allowed in the gears assessed within a single UoC. 5) Quota trading: Guidance is also proposed on the implications of quota trading when it results in increased access to a fishery from outside the certified clients. The intent with these proposals is variously to ensure greater consistency in the scoring by Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs), to ensure the credibility of assessments and/or to make the MSC programme more accessible. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide some minor modifications to the CR and/or related Guidance that will clarify how fisheries are defined and assessed as UoCs and the implications for clients certificate sharing etc. Background Revisions to the CR/GCR are proposed for a number of definitional and procedural issues relating to the UoC, as outlined below. These were discussed with a Working Group of the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at a meeting in April ) Definitions: MSC s current guidance on the specification of the UoC is confusing to clients and stakeholders. Clarifications are needed of the definitions of terms such as UoC, client, client group and other eligible fishers such that the options for certificate sharing and the eligibility of different entities to access the certificate are clearer. These definitions were previously revised with the release of the Certificate Sharing TAB Directive 10 (v2 issued Feb. 2009). Experience since then has indicated that further revisions would be valuable. A small clarification was also made to the definition of UoC in the vocabulary in CR v1.3 in January 2013, distinguishing between the UoC and a conceptual UoA. Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 5

6 2) Scoring elements in P1: Clarification is needed as to the permissible options for defining the UoC, such as whether multiple species or stock units can be included as separate scoring elements within a single UoC, and the implications in these cases if some species or units fail the assessment. The CR is currently unclear in this respect. Some CR sections suggest that the treatment of multiple species as scoring elements is only applicable in P2, while others suggest this is also possible in P1. Most MSC fisheries assign only one species/stock and gear to each UoC and score them separately; however, some fisheries have also assessed multiple species (and gears) in single UoCs. 3) UoCs based on catch content: CR additions are needed to confirm that fisheries may not decide which fishing hauls will be counted as part of UoC after the catch is landed or on the basis of the content of the catch. If such UoCs were allowed, any haul that caught a high-profile bycatch or ETP species could just be ignored in scoring as an impact of the fishery. 4) Gear variations in UoCs: Clarifications are needed on whether more than one gear type, or some variation of a gear type, can be included within a single UoC. As in the species case above (issue 2), most fisheries do assess distinct gears as separate UoCs. However, guidance has been requested for a case where some secondary fishing activity happens only rarely, and the impacts of that gear are expected to be much less than the main gear. 5) Quota trading: MSC has also been asked how CABs should assess the practice of quota trading, particularly in cases where it results in increased access to a fishery from outside the certified clients. No guidance is currently provided as to how a CAB should treat and assess such activities. Considerations including summary of feedback Limited feedback was received on this topic in the early-stage consultation (only three written responses). Unfortunately, the track changes in the consultation document had been deleted from the PDF versions uploaded to the policy microsite by mistake, so this may have made the actual proposals much less apparent to consultees. The feedback received is nevertheless summarised below. General comments were made that these changes do not appear to change the bar nor change the speed or cost of assessment they probably save on both actually, and increase flexibility. 1) The FAO Guidelines definition of UoC is provided as Appendix 1. In 2012, a working group of the MSC s Technical Advisory Board (TAB) agreed that the concept of a Unit of Assessment (UoA), distinct from the UoC, should be consistent with the FAO language (the difference between the two being the other eligible fishers ). The proposed language also allows the term client group to be more correctly recognised as the group that is able to access the certificate and apply the logo to products from the fishery. Other entities, such as processing companies in the client group, are clearly distinct from any fishing companies that might be identified in the UoC. The new text also aims to clarify the distinction between a fishery being within scope of MSC assessment and the scope of the assessment as defined in the UoA. These topics are currently confused in CR section In the early-stage consultation paper, MSC had proposed that the Notification Report sent to MSC at Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 6

7 the start of an assessment should be published in order to give maximum clarity on the scope of the fishery to stakeholders. CABs argued that this report should not be published since much of the content is still provisional at that stage. This aspect of the proposal has therefore been dropped. Stakeholders were mostly supportive of the remainder of the proposal, agreeing it would be clearer and more logical. Some noted a need to ensure that the terms (UoC, UoA, fishery etc.) are fully standardised throughout the CR. It is believed that this has been achieved, except that the term fishery is still used to cover a number of different contexts. 2) Appendix 2 gives examples from the CR and GCR, illustrating the lack of clarity on whether multiple P1 species are allowed in a single UoC. Some confusion arises from loose wording on specific terms, such as whether fishery is being used in a specific MSC context or generically or in reference to the UoC. Most of the current text supports the possibility of multiple species in P1. The TAB Working Group agreed in 2012 that clients should be able to decide how the species should be assessed based on their risk preferences and the possible advantages to the supply chain of having multiple species covered by only one certificate. Consultation feedback was split on this issue. Clients agreed with the extra flexibility proposed. However, some consultees raised concerns, including that scoring multiple species in a UoC could enable some to pass that would not pass on their own. Comments were also made on the assessment of multi-species fisheries, but the major developments in this area will not be proposed until the next FSR in ) Appendix 3 of the early-stage consultation paper proposed minimal changes to the CR and GCR language, confirming that the UoC must be based on the fishing practices used and not on the content of the catch. All respondents supported the proposal that post-catch UoCs should not be allowed. Impact assessment work confirmed that there could be inappropriate impacts on the scoring of some tuna fisheries if the policy was introduced as proposed. Revisions have been made accordingly. 4) All consultees supported or made no comment to the proposal for new guidance, allowing some flexibility in the treatment of gear types within UoCs, which is consistent with that for species. 5) All consultees supported or made no comment to the proposal for clarification of MSC s expected treatment of quota trading in MSC fisheries. Proposal The proposals for the issues in this topic are largely the same as in the early-stage consultation, except where noted below. 1) Proposals for revisions to the definitions of UoC and other terms are given in a number of different sections of the CR and Guidance, including: AA3 Vocabulary 27.4 Confirmation of scope Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 7

8 G27.4 Guidance on the confirmation of scope including the content of the Notification Report. The template for the Notification Report now includes a section where CABs would provide information on the size and fishing locations of vessels. MSC intends to use this information to identify small-scale fisheries (as those where most vessels are <15m, use largely passive gears and operate within national exclusive economic zones). MSC receives regular requests about such smallscale fisheries in the programme Public Certification Report Certificate sharing (including guidance G27.23) CB4.0 CG5 General requirements for P3 Catch data 2) Noting the lack of consensus on the assessment of multiple species in P1, MSC proposes to proceed with changes as drafted, increasing flexibility in the programme and giving benefits to the speed and cost of assessments. Further work will be done on multi-stock fisheries in the 2018 FSR. Minor changes needed to allow multiple P1 species in UoCs are given in CR section , and in the new RBF language. With this clarification, it is also necessary to define procedures covering the situation where some species within a UoC pass assessment while others fail. Such species would then need to be reassessed as P2 species. Proposed changes relating to this aspect are covered in CR sections A and in G These allow that the final selection of species for inclusion in P1 may be made after the site visit in some assessments. 3) UoCs based on catch content: The proposal is still to exclude post-catch UoCs as planned see new section at the end of current section Language has also been added to cover the situation in some tuna fisheries in which a gear type may be recognised post-catch by the accidental capture of a log or other fish aggregating device. This is regarded as different from the post-catch recognition of certain species in the catch, which should never be excluded as an impact of the UoC. 4) Gear variations in UoCs: No changes are proposed to the version released to the early-stage consultation. MSC proposes new guidance as given in section G ) Quota trading: No changes are proposed to the version released to the early-stage consultation. MSC proposes to introduce new guidance as before, as shown at the end of GCR section G Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 8

9 Consultation questions 1. Are any special issues likely to arise in the implementation of these changes? Should the proposals be changed in any way? 2. Is there anything else that should be taken into consideration related to the UoC topic that is not included in the proposal? Potential interactions with other policy proposals There are linkages between these issues and other workstreams as outlined below: Issue 1 links to the Traceability within fisheries topic, regarding what information must be provided on the website and the identities of eligible fishers, client group members, when further Chain of Custody will be needed and by whom, and other related traceability issues. This project is also currently out to consultation, and interested parties are encouraged to review and respond to that project also. Issue 1 also overlaps with the Group certifications topic in the Speed and Cost Review (SCR) project that aims to provide procedural options for fisheries making changes to their UoCs. Issues 2 and 4 have implications for the Speed and Cost Review (SCR) project with the potential to reduce costs if adopted. Who can comment? This consultation is open to any interested stakeholders. Next steps Following this consultation and based on the stakeholder input, new requirements and guidance will be drafted. This will be submitted to the MSC Technical Advisory Board for approval, after which publication is expected in Further Information For further information on this topic, please contact the MSC project lead, Dan Hoggarth by dan.hoggarth@msc.org. Supporting Documentation Part A of the MSC Certification Requirements MSC Certification Requirements Part C Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements Part C Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 9

10 Appendix 1. Definition of the UoC as given in the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines The unit of certification is the fishery for which ecolabelling certification is sought, as specified by the stakeholders who are seeking certification. The certification could encompass: the whole fishery, where a fishery refers to the activity of one particular geartype or method leading to the harvest of one or more species; a sub-component of a fishery, for example a national fleet fishing a shared stock; or several fisheries operating on the same resources. The stock under consideration exploited by this fishery (unit of certification) may be one or more biological stocks as specified by the stakeholders for certification. The certification applies only to products derived from the stock under consideration (see paragraph 30). In assessing compliance with certification standards, the impacts on the stock under consideration of all the fisheries utilizing that stock under consideration over its entire area of distribution are to be considered. FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines FAO. Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. Rome, FAO. Revision 1, Appendix 2. Text extracts from the current CR/GCR showing variations in the language relating to scoring of multiple species/stocks in P1. CR reference Text Text suggesting a fishery or UoC could include more than one species or stock Vocabulary term: The living resources in the community or population from which catches Fish stock are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock implies that the particular population is a biological distinct unit. In a particular fishery, the fish stock may be one or several species of finfish or other aquatic Vocabulary term: Scoring elements Vocabulary term: Species Vocabulary term: Target stocks(s) Vocabulary term: Unit of Cert n organisms. A list of matters that are to be taken into account when determining the performance score on an indicator; also the matters used in determining a SG benchmark. In the case of Principles 1 or 2, used to mean a subdivision of individual parts of the ecosystem affected by the fishery, such as different species/stocks/sub-stocks or habitats within a Component. Refers to any or all of stocks, populations, individual species, or groupings of species, depending on the context. In contexts such as bycatch there may be a large number of individual species taken in a fishery, such that it is impractical and inefficient to attempt to address status and impact of each species individually. In such cases it is acceptable to group species with similar biological characteristics into species groups, and evaluate outcome status and fishery impact for the species group. Those fish stocks which have been assessed under Principle 1 of the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel/s) pursuing that stock. When the term unit of certification is used for fisheries that are in assessment, it refers to the Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 10

11 unit of assessment or unit of potential certification. Note that other eligible fishers may be included in some units of certification but not initially certified (until covered by a certificate sharing arrangement) The CAB shall confirm the proposed unit of certification for the assessment to include: The target stock (s), The fishing method or gear, and Practice (including vessels) pursuing that stock Text suggesting that multiple scoring elements are only applicable in P In Principle 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the fishery. CC The team shall work with stakeholders at the SICA consultation meeting to: (b) Identify the scoring element most vulnerable to the identified fishing activities. i. For PI the target stock is usually the only scoring element. In that case this paragraph does not apply. ii. For PIs in P2 there may be more than one scoring element identified during the information gathering stage. If so, the scoring element most vulnerable to fishing activities shall be identified. GCC bi. At present, even for multi-species fisheries, each target stock seeking MSC certification will need its own assessment under Principle 1. CC In cases in P2 where there is more than one scoring element, and they are all data-deficient (RBF), the team shall derive a final MSC score by applying rules in Table CC18 to the set of MSC equivalent scores. Text that could be interpreted as implying that scoring should apply to a single stock in P1 PI The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. [Note that there are similar references to the stock in the actual SGs. Although the singular phrasing is used for stock here, note that the vocabulary definition above indicates this may include more than one species.] 1 The text in italics was added to the definitionn with CR v1.3 in January 2013 as one of the medium issues. Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 11

12 FISHERY TRACEABILITY Summary The MSC seeks to improve the requirements, processes, and other influences that relate to traceability at the fishery level and the intersection between fisheries and the supply chain. Risks of mixing between MSC and non-msc products at the fishery level can have major impacts on the MSC s credibility, which if unaddressed could undermine traceability measures taken by partners later in the supply chain. This project suggests solutions for the following issues that increase integrity risk: Traceability is currently only required back to the certified fishery, but in some cases the full stock or fishery may not be certified. Therefore for full supply chain integrity it must be possible to trace products back to the unit of certification rather than the certified fishery Traceability may be considered late in the assessment process, whereas considering traceability earlier in the process may mean the client could find solutions to traceability issues. Traceability risks and mitigation may not be recorded fully or clearly, even though systems are in place. Fisheries may have strong regulatory and management systems in place to ensure segregation of MSC from non-msc products, but the reports may not include all relevant details to document this. Fishery reports may include details of the vessels engaged with the UoC, but this is not always made clear, and there may be changes over time to the vessels and their activities. Fisheries may be eligible to sell Under MSC Assessment Fish (UMAF), which is harvested during assessment. But in some cases, the traceability risks are not identified or addressed until the PCDR stage, after product has already entered the supply chain. This can increase the risk of non-certified product entering the Chain of Custody system. Traceability issues are not formally reviewed during the full period of certification, so when there is a change that may improve or detract from traceability, they may not currently be reported on. To address these issues, it is proposed that several changes would improve clarity on the unit of certification s traceability impacts; would ensure traceability risks are considered earlier in the fishery assessment process and throughout the period of the fishery certification; and help clarify key pieces of information for the supply chain and related stakeholders to benefit from sourcing MSC products. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to seek stakeholder input on proposals to update the Certification Requirements and associated Guidance for traceability within the fishery certification process. These changes will be submitted for approval by the MSC Technical Advisory Board (TAB) in December 2013, and would come into effect in 2014 if approved. Background Currently, during the fishery certification process traceability for MSC-certified products within a fishery is assessed and reported on. The point at which products may enter further MSC Chain of Custody (CoC) is determined by the fishery assessment team and is noted in Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 12

13 the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) and subsequent Public Comment Report (PCR) and Final Report. The section for traceability at the fishery in the Certification Requirements, Part C, was updated in August These changes helped clarify how the certifier should determine on a risk basis if the traceability systems are sufficient to allow the MSC certified product to enter the chain of custody. In most cases, the fishery assessment determines that fishery traceability systems are sufficient up until the point of landing or point of sale, although this can vary for some fisheries. Beyond this specified point, all subsequent operators taking ownership of the product must have CoC certification to sell it onward as MSC-certified. However, if the fishery assessment team judges that traceability in the fishery is inadequate, they may require a separate Chain of Custody certification for the fishery in order for products to be sold onward as MSC-certified. Considerations Summary of stakeholder feedback Public consultation on this issue in April 2013, plus subsequent stakeholder workshops and Technical Advisory Board discussions, resulted in some stakeholder feedback which can be summarised as follows: General support for the proposed improvements including better clarity in reports Agreement that there should be more transparency in vessel lists, but recognition that there may be challenges in maintaining this information and that each fishery may have differing levels of ability to provide or keep this information up to date A suggestion to consider a Performance Indicator for in-fishery traceability and scoring links to other Performance Indicators Reports should clearly state where subsequent Chain of Custody is required from Agreement that surveillance audits would usefully confirm any changes in traceability processes/ requirements and how these are addressed. This feedback has been used to develop further the proposed changes. Please refer to Annex A for further detail on Early Stage Consultation comments. This project was presented to the MSC s Technical Advisory Board (TAB) working groups in April and August The TAB recommended that the traceability requirements should be given more rigour as outlined, and the point at which CoC is needed should continue to be determined by the fishery assessment team, rather than established at a consistent point for all fisheries (i.e. point of landing). This recommendation was based on the fact that creating a consistent point for CoC to start would unfairly impact fisheries with low traceability risks (i.e. cases where the entire fishery and all species caught are MSC-certified), and could lead to additional costs for fisheries. Impact assessment Placing more rigour on traceability issues has the potential to create additional time and cost impacts (e.g. adding another factor to be considered during surveillance, and the new requirement to review traceability factors early in assessment). However, consultation and research suggests that these impacts would be outweighed by the benefits of encouraging Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 13

14 fisheries to proactively put traceability systems in place before the PCDR stage. This will likely reduce the number of fisheries that require separate Chain of Custody certification (with additional costs), because clients will have more time to get strong traceability systems in place before the final stage of the assessment process. Policy Options Following the support expressed by stakeholders and the TAB, the MSC proposes detailed suggestions for changes to the CR to ensure that traceability in the fishery is strengthened. Proposed changes: 1) Traceability required to the Unit of Certification rather than back to the certified fishery, with documentation clearly showing how this is achieved. Fisheries will need to be abe to provide documentation allowing certified products would be traced back to the UoC if requested (for example, by the MSC during a traceback exercise). Please see Annex D 2) Clearer reporting template for traceability, and providing a clear statement on where subsequent Chain of Custody is needed. Please see Annex B 3) High-risk traceability factors identified for review early in the assessment process, rather than waiting for the PCDR stage to identify these risks. Please see Annex D 4) Publically-accessible space on the MSC s webpage to clarify the Unit of Certification, vessels and where CoC begins for each certified fishery. Please see Annex D 5) Traceability reviewed during surveillance audits and other key points of change in course of the Fishery certificate s life. Surveillance to also include a review of the ability to traceback product to a Unit of Certification. Please see Annex C and Annex D 6) Clear documentation of the fisheries intent to provide Under MSC Assessment Fish products to the supply chain, and associated mitigation of risks. Please see Annex D Consultation Questions 1) 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? Please see Annex D. 2) 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? Please see Annex B, Annex C and Annex D) 3) Do you have comments regarding a public web space being provided for eligible vessels within the fishery to be listed and kept up-to-date, as per proposed change 4? 4) Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the proposed changes? Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 14

15 Potential interactions with FSR/SCR workstreams Attention is drawn to the Fishery Standard Review Definition of the Unit of Certification workstream, and the Speed and Cost Review Surveillance project is also related, with any proposed changes to the content of Fishery surveillance audits being considered. These projects are currently out to consultation, and interested parties are encouraged to review and respond to these projects also. Who can comment? This consultation is open to any interested stakeholders, who are encouraged to comment on this issue. Next steps Following this consultation and based on the stakeholder input new requirements and guidance will be drafted. This will be submitted to the MSC Technical Advisory Board for final approval and subsequent publication in Particular groups including fisheries will be directly engaged to comment on the proposed changes. Further Information Please direct any enquiries to: Ben Snowden Product Integrity Officer Supporting Documentation Part A of the MSC Certification Requirements MSC Certification Requirements Part C Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements Part C Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 15

16 Annex A Summary of Early Stage consultation feedback In April 2013, the initial Early Stage consultation document went out for public consultation. The feedback received from stakeholders is summarised below: Consultation Question Q1 Which options do you favour as solutions to the problem? Feedback Received Supportive Report templates (PCDR and Surveillance) may usefully include checklists for traceability issues. A list of eligible fishers, produced by the CAB or the client or some other body, should be maintained. The form of this list should not be specified, allowing clients to develop as appropriate to their needs, including a simple statement on a certificate such as all vessels licensed within Traceability issues should include a statement of the point at which traceability in the fishery ends and CoC begins. The location of a list of eligible fishers (etc) could be referenced on the MSC website and/or on certificates. Surveillance audits may usefully confirm any changes in traceability processes/requirements and how these are addressed. Supports the other proposals discussed in the consultation document, with emphasis on the Company / vessel-specific client list (with detail on company and vessel; immediate updating required; accessible to the public and msc.org; and for all fisheries); Potential Triggers where there are highrisk elements (develop in parallel with the RBF so traceability takes place early in certification process e.g. CR27.8 confirming assessment tree); develop clear evaluation rubric based on risk factors; full incorporation of traceability in PCRs and surveillance audits to include traceability, if traceability risks in fishery warrant it Suggests there should be clarity where CoC certification should impose requirements independent from those associated with certification and identify situations where CAB must involve traceability experts as part of assessment team. Non-supportive Examples of traceability in fisheries may not be helpful solutions to traceability issues will be case-specific and usually fairly obvious. Other comments / suggestions If listing products, should only describe species It does not seem appropriate for assessment teams to flag Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 16

17 Consultation Question Q2 Do you have any alternative ideas on how to address the issue of traceability at the fishery level, or suggestions on how to improve the proposals? Q3 Feedback Received issues with MSC during an assessment (this compromises the CAB/ MSCs independence); the assessment and reporting process should allow teams to evaluate issues and make appropriate judgements Full clarification of in fishery traceability issues requires recognizing that in some cases adequate in-fishery traceability is essential to eligibility for certification, and that are necessary to the fishery management itself, and potentially overlap with requirement such as PI 1.2.3(b) ( monitoring ), PI ( Retained species information / monitoring ), or PI 3.2.3(c) ( compliance ) Supportive Feedback as per question 1 Non-supportive As per question 1 Other comments / suggestions As per question 1 Changes to CR to clarify that failure to address infishery traceability risk may jeopardize fishery certification, and not merely access to MSC ecolabel. Develop a New PI for in-fishery traceability with associated suggestions on scoring links to other PIs (and scoring on systems e.g. if electronic systems in use, how data is transmitted and shared, frequency of audits, fishery information, other batch traceability such as bar coding). Other comments / suggestions Do you have comments, suggestions, or concerns regarding attempts to make vessel lists more publically accessible and upto-date? To add that vessel lists may not be necessary entire fleets could be certified and producing lists unnecessarily onerous. Where lists are produced, the form and location of these should be discretionary, as described in question 1 answer. No. This should all be transparent and available to all. Q4 Other comments / suggestions Do you think other areas of traceability at early No, this should deal only with fishery-related issues. Please refer to answer in question 2 above. Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 17

18 Consultation Question Feedback Received stages of the supply chain should be considered as part of this project? Other comments Overall expectations regarding all vessels fishing for a certified fishery include: As a precondition for certification, every vessel has to be listed on the MSC website registered by IMO have S-AIS on board and switched on 24/7 have CCTV on board electronic logbook Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 18

19 Annex B Proposed amendments to Fishery Assessment Reporting Template- Traceability Section. Proposed changes are highlighted in bold: Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date (REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS EXCEPT PCR) 1. The report shall provide: a. The target eligibility date b. The rationale for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability and segregation systems in the fishery will be implemented by this date. (Reference: CR 27.6) (REQUIRED FOR PCR ONLY) 2. The report shall include: a. The actual eligibility date. b. The rationale for any difference in this date from the target eligibility date 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery The report shall provide the following details: Section A: Traceability Factor If factor is relevant to assessment Description of factor Mitigation or management of risk posed a) Non-certified gear use within the fishery b) Non-certified gear use within the same trips alongside certified gears [Guidance: Consider the possibility that vessels may take gears outside of the Unit of Certification on the same trip where they use certified gears] Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 19

20 c) Vessels outside of the UoC s client group fish the same stock d) Unit of Certification does not include all fishing areas that the fishery vessels may fish [Guidance: Consider the ability of vessels to fish in non-certified geographical regions] e) Catch from the fishery including non-certified stock/s that are difficult to identify from MSC eligible stock/s Section B factors Traceability Factor Description of factor, and Mitigation or management of traceability risks a) How regulatory and fishery controls of the fishery align to enable traceability to the Unit of Certification [Guidance: This covers how the fishery and vessel controls, and robustness of the fishery management systems, provides traceability assurance, including how MSC product is identified and segregated] b) The opportunity for substitution of certified with non-certified fish, from within and outside the certified fishery, prior to entering subsequent Chains of Custody. This includes at the point of landing or the point of harvest [Guidance: Consider other nearby fisheries activities, and their impact on the supply chain or use of related infrastructure such as auctions] c) Processing activities (at-sea and/ or before subsequent Chain of Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 20

21 Custody) d) Transhipment activities and if non- MSC products will be present at these times e) The number and/ or location of points of landing f) Storage, segregation and handling activities (at-sea and/ or at other points before subsequent Chain of Custody) e.g. transport on land, sale at auction 5.3 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody Where an IPI stock(s) is involved in the certification, the following shall be included in the report: a. An evaluation of the species, stock, proportion and weight of the catch of IPI stock(s) eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody. b. A substantiated rationale of how each of the requirements specified in CR Annex CH 4 are or are not met for any catches of IPI stock(s). (Reference: CR , Annex CH 4) Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 21

22 Annex C Proposed amendments to Surveillance Template for Traceability Section and associated Certification Requirements Please see separate Speed and Cost Review workstream on Surveillance for related details of changes, including a replacement of Annex CG with a template. Relevant to this project is the following except with bold highlighting where relevant: 2. Background 1. The report shall outline any changes to the fishery since the initial assessment / last surveillance report, including (but not limited to) changes to: a. Management systems b. Relevant regulations c. Personnel in science, management or industry d. Scientific base of information, including stock assessments e. Where enhanced fisheries, any updates on fishery s position in relation to scope criteria f. Traceability risks and chain of custody requirements, and eligibility for product to enter further chains of custody as MSC certified (as per sections within 27.12). 2. The report shall include catch data as outlined in Table The report shall include a table listing all of the conditions raised in the most recent assessment of the fishery, and indicate if they have been closed prior to this surveillance stage as outlined in Table The report shall include details of any altered or new risks introduced as per 1.f above, and the CAB shall document how these are mitigated, and how the fishery will ensure traceability back to the Unit of Certification as per the Traceability requirements (27.12). 5. The report shall include details of a review of the ability to trace-back product from any subsequent Chain of Custody holder back to the Unit of Certification. Amendment to CR Surveillance Addition d The fishery s developments or changes which impact traceability and the ability to segregate MSC from non-msc products Addition d.1 If there have been developments or changes which impact traceability, the CAB shall review and report on these using as per Addition e Review any changes affecting traceability Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 22

23 Annex D Proposed changes to Certification Requirements. Changes are highlighted in bold. Amendments within 27.4 Confirmation of scope: A The CAB shall undertake an initial review of the traceability of the fishery with respect to factors listed in section A of CR27.12, and identify and document other related traceability risks A Traceability issues found during the review are to be included in the Chain of Custody section in the notification report as per Table GC1 and A The CAB shall notify the fishery of its obligations to meet traceability requirements before it sells product as MSC certified or as Under MSC Assessment Fish to subsequent Chain of Custody holders. Amendments to 27.6 Determination of target eligibility date: The CAB shall nominate a date from which product from a certified fishery is likely to be eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel (the target eligibility date). This could be: The date of the certification of the fishery; or Any date prior to the certification of the fishery up to a maximum of six months prior to the publication of the most recent Public Comment Draft Report. This date should be linked to: a. The beginning of the fishery management year in which the Public Comment Draft Report is published; or, b. The start of the fishing season in which the Public Comment Draft Report is published; or c. Any other logical date with regard to the applicant fishery The target eligibility date shall be specified by the CAB after consultation with the applicant fishery The target eligibility date shall be noted in the full assessment announcement described in (removed as repeated in ) Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 23

24 If at any stage during the assessment process the target eligibility date needs to change, then the CAB shall communicate a revised target eligibility date to the MSC for posting on the MSC website The CAB shall document the rationale for the target eligibility date and include an assessment regarding how the assessed risks to the traceability system in the fishery are adequately addressed by the applicant to give confidence in this date, including: A A review of the traceability systems in place to ensure products from the Target Eligibility Date were handled so that traceability is ensured. Amendment to 27.7 Announcement regarding certification and public involvement The CAB shall inform the MSC of the application for certification by providing the following for posting on the MSC website: An indicative timetable including the target eligibility date. A a If the Target Eligibility Date is set before the release of the Public Comment Draft Report, CABs shall have completed an initial review of traceability systems and shall be confident that systems ensure segregation of any potential Under MSC Assessment Fish before subsequent chains of custody Replacement of with the following: Determination of the traceability systems, and point(s) at which fish and fish products enter further Chains of Custody Consultation Document: Fishery Process Issues 24