Marine Stewardship Council · PDF fileMarine Stewardship Council ... and consultation has...

Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Suspension Process Summary of consultation feedback and MSC response Public Consultation: 1 to 30 September 2016 Project Lead: Emily McGregor

Fishery Suspension Process - Consultation feedback and MSC response 1

Introduction

Stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on improvements to the MSC fishery certificate suspensions

process, particularly focussing on a proposal to introduce a notice period prior to suspensions coming into

effect. View the consultation paper.

Stakeholder Consultation

The stakeholder consultation period ran from 1-30 September 2016 and two public webinars on the

consultation topics were held on the 6 September 2016. English and German language consultation

documents were prepared.

MSC received 15 completed survey responses and three email responses during consultation. Feedback

was received from certifiers (CABs) (3), eNGO (1), fishery client and industry representatives (3) and

supply chain stakeholders (11). Countries represented included: Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, UK

and USA.

Summary of stakeholder feedback

Responses to the survey were mixed. Reflecting the same differing priorities and trade-offs already

discussed internally within MSC and with the MSC’s Technical Advisory Board (TAB).

Of the survey responses, 12 have managed a suspension previously, two have not. The Eastern Baltic cod fishery suspension that occurred in December 2016 was the most common fishery suspension experienced, particularly by German supply chain respondents. The fishery suspensions that stakeholders had experienced included:

Supply chain stakeholders: Eastern Baltic cod (3), mackerel (4), wild salmon (1), Unknown source fishery (1), did not answer (2)

CABs: Many, including Portuguese Sardine, mussels, IOM scallop, US swordfish (1), Eastern Baltic cod (2)

Fishery or industry stakeholders: Atlantic spiny dogfish (1), Eastern Baltic cod (1), Many (1) Key themes identified:

Challenges experienced when a fishery is suspended a. Preparation before suspensions for supply chain organisations

The immediate timing of suspensions left no time for supply chains to prepare, challenges cited in (i) meeting contracts, (ii) having to destroy or alter packaging (iii) finding new suppliers, and (iv) cost challenges associated with suspensions.

b. Communication of suspension

Internal communication within the supply chain when a suspension comes into effect. E.g. “For members without direct control of vessels (e.g. in an association) this [suspension] can be difficult to communicate without some notice.”

http://www.msc.org/

https://improvements.msc.org/database/fishery-suspension-process-review/consultations/first-consultation-2016

Public Consultation – 1 to 30 September 2016


Improvements to the fishery suspensions process a. Notice period and effective communication for supply chains

A notice period was considered by some respondents as a necessary improvement to the current MSC suspensions process. The rationale given in support of a notice period was to facilitate effective communication before a suspension. There was particular emphasis in some responses on MSC playing a stronger role in communicating suspensions and providing clear information on suspended fisheries.

b. Time for fisheries to make improvements

Alternatively, some respondents suggested allowing time before suspensions come into effect for fisheries to make improvements to resolve the cause of suspension and avoid suspension.

Length of notice required to adequately prepare for a suspension

All respondents were asked to consider length of suspension notice period, should one be

introduced. Figure 1 shows the range of responses to this question. Equal number of responses

were received for keeping suspensions immediate and allowing 30 days’ notice period. This

reflects the challenge of balancing supply chain needs with concerns of other stakeholders.

Supply chain respondents all wanted some sort of notice period, time varied. However, when

compared with the supply chain responses to the length of time required to meet CoC and similar

requirements when a fishery is suspended, 30 days seems to meet this requirement for frozen and

tinned products, with fresh fish needing less time. This also ties back to the challenges listed for

preparing before suspensions which include delays in contracts, supply and packaging

experienced by supply chains.

Figure 1. Consultation responses to question of what length of time a notice period before fishery suspensions should be, if one were to be introduced.

Credibility risk of notice period for suspensions

When considering if a notice period would provide an unacceptable credibility risk, supply chain

stakeholders indicated that a notice period would not be a risk, especially if it was well

communicated. Some CABs considered there is a significant risk, particularly around a race to fish,

catching unusually large amounts of fish before suspension coming into effect. Fishery

stakeholders considered there not to be a risk, or were unsure of the risk, but wished for time for

fisheries to make improvements to avoid suspension, one fishery stakeholder proposing a formal

appeals process for fisheries to appeal a CAB decision to suspend.

Across all groups of stakeholders there was some acknowledgment that problems or issues which

result in suspension are known prior to a suspension decision being taken.

0

1

2

3

4

5

I think suspensionsshould remain

immediate

5 business days 30 days 60 days 90 days

If a notice period were to be introduced, what is the amount of time this should be for? (n=15)



Conclusion

Balancing the needs of supply chains, fisheries and other stakeholders within the requirements of best

certification practice and maintaining the credibility of the MSC Fisheries Standard needs to be carefully

considered when addressing changes to the MSC fisheries certificate suspensions process. This survey

and consultation has helped to better understand the perceived risks and benefits to introducing a notice

period prior to fishery suspensions becoming effective. We recognise that trade-offs between risk and

benefits of a notice period will need to be carefully considered. The MSC Executive will take these

responses into consideration when determining what changes should be incorporated into the new version

of the suspensions process. Further opportunity for stakeholders to feed into proposed changes will occur

during 2017.

Next Steps

All feedback received will be considered in the development of this work and presented to the MSC

Technical Advisory Board (TAB) in November. The TAB will decide on next steps of the project and further

consultation needed. The Fishery Suspension Process review work will be incorporated into the release of

the updated scheme requirements in 2018.



All consultation feedback and MSC responses

MSC thanks all respondents to the public consultation survey. Your input is an important part of the MSC Policy development process.

Q1. How do you / your organisation obtain information on the status of MSC fishery certificates?

Feedback received MSC Response

MSC Website (www.msc.org) – 16 Responses acknowledged.

Local MSC representative – 9

Fishery certificate holder – 3

CoC certificate holder / supply chain company - 4

Your company’s MSC manager or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) manager - 0

Other (please specify) – emails from MSC

Q2. Have you previously had to manage a fishery certificate suspension?


Yes - 14 No - 3

Responses acknowledged.

Q3. Please record the suspended fishery’s name(s)


Eastern Baltic Cod - 6 Responses acknowledged.

Northeast Atlantic mackerel - 3

Portuguese sardine - 2

Wild salmon - 1

Atlantic spiny dogfish -1

Many (including Portuguese sardine, Isle of Mann scallops, US swordfish) - 1

Q4. Were you able to work through the suspension process requirements successfully? The MSC suspensions process requirements can be found in section 7.4 of the MSC General Certification Requirements.


Yes - 7 No - 5


Members have experienced suspensions from the supply/fishery side. Many suspensions have resulted from issues of stock status and failures of management to respond to these in line with MSC standard requirements. Members have worked with CABs/MSC and management organisations/RFMOs to address these issues.

Comment noted.

Q5. What aspects of the current suspensions process requirements posed a challenge when working through the fishery suspension?


Timing of the suspension becoming effective - 5 Preparation prior to suspension - 3


Communicating to existing and potential customers - 4

Ensuring suspended fishery product (no longer Certified product) does not enter the supply chain - 1

Developing a corrective action plan (Fishery certificate holder only) – 2

Q6. Based on your selection above, please provide further information on the challenges you experienced and how you solved them?


When the [fishery] certificate was suspended, communication with previous members of the supply chain (in this case China) was not without challenges. In case of a suspension there might be issues with contractual performance if it is not possible any more to purchase agreed volumes.

Comment noted.

http://www.msc.org/



Timing: Suspension took place almost immediately which meant we had no opportunity to check out any possible alternatives. Existing contracts were all based on MSC certified goods which were not available any more. Preparation: Due to a lack of lead time there was almost no opportunity of internal communication. This was relevant not only to our trade transactions but also customers. Some of the existing packaging material had to be destroyed because the ecolabel could not be displayed any more. Revision of layout and relevant adjustments lead to a short term delay of deliveries and/or non-availability.

Comment noted.

Due to the fact that a suspension is effective immediately and the sale of goods as MSC certified is prohibited straight away, we are faced with many challenges. Specifications and master data have to be adjusted. Stock needs to be checked and blocked. Packaging and print images have to be corrected. MSC stock has to be sold as non-certified and there is therefore a loss since the purchasing price has already been paid for MSC goods. All these changes require time and care for implementation. At the same time implementation has to be achieved very quickly so that no question mark is put on recertification. Existing contracts have to be renegotiated. New suppliers of certified goods have to be found, checked and approved. This is particularly inconvenient prior to important sales periods like Easter or Christmas.

Comment noted.

In terms of [fishery] we had empty lithographic printed cans. After the suspension announcement was made the price of sardines from the fishery (caught pre-suspension) rocketed and the only way to use the (expensive) packaging stock was to buy the raw material.

Comment noted.

The challenges experienced were principally in relation to fishery management processes, rather than MSC processes. Challenges were experienced with fishery management rather than the MSC suspension process.

Comment noted.

An exception to this was the [fishery] suspension. While members were aware of the potential suspension, from managers and CAB, it was not confirmed until the day of suspension. The risk of creating confusion and losing customers means that fishery clients would not begin communicating until the outcome was certain. For members without direct control of vessels (e.g. in an association) this can be difficult to communicate without some notice.

Comment noted.

Q7. Do you have any suggestions for improving the MSC suspensions process?


I think the process works fine the way it is, and introducing any intermediate notifications or steps will further increase complexity and cost of not only fishery assessments, but Chain of Custody as well, particularly for the first receivers of certified product. If buyers in the supply chain need more of a warning, I suggest they have a cursory read of the surveillance reports for the fisheries they source from because there will be a warning in any of these a year ahead of a potential suspension through indication that conditions are falling behind target. Other administrative reasons for suspension (e.g. the client won't respond to info requests, won't schedule audits, won't pay for services, etc.) are even more rare than substantive ones, and usually CABs make every attempt to resolve these before suspending a certificate, including being in contact with relevant MSC outreach personnel, etc.

Comment noted.



Early (7-14 working days) information about suspension or possible suspension- determine notice period until final suspension.

Comment noted.

Further to the introduction of a notice period between notification by the MSC and the actual suspension it would be important to ensure that all members of the supply chain receive clear information.

Comment noted.

Introduction of a notice period for a fishery before final suspension. Early communication in case of an impending suspension by MSC to trading partners, if possible. Communication (also by MSC) why even after suspension there are still goods in stock (e.g. mackerel cans).

Comment noted. MSC requirements GCR-7.4.3.3a state that: Fish caught prior to the date of suspension may continue to be sold after the date of suspension as MSC-certified if the CAB confirms the client’s ability to segregate fish based on date of capture. Thus, it might be that product carrying the MSC eco-label remains on shelf after the fishery has been suspended. We acknowledge that communication should be clear on the reason for this, particularly for products with long shelf lives. The point on MSC communication will be relayed to the MSC regional and global communications teams.

In my opinion in terms of communication the GCR 7.4.3.3 are very lax. The CAB has to instruct the certificate holder: c) Advise existing and potential customers in writing. We rely on the client this communication. I think that MSC as the owner of the Scheme has to also get in contact with the client suspended and communicate that they are not allowed to make a claim that they are certified any more. In my opinion both sources of communication are necessary.

Comment noted.

Consider introducing a consultation period with those registered as selling MSC certified products from the fishery that is to be suspended.

Comment noted.

From the [fishery] experience it is clear that there is a need for a notice period, which will allow fisheries to see if it is possible to remove discrepancies. Fisheries should have e.g. a month time to respond to the audit request. If not satisfactory then suspension should take place immediately.

Comment noted.

There needs to be an Interlocutory Appeals Process that allows a client group to appeal a suspension PRIOR to the certificate being suspended. The Interlocutory Appeal must be filed with an independent adjudicatory body. While the Interlocutory Appeal is under consideration, the status of the fishery certificate must be treated as being in good standing with no limitations. The Interlocutory Appeals Process should be limited in both scope and time. The CAB must be required to submit a substantive response to the independent adjudicatory body within 2 weeks - not 3 months as specified in the General Certification Requirements V2.1 at 7.6.3. The client group and CAB must pay all of their own expenses incurred in an Interlocutory Appeal. The CAB would be responsible for 100% of the costs for the independent adjudicatory body if the final ruling is in favour of the client group; conversely, the client group would be responsible for 100% of the costs for the independent adjudicatory body if the final ruling is in favour of the CAB. In the event the

Comment noted.



independent adjudicatory body issued a final ruling in favour of the CAB, the suspension process would proceed as outlined in the General Certification Requirements V2.1 at 7.4.

The [notification period] proposal is one option to address this issue, but has some disadvantages: The surveillance/expedited audit process relating to suspensions based on stock status (seemingly the most common problem) involves extensive review by the team and reviews of draft reports by client – a time consuming process. The requirement for a ‘Preliminary Suspension Report’ introduces yet another type of report which is likely to duplicate the surveillance report The proposal for the report within 10 days of the site visit does not allow sufficient time for assessment team preparation of the report or client review, especially where the issue is over stock status. We would suggest an alternative:

1. FCR requires the surveillance report to be submitted to the client before finalisation. This is entirely appropriate to ensure no misunderstandings (7.23.17)

2. The expedited audit procedure does not include for such client review. This is a potentially important omission (7.23.22)

3. Both processes (surveillance and expedited) should include for client review. Where a suspension is indicated, these reports should clearly identify this, the client given opportunity to comment, and a proposed date of suspension identified.

4. If the client cannot refute the need for a suspension, the date of suspension will provide an inherent notice period. The client can then be required to communicate this to their supply chain in advance of the suspension, rather than on the day as at present.

Comment noted. This comment was received in writing, but has been placed under question 7 for ease of comparison with other proposed changes received.

Points system to be reported in the survey reports so that all parties are aware and it will encourage a culture of motivating continual improvement

Comment noted.

Q8. Looking forward, if a fishery you engage with was to be suspended, do you think your organisation would be adequately prepared to implement the current suspensions requirements? The MSC suspensions process requirements can be found in section 7.4 of the MSC General Certification Requirements.


Yes – 10 No – 3 Partially – 3


Q9. Do you foresee any challenges in dealing with an MSC fishery suspension?


Yes - 10 No – 4


If yes, please explain MSC Response

Communication: One suspended fishery is not the entire fishery. If communication is not clear, this might be a source of irritation in communication with consumers. For example, a newspaper article: Herring fishery loses MSC ecolabel. If suspension only concerns one fishery (Scotland) this might require much explanation.

Comment noted. The point on MSC communication will be relayed to the MSC regional and global communications teams.

Communication needs to be adapted. Comment noted.



Be sure that the client complies with GCR 7.4.3.3. Inform properly the MSC CoC clients. I think MSC CoC scheme with all the information that they have (Ecert data base) should be the ones that inform to the likely companies affected.

Comment noted.

Retrospective suspensions are difficult to implement, especially with frozen goods because there is usually a lot of that in stock which will be sold over a longer period of time. Fresh fish is relatively quickly out of the market.

Comment noted. MSC requirements GCR-7.4.3.3a states that the CAB shall, on the date of suspension Instruct the certificate holder: Not to sell any fish caught after the day of suspension as MSC-certified. Fish caught prior to the date of suspension may continue to be sold after the date of suspension as MSC-certified if the CAB confirms the client’s ability to segregate fish based on date of capture. Thus, it might be that product carrying the MSC eco-label remains on shelf after the fishery has been suspended, but retrospective suspensions are not part of the MSC requirements.

There is no provision for packaging and disruption caused in the supply chain due to an immediate public suspension.

Comment noted.

The fish is arriving every week, between audit time / time of suspension and production there is fish involved. And we need to do extra administrative jobs to be aware which fish is MSC and not. When you have a lot of customers for MSC fish you can get stock problems. Also the suspension is directly effect but the fisher is getting time to correct the shortcoming the suspension could be for a short period.... more accuracy needed on all different production locations and big change on making mistakes.

Comment noted.

Ultimately the certificate belongs to the issuing CAB so can be suspended or withdrawn as necessary.

Comment noted.

As a CAB the requirements are clear. Imagining myself as a buyer in the supply chain, I am prepared to deal with this kind of impact to supply. It is not materially different from what is required when a product is recalled, when there is mislabelling found in ingredients lists, allergens are not specified correctly, etc., etc. In none of those cases is there a 'warning' before product has to be removed. If you fail to indicate on your chocolate bar that it contains tree nuts and it is discovered, you are not permitted to keep selling it with that label until the buyers find a different source for their candy bars. Equally, if you buy your labels from a contractor, and you don't pay that contractor, they are not to be expected to continue shipping you labels until your buyers can find someone else to source their product from. As a CAB, I would find it more difficult to apply the suspension requirements if there were some intermediary step added.

Comment noted.

Q10. Do you represent a supply chain company sourcing MSC certified product?


Yes – 9 No – 7


Q11. What sort of product do you supply? (e.g. canned seafood, frozen fish, whole fish)


Frozen goods and fresh fish as H&G goods, whole fish, filet Responses acknowledged.

All

Fresh fish, whole fish, processed fresh products



tins, frozen goods

Fresh fish (except) frozen goods

Canned Seafood, Frozen Fish (tuna loins) not currently MSC certified

Frozen fish

Q12. What is the minimum amount of time required after a suspension is announced to ensure that you can remain compliant with MSC Chain of Custody or other requirements? Please provide and explanation for your response. If applicable, please distinguish between different types of MSC product you supply.


A few days after receipt of information. The relevant product will be barred and cannot be purchased any more.

Comment noted.

5 business days for finding, assessing and approving new suppliers of fresh fish. Specifications have to be adapted.

Comment noted.

For fresh fish a notice period of one month should be sufficient in order to inform for example counter staff and clients about a pending suspension. Frozen goods/tins: For products with a longer best before date and corresponding shelf life a notice period of 1-2 months would be an idea. This would provide time for new contracts and also reduce the amount of packaging material that has to be destroyed.

Comment noted.

4 weeks Comment noted.

A period between 30 and 60 days would be ideal, especially for frozen goods, to enable agreements with business partners about possible contractual changes

Comment noted.

It depends on the fishery. For seasonal catches - such as Alaskan Salmon and NE Atlantic Mackerel, contracts are placed annually and fish from the season is either held frozen or packed off immediately so there are no major issues in terms of CoC. For non-seasonal catches such as tuna, kipper, herring we have full chain traceability so while CoC can be managed (albeit slightly more complexly) the implication of suspension is more around packaging write off, creating new packaging etc.

Comment noted.

Difficult question. Some around 90days. Comment noted.

Q13. Would any of the following changes to the suspensions process have helped you manage the process?


Better communication when there are concerns over the MSC certification status of a fishery - 9


An email from MSC when a fishery certificate is suspended - 9

A notification period prior to the suspension coming into effect - 9

Q14. Should you wish to comment further or provide solutions to improve suspension preparedness, please do so here.


Information about other fisheries that are yet to be certified as well as statement regarding recertification (if possible)

Comment noted.

The reasons for the suspension, [GCR clauses] 7.4.2.1 till 7.4.2.5 can be different managed... the more heavy (#1) till a light (#5) to prevent overkill of suspensions.

Comment noted.

Q15. Under the current suspension process requirements suspensions are immediate. A request has been made for the MSC to consider introducing a notice period prior to a suspension coming into effect. This consultation requests stakeholders to comment on this proposal. Please refer to the consultation document for further details on the proposal. Do you support the introduction of a notification period prior to a fishery certificate being suspended?


I am very supportive - 7 Responses acknowledged.



I support it - 4

I can live with it - 1

I agree in part, but not totally - 1

I don’t agree - 3

Q16. Do you think this proposal would solve the issues experienced by fisheries and supply chain organisations? The issue: Supply chain companies have expressed concerns that as there is no forewarning of a suspension it is difficult for them to adequately respond in the required time to the need to remove the MSC ecolabel from pack or secure alternative supply of MSC certified fish.


Yes - 7 No – 2 Not sure - 6


Q17. Would introducing a suspension notice period result in an unacceptable credibility risk?


Yes – 5 No – 8 Not sure – 3


Please provide an explanation for your response. MSC Response

No. If a notice period was clearly defined and incorporated in MSC’s programme documents, this (in our opinion) would not mean an unacceptable risk for credibility.

Comment noted.

No. No, a notice period does not represent a risk for credibility of the MSC programme. There are several reasons for that:

There is no direct communication about a suspension with the consumer. There are no reports about any suspensions in any main news programmes or in daily newspapers. Therefore, demand for suspended fisheries and/or catch areas is significantly reduced and the existence of such products during a notice period will not be noticed.

A suspension is usually decided after a surveillance audit or after an assessment of fish stock in the catch area. If detected non-conformities are not accidental but systematic errors (e.g. due to deliberate non-compliance with MSC standard requirements), this fishery will already have delivered non-conform products over a certain period of time. In both cases a short notice period would not worsen the situation even further. It is important that all parties are kept informed about the current status. Transparent and considerate communication as well as implementation of a suspension is easier for all parties and helps to prevent mistakes.

Since there is no danger to consumer health, the immediate removal of all stock from trade is not proportionate.

Comment noted.

No. Suspension is a reflection of a moment in time and problems that caused a suspension existed already before. A suspension always reflects that a fishery did not comply with MSC criteria or does not comply any more. Critics rather challenge existing, not suspended fisheries.

Comment noted.

Yes. During any preliminary suspension period there will be significant incentive to catch/sell an unusual amount of certified product (i.e., as much as possible). First and foremost, there is a need to prevent fish that do not meet the MSC standard from entering the supply chain. Not doing so is a credibility risk for the MSC and an environmental risk for the fishery. As presented here, there is no compelling case for a preliminary suspension period as the next step in addressing this difficulty

Comment noted.



for the market. Fishery suspension must be kept as a deterrent, not made easier. The supply chain must keep the pressure on fisheries to meet the MSC standard and any conditions of certification. Developing approaches to keep the supply chain more informed of and involved in the certification process would be our recommended way forward instead of providing a grace period where unsustainable labelled product can be sold. The first step toward addressing this issue should be better, more proactive communication throughout the supply chain when there are concerns over the MSC certification status of a fishery. This could give the market time to prepare while not allowing for undue risk to the fishery or the MSC. It seems unlikely that many fishery suspensions are a surprise to the client. The onus here should be on the fishery client to communicate this message up to their buyers in advance in order to minimize the amount of any unsellable product. (How are other credible certification programs dealing with this issue?)

Yes. If a secure supply of MSC certified product is vital to companies, then they should be devoting resources to monitoring the status of the fisheries they source from, such as by looking through the public surveillance reports wherein early flags of issues are evident. The credibility risk is huge of officially and knowingly allowing non-conforming product to continue into the supply chain. In fact, to do so actually could be considered to be fraud, and at the very least mislabelling. It also would create a perverse incentive for the fishery to get as much fish out of the water as possible before the suspension so it could be sold as certified. In addition, chain of custody suspension also occurs immediately. So if a company is selling non MSC fish as MSC they are suspended. They don't get a warning, and neither do their buyers. The buyers have to find another supplier, same as when it happens to the fishery. In some cases, CoC suspension of one company can affect a lot of supply chains too, but no one is complaining about that (yet).

Comment noted.

Yes. This is not unacceptable. As most fishery suspensions relate to stock status, this is a fairly long-term situation requiring considerable assessment team deliberation.

Comment noted.

Yes. Where is the threshold between allowing a notice period and immediate suspension? Will CoC certificate also have a notice period? In the case of a fishery the suspension notice should be to sell what has already been caught otherwise the suspension notice period will lead to a race to fish.

Comment noted.

Not sure. We view MSC standard as the gold standard. If a fishery has been assessed to not meet the MSC standard, then product bearing the MSC mark with fish caught post this assessment could cause a credibility risk. However, I believe a pragmatic approach is required and therefore a suspension notice period (perhaps only for some fisheries) would be advantageous and the positives out weight the risks.

Comment noted.

Not sure. If we give a short explanation in the short notice it will not affect the credibility.

Comment noted.

Not sure. Using wrong fish could cause a recall. Comment noted.

Q18. If a notice period were to be introduced, what is the minimum amount of time this should be for?


I think suspensions should remain immediate - 5 Responses acknowledged.

4 days - 0



5 working days - 3

30 days - 5

60 days - 1

90 days - 1

Please provide any further suggestions for the length of notice period and comments to support your choice.

MSC Response

Suspensions should remain immediate. The MSC must minimize the amount of labelled but unsustainable product in the marketplace.

Comment noted.

Five days is considered fair warning; 90 days is probably too short to change pre-printed packaging anyway.

Comment noted.

There should at least be 5 business days available for any transition to work without problems. A period of 7 to 14 business days would be appropriate to implement any changes in a focussed way and without causing any problems. If the notice period is too short, then any changes might be implemented erratically and in panic because of the fear to lose one’s own certification. It is also possible that the MSC representative or his/her deputy is ill / on holiday so that the notification about a suspension cannot be implemented immediately.

Comment noted.

Maybe 10 days should work better. Comment noted.

30 days, better even 60 days Comment noted.

Again this really depends on the fishery and the resulting processing method. It also depends on the length of time the boat is at sea. As an example a typical tuna boat is normally at sea for 6 weeks.

Comment noted.

The decision to suspend a certificate may be based solely on the subjective opinions of the CAB that are unsupported by objective facts that are contrary to the CAB's opinion. A notice period would negatively impact the ability of the client group to bring an Interlocutory Appeal PRIOR to the certificate being suspended.

Comment noted.

A CAB can consider circumstance for a notice period should circumstances prevail that warrant such.

Comment noted.

Additional comments received in writing


The MSC currently has a relatively straightforward, clear and understood suspension process. We understand that the proposed change has been triggered by the Baltic cod situation. Changes to processes in response to such ‘events’ has historically led to the increasing complication of MSC processes – a complication which is now being unravelled through the simplification agenda. We would encourage MSC to consider carefully any changes to existing processes, and to minimise or avoid further complication.

Comment noted.

The base is certified fisheries. Suppose that is fixed at time x no longer met the conditions. If the suspension would be in when the defect is remedied within 90 days, the fishing still has a chance to hold the certificate in the air. That brings more calm in the chain. If we can explain then so my preference given to it a "notice period" of 90 days in the same way. There you can spend countered that product would then be traded that does not meet the requirements, trading in product that doesn’t meet the MSC criteria but also say that does the

Comment noted.



suspension right away. Always at point of audit choose as cut off. but that would probably directly proceeding to the suspension, probably because the discrepancy with the norm arose from the annual surveillance. Give fishing a chance, after all, this was the basic already certified, so it is of good will. * * A side note here. As to the reasons for suspension, would you also must weigh up.

7.4.2.1 No longer conforms to the MSC Fisheries Standard; or 7.4.2.2 Has not made adequate progress towards addressing conditions; or 7.4.2.3 Does not provide information to allow verification that conditions are being addressed; or 7.4.2.4 Does not agree to allow the CAB to hold a surveillance audit as required in FCR 7.23; or 7.4.2.5 Does not provide information requested by the CAB within 90 days of being requested to do

Wilful gross violation of the MSC Fishery Standard or the refusal to cooperate with an audit (I hope this does not happen in practice), I think of a different order than e.g. insufficient progress. The circumstances, reasons may also weigh.

An immediate suspension is not acceptable to [stakeholder]. Depending on location / region of an affected fishery worldwide with regards to replenishment lead time it may take at least three months until an alternative supply chain has been established. We therefore think it would be appropriate to have a forward looking information obligation / warning of at least three months, better even six months. Serious non-conformities in fishery management that result in a certificate withdrawal don’t develop overnight but these should be recognized during yearly audits / compliance checks of conditions etc. by MSC certified fisheries sufficiently early so that warnings to stakeholders could in fact be issued on time.

Comment noted.

Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	haliem
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Marine Stewardship Council · PDF fileMarine Stewardship Council ... and consultation has...

Documents