From the comment section - the following anonymous comment on the NE Atlantic mackerel certification raises some interesting issues and is repeated here.
Two things strike me regarding this.
Firstly, MSC has always said that it is not directly involved in decisions regarding who gets certified and who does not. It argues that it merely sets the standard for the assessment criteria and then it is up to an independent consulting company to determine if a fishery meets the standard. The proclamation on the MSC website regarding removal of certification by 2012 unless the whole NE Atlantic mackerel fishery meets the standard sounds like direct interference in the process to me.
Secondly, the concept that not only the enterprises seeking certification need to be abiding by the criteria, but also those outside the certification, will pose problems for other fisheries currently seeking certification, such as the offshore northern shrimp fishery of Newfoundland/Labrador. In this fishery Faroe Islands have unilaterally increased their own shrimp quota outside the overall quota set by the responsible RFMO, NAFO.
Showing posts with label objection procedure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objection procedure. Show all posts
Monday, February 21, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
NE Atlantic mackerel – MSC policies and international governance
The NE Atlantic mackerel fishery is presenting some interesting insights into the evolving policies of the Marine Stewardship Council and its relationship with existing governance structures.
It can be argued that Marine Stewardship Council eco-certification program only has added value in situations where national and international fisheries governance structures are not doing their job of conserving fisheries and ecosystems through sustainable management in the interests of long-term public good.
Given the poor practices of many governments in both developed and developing nations, and regional fisheries management organizations, there has been much for MSC to get their teeth into over the last 10 years. Some of the cases they have taken on have been controversial – best known of all being the recent Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish fishery certification. This fishery is in international waters and is being pursued by a number of fleets from around the world. A subset of these fleets applied for certification and achieved it despite strong objections from conservation groups (but not the responsible RFMO, CCAMLR). Other fleets outside of the certification engaged in the same fishery have reputations as pirates and rogues responsible for serial collapses of the conspecific Patagonian Toothfish fisheries in various parts of the world. This did not seem to matter to MSC then .
But it matters now. MSC has announced that unilateral quotas and increases in fishing activity by Faroese and Icelandic fisheries on NE Atlantic mackerel will result in suspension of MSC -certification for those seven fisheries already certified. Ongoing certification and any new certifications of fisheries on this stock will require establishment of a mechanism for monitoring and managing the combined catch of all the nations before the end of 2011. If not, all seven certificates will be suspended in January 2012.
The mackerel bubble was burst, not by an environmental organization but by the tweed jackets at Marine Scotland, part of the core Scottish Government set up in 2009 to manage Scotland
So two three things of note (1) MSC threatens removal of certification unless the whole fishery including those not in the program are behaving; (2) A government challenges the outcome of the MSC process; and (3) An objection is actually sustained by the MSC appointed Independent Adjudicator.
Too bad about the Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish though.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Score jiggling under the MSC process to ensure fisheries sustainability certification?
Do third party MSC accredited Certifying Bodies jiggle scores to ensure a Pass on sustainability when responding to critical public comments, independent reviews and formal objections?
This issue has been raised recently by the Objection to the certification of the Faroese Pelagic Organisation North-East Atlantic Mackerel Fishery by Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland Scotland
The Independent Adjudicator appointed by the Marine Stewardship Council to evaluate the objection, Melanie Carter, posted a notice on the MSC website dated 3 September 2010 outlining a query on the revision of the score on one of the fishery Performance Indicators by the Certifying Body Det Norske Veritas.
In responding to the objection by Marine Scotland, Det Norske Veritas had revised down the score for PI 3.1.1 to 65 resulting in the overall score for Principle 3 going down to 79.9. This is a Fail under Principle 3 and therefore a Fail in terms of Sustainability determination under the MSC process.
When Melanie Carter pointed out this blunder to Det Norske Veritas they immediately responded “Our Assessment teams did not intend failing the fishery but we did overlook the effect of the rescoring on the weighting table (the total scores). DNV has been in contact with both experts [on the assessment team] yesterday and today. The assessment team wishes to rescore PI 3.1.1 to 70 giving it a total of 80,5.”
This looks a lot like subjective score jiggling to ensure a Pass.
This brings to mind a previous case of alleged score jiggling under the MSC eco-certification process. The controversial “skin-of-the-teeth” 2006/2007 sustainability assessment of the NZ Hoki fishery by SGS Netherlands resulted in a formal objection by NZ WWF in July 2006. WWF claimed that there was “a procedural failure, because the Final Report does not provide enough evidence to show how the assessment team derived the scores for Performance Indicators that were changed between the Public Comment Draft Report and the Final Report.”
The allegation is that in responding to critical WWF comments on the Public Comment Draft report, SGS revised down some of the scores, but to compensate other PI scores, not subject to criticism by WWF, were revised up to ensure that an overall passing score was retained under each of the 3 Principles.
Recall that no fishery that has gone through the secret MSC pre-assessment process into full assessment has failed to achieve a Pass on Sustainability (except for a UK lobster fishery which fell out of the certification process at some point, possibly lack of funds to pay the CB?). Further recall that no public comment, independent peer review or formal objection has resulted in the overturning of a Certification Body Sustainability Determination.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Seafood stewardship in crisis?
In an opinion article published in Nature 2 September, Jennifer Jacquet of the UBC Fisheries Centre and colleagues criticise a number of facets of fisheries sustainability certification carried out by the Marine Stewardship Council. They suggest "scores of scientists… and many conservation groups" have protested over various MSC procedures or certifications and that MSC increasingly risks its credibility and the planet risks losing wild capture fisheries and healthy marine ecosystems.
To add more numbers to the fray, last year ASOC (Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition) numbering more than 200 non-governmental organizations in fifty countries concerned with the preservation of the Antarctic environment filed a notice of objection with MSC regarding the sustainability determination of Moody Marine with regard to the Aker Biomarine Krill Fishery.
So, lots of people engaged on both sides of the argument it seems. There is little doubt that at least some of MSC ’s fisheries sustainability certifications are highly controversial and the MSC Board would do well to consider the reasons with a little dose of humility rather than denial.
There are three areas of potential concern – the MSC standard, its application and governance. The principles and criteria that make up the MSC standard are consistent with most interpretations of what would constitute a sustainable fishery, at least in terms of single species management. At the ecosystem level MSC criteria are more nebulous, but this reflects the general lack of our current understanding about what ecosystem sustainability means and how to achieve it.
The problem seems to lie with what Jacquet et al. call the “loose interpretation of its rules”. As one of MSCs own Independent Adjudicators recently put it, the MSC process “leaves a substantial margin of discretion to the certification body in the way in which it sets scoring guideposts against individual performance indicators”.
Jacquet and colleagues touch on issues related to the MSC objection procedure. It is this aspect of MSC governance that is perhaps the most troublesome. It is run by lawyers retained on salary by MSC and it is a process to ensure that MSC ’s own rules have been followed in reaching a determination, rather than to evaluate whether scientific data related to sustainability are adequate and have been properly interpreted. As such it cannot second-guess the independent certifiers’ assessment of the sustainability of the stock. This leaves little opportunity for a member of the public, or public groups to derail an assessment on technical grounds related to data and interpretation. The proof is in the pudding. No MSC assessment has ever failed to reach a successful sustainability determination and no objection has ever been upheld.
Needless to say the MSC Board rejects the criticisms of Jacquet and colleagues, claiming that its practices and procedures are beyond reproach. When some of the MSC ’s founding fatherly advisors and early supporters such as Daniel Pauly and Sidney Holt suggest that there are serious problems, the MSC Board would do well to listen, rather than shoot from the hip.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
MSC slashes objection fee
MSC announced August 2 that it is slashing the fee cap on lodging an objection to a fishery sustainability determination from £15,000 to £5,000. This sounds like a lucky break for the public who might want to voice concerns regarding some aspect of the sustainability assessment process carried out under MSC.
That is until you stop to think. A few years ago I paid a fee to my local city council to object to a new property evaluation they carried out on my house. The objection was heard by an independent adjudicator hired by the city and I had a few dollars shaved off my annual property taxes as a result.
Like I own my house, the public owns this property, the fish resource. But, unlike my city council, the MSC has no legal standing. Why should we pay a group that has not legal standing for the right to object to a wrongful finding related to our property that could well impact its future value in terms of long-term public good?
It makes no sense until you realize that the public are not the client of the MSC process - the industry is. An objection delays certification of the fishery as sustainable, increases costs for the independent certifier (e.g. Moody Marine Ltd., a for-profit company accredited under MSC standards) and annoys the client. The fee reduces the number of objections lodged by public organizations and lessons the salary costs of the 4 lawyers hired by MSC as Independent Adjudicators to hear and judge objections.
Perhaps the reduced fee will encourage more public objections to controversial MSC sustainability certifications. But £5,000 is still pretty steep when you consider what you get. No objection to a sustainability determination has been upheld by an MSC Adjudicator thus far.
You got nothing for £15,000 now you will get nothing for £5,000 - not really a bargain.
MSC income, was £8 million in 2008/2009 -about half from charitable grants and half from licensing its blue eco-label to components of the supply chain for products from certified fisheries. The right thing to do would be to eliminate the objection fee altogether. MSC can afford it, although it may mean putting on hold the opening of a new administrative office in some further corner of the World.
That is until you stop to think. A few years ago I paid a fee to my local city council to object to a new property evaluation they carried out on my house. The objection was heard by an independent adjudicator hired by the city and I had a few dollars shaved off my annual property taxes as a result.
Like I own my house, the public owns this property, the fish resource. But, unlike my city council, the MSC has no legal standing. Why should we pay a group that has not legal standing for the right to object to a wrongful finding related to our property that could well impact its future value in terms of long-term public good?
It makes no sense until you realize that the public are not the client of the MSC process - the industry is. An objection delays certification of the fishery as sustainable, increases costs for the independent certifier (e.g. Moody Marine Ltd., a for-profit company accredited under MSC standards) and annoys the client. The fee reduces the number of objections lodged by public organizations and lessons the salary costs of the 4 lawyers hired by MSC as Independent Adjudicators to hear and judge objections.
Perhaps the reduced fee will encourage more public objections to controversial MSC sustainability certifications. But £5,000 is still pretty steep when you consider what you get. No objection to a sustainability determination has been upheld by an MSC Adjudicator thus far.
You got nothing for £15,000 now you will get nothing for £5,000 - not really a bargain.
MSC income, was £8 million in 2008/2009 -about half from charitable grants and half from licensing its blue eco-label to components of the supply chain for products from certified fisheries. The right thing to do would be to eliminate the objection fee altogether. MSC can afford it, although it may mean putting on hold the opening of a new administrative office in some further corner of the World.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Ross sea toothfish objection - a flustered partial response?
The Marine Stewardship Council Independent Adjudicator (IA) responded in part on 2 August to the latest submissions from Moody Marine Ltd and Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC). The numerous typos are a clue, but there is other evidence that the IA may be becoming flustered. Perhaps he senses that Ross Sea MSC approach? As a lawyer he must be aware that precedence is being set with each decision he makes.
Given almost no concessions by Moody to his previous remand, the IA now proceeds, step by step, to further dissect, and in some cases revoke, concerns, especially with regard to Principle 2 (Maintenance of Ecosystem), “that that there was a serious procedural irregularity that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment”.
In doing so, he laments that MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology “leaves a substantial margin of discretion to the certification body in the way in which it sets scoring guideposts against individual performance indicators. Almost by definition, the circumstances on which an adjudicator could interfere with the exercise of that discretion must be extremely limited.”
This sentiment was echoed recently by another IA on the objection to the controversial Moody Marine Ltd Fraser River sockeye salmon determination when he remarked “Other IA’s, in recent decisions, recognizing the purpose of the OP [Objection Procedure], have described the standard of review available [by the IA to an objection] as being “narrow” and requiring “deference to the determinations of the certification body”.”
In keeping with the narrow scope and need for deference, the IA finds that, although a number of the scores against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) for Ross Sea toothfish appear “generous”, and although Moody has thus far argued against making any revisions based on objections, “I am not persuaded that the certification body made a mistake as to material fact, failed to consider material information or acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in awarding the scores that were given”.
Although the IA again remands several of the Principle 3 (Effective Management System) PSIGs and associated scores for further consideration by Moody, none of these would appear to be “show-stoppers” as far as certification is concerned. Once the IA has Moody’s response in hand with respect to Principle 3, he says he will then consider the responses to his earlier remand against Principle 1 indicators (Sustainability of Exploited Stock). These do contain some real “show-stoppers”, particularly with regard to the very speculative knowledge regarding the life-history of Ross Sea
Monday, July 26, 2010
Objection to MSC certification of Ross Sea toothfish to be upheld?
The certification of the Ross Sea longline fishery for Antarctic toothfish hangs in the balance. Independent Adjudicator Michael Lodge will decide in the next few days whether to uphold the ASOC objection to Moody Marine Ltd’s determination, or issue a further remand to Moody to properly address the issues that have been raised.
So far Moody has refused to blink.
In its 2nd June response to Lodge’s initial remand, Moody fought back admitting no changes to its scoring guideposts or scores – 89% for Sustainability of Exploited Stock, 89% for Maintenance of Ecosystem and 93% for Effective Management System. An A+ for sustainability.
Remember though, this is an “exploratory” fishery on a long-lived, slow-growing, low fecundity top predator in a largely pristine ecosystem. As with most exploratory fisheries, we only have rudimentary knowledge of the biology, life history, stock structure and migration of toothfish in the Ross Sea, and management measures must be considered preliminary at best.
Although the CCAMLR stock assessment is the best available, it admits to considerable uncertainty in many aspects. This was pointed out in a critical review of Moody’s draft report by Dr Michael Pawson, an expert in stock assessment who formerly worked at the famous Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory, but Moody was characteristically dismissive.
In it’s 21 June comments on Moody’s response ASOC does not hold back: “As explained clearly in his decision, the IA[Independent Adjudicator] has had very serious concerns about the process MML [Moody] undertook with regard to this certification and with the conclusions it reached. Nonetheless, MML’s response is, at very best, superficial. It has largely re-stated its existing rationales and has not provided any new, substantive justification or thinking – let alone changing a single score. The response suggests that MML does not take the adjudication process seriously.”
Will Michael Lodge agree or will he give Moody one more chance?
So far Moody has refused to blink.
In its 2nd June response to Lodge’s initial remand, Moody fought back admitting no changes to its scoring guideposts or scores – 89% for Sustainability of Exploited Stock, 89% for Maintenance of Ecosystem and 93% for Effective Management System. An A+ for sustainability.
Remember though, this is an “exploratory” fishery on a long-lived, slow-growing, low fecundity top predator in a largely pristine ecosystem. As with most exploratory fisheries, we only have rudimentary knowledge of the biology, life history, stock structure and migration of toothfish in the Ross Sea, and management measures must be considered preliminary at best.
Although the CCAMLR stock assessment is the best available, it admits to considerable uncertainty in many aspects. This was pointed out in a critical review of Moody’s draft report by Dr Michael Pawson, an expert in stock assessment who formerly worked at the famous Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory, but Moody was characteristically dismissive.
In it’s 21 June comments on Moody’s response ASOC does not hold back: “As explained clearly in his decision, the IA[Independent Adjudicator] has had very serious concerns about the process MML [Moody] undertook with regard to this certification and with the conclusions it reached. Nonetheless, MML’s response is, at very best, superficial. It has largely re-stated its existing rationales and has not provided any new, substantive justification or thinking – let alone changing a single score. The response suggests that MML does not take the adjudication process seriously.”
Will Michael Lodge agree or will he give Moody one more chance?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
MSC sockeye salmon certification - who profits?
The David Suzuki Foundation has just produced a useful backgrounder on the controversial Marine Stewardship Council certification of BC sockeye salmon.
The backgrounder states that The Marine Stewardship Council eco-label allows certified fisheries to brand themselves as a “sustainable” source of seafood. Fisheries voluntarily apply for certification, and they do so by hiring a for-profit company to carry out the assessment.
While I don't profess to understand the whole MSC process, some additional information might be useful for those not familiar with the relationship between MSC as a non-profit organization and the profit-maximising companies that do the actual assessments.
MSC provides a Fishery Standard containing Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing as well as a manual of Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework. Only companies that are accredited by Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI) to the MSC accreditation requirements can do fishery sustainability certification assessments under the MSC process. These companies apply the MSC Standard and use the MSC Methods and Guidance manual to do the actual assessments and determine certifiable fisheries.
The MSC website gives the following list of accredited certifiers:
What is important here is that the accredited certifiers are all companies seeking to maximise profits through the MSC sustainability and eco-labelling system. To be competitive they can vary the fee they charge fishing enterprises seeking certification and then seek ways to cut the costs of doing the actual certification. One of the costs to the certifier involves hiring outside experts to assist with the assessments because of limited in-house expertise, and to do independent reviews of draft assessments. These experts include government fisheries scientists and academics who may already be involved in advising governments and RFMOs on the sustainable management of various fisheries.
As a non-profit, MSC is funded by donation and by the fee it charges components of the supply chain for displaying its blue eco-label. Note that some enterprises that achieve certification choose not to actually use the MSC eco-label in order to avoid paying the fee. MSC also runs a second process for "Chain of Custody certifications" in which an overlapping list of companies are accredited to certify businesses that meet the MSC Chain of Custody standard for seafood traceability. A further source of income to MSC is the objection process. Bodies filing an objection (usually conservation organizations funded by private donations) are charged a significant fee by MSC which presumably partly offsets the salaries they pay to four lawyers who are retained as "independent adjudicators" to judge the validity of objections.
The backgrounder states that The Marine Stewardship Council eco-label allows certified fisheries to brand themselves as a “sustainable” source of seafood. Fisheries voluntarily apply for certification, and they do so by hiring a for-profit company to carry out the assessment.
While I don't profess to understand the whole MSC process, some additional information might be useful for those not familiar with the relationship between MSC as a non-profit organization and the profit-maximising companies that do the actual assessments.
MSC provides a Fishery Standard containing Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing as well as a manual of Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework. Only companies that are accredited by Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI) to the MSC accreditation requirements can do fishery sustainability certification assessments under the MSC process. These companies apply the MSC Standard and use the MSC Methods and Guidance manual to do the actual assessments and determine certifiable fisheries.
The MSC website gives the following list of accredited certifiers:
- Det Norske Veritas Certification AS
- Food Certification International Ltd (FCI)
- Global Trust Certifications Ltd (Previously I:FQC Ltd)
- MacAlister Elliott & Partners Ltd
- Moody Marine Ltd
- MRAG Americas
- Organización Internacional Agropecuaria (OIA)
- Scientific Certification Systems
- Tavel Certification Inc.
- TQCSI - MSC
What is important here is that the accredited certifiers are all companies seeking to maximise profits through the MSC sustainability and eco-labelling system. To be competitive they can vary the fee they charge fishing enterprises seeking certification and then seek ways to cut the costs of doing the actual certification. One of the costs to the certifier involves hiring outside experts to assist with the assessments because of limited in-house expertise, and to do independent reviews of draft assessments. These experts include government fisheries scientists and academics who may already be involved in advising governments and RFMOs on the sustainable management of various fisheries.
As a non-profit, MSC is funded by donation and by the fee it charges components of the supply chain for displaying its blue eco-label. Note that some enterprises that achieve certification choose not to actually use the MSC eco-label in order to avoid paying the fee. MSC also runs a second process for "Chain of Custody certifications" in which an overlapping list of companies are accredited to certify businesses that meet the MSC Chain of Custody standard for seafood traceability. A further source of income to MSC is the objection process. Bodies filing an objection (usually conservation organizations funded by private donations) are charged a significant fee by MSC which presumably partly offsets the salaries they pay to four lawyers who are retained as "independent adjudicators" to judge the validity of objections.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
All objections to Fraser Sockeye Salmon MSC certification dismissed
In his ruling handed down July 12 2010, Independent Adjudicator Wylie Spicer, Q.C., dismissed all objections to the MSC certification of the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon as sustainable. Certification will now proceed and the BC Salmon Marketing Council can apply the blue MSC sustainability label to all products from the Fraser River sockeye fishery. The objections were filed jointly by the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, David Suzuki Foundation and the Skeena Wild Conservation Trust.
This is Spicer’s first adjudication in his new job on salary to MSC. In his findings, he sets the tone early on by stating that “Other IA’s, in recent decisions, recognizing the purpose of the OP [Objection Procedure], have described the standard of review available as being “narrow” and requiring “deference to the determinations of the certification body” (Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish Longline Fishery decision at para. 8).”
Further into his report Spicer notes that the Objector’s arguments “are really taking issue with whether the Fraser River Fishery can stand up to scrutiny given the MSC Principles and Criteria.” He notes that “this type of review is not the purpose of the OP. The purpose of the OP is to review the work of the CB [Certification Body] to see whether it made an error that materially affected the outcome of the Determination.”
Within this narrow ambit of the OP, Spicer finds that no such errors were made. Procedures were followed and the scores are justified.
For those of us that value our children’s future more than MSC procedures and the short-term economic benefits accrued by the BC Salmon Marketing Council, there are some major concerns with this certification.
Firstly, the productivity of Fraser River salmon is in free-fall as pointed out by the “Think Tank of Scientists” that met in December 2009 at Simon Fraser University: “The productivity of the Fraser river sockeye salmon, which is the number of adults produced per spawner, has been declining since the mid-1990s to the point where Fraser River sockeye are almost unable to replace themselves.” No matter what scoring guideposts were set up and what scores were allocated by the Moody Marine assessment team, a population that is “almost unable to replace itself” cannot be considered a candidate for a sustainable fishery.
Secondly, two distinct genetic components of Fraser sockeye, those spawning in Cultus Lake and Sakinaw Lake, have been found to be endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The Canadian government however decided not to list them under the Species at Risk Act, citing socio-economic considerations. Listing would have mandated an explicit rebuilding strategy. The continuing loss of biodiversity should be a major concern for those that care about our planet’s future.
So, MSC adds another controversial certification to their growing list, the perfect record of all objections to any assessment being dismissed is retained, and public confidence in the process, and hence the value of the MSC label, is diminished.
This is Spicer’s first adjudication in his new job on salary to MSC. In his findings, he sets the tone early on by stating that “Other IA’s, in recent decisions, recognizing the purpose of the OP [Objection Procedure], have described the standard of review available as being “narrow” and requiring “deference to the determinations of the certification body” (Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish Longline Fishery decision at para. 8).”
Further into his report Spicer notes that the Objector’s arguments “are really taking issue with whether the Fraser River Fishery can stand up to scrutiny given the MSC Principles and Criteria.” He notes that “this type of review is not the purpose of the OP. The purpose of the OP is to review the work of the CB [Certification Body] to see whether it made an error that materially affected the outcome of the Determination.”
Within this narrow ambit of the OP, Spicer finds that no such errors were made. Procedures were followed and the scores are justified.
For those of us that value our children’s future more than MSC procedures and the short-term economic benefits accrued by the BC Salmon Marketing Council, there are some major concerns with this certification.
Firstly, the productivity of Fraser River salmon is in free-fall as pointed out by the “Think Tank of Scientists” that met in December 2009 at Simon Fraser University: “The productivity of the Fraser river sockeye salmon, which is the number of adults produced per spawner, has been declining since the mid-1990s to the point where Fraser River sockeye are almost unable to replace themselves.” No matter what scoring guideposts were set up and what scores were allocated by the Moody Marine assessment team, a population that is “almost unable to replace itself” cannot be considered a candidate for a sustainable fishery.
Secondly, two distinct genetic components of Fraser sockeye, those spawning in Cultus Lake and Sakinaw Lake, have been found to be endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The Canadian government however decided not to list them under the Species at Risk Act, citing socio-economic considerations. Listing would have mandated an explicit rebuilding strategy. The continuing loss of biodiversity should be a major concern for those that care about our planet’s future.
So, MSC adds another controversial certification to their growing list, the perfect record of all objections to any assessment being dismissed is retained, and public confidence in the process, and hence the value of the MSC label, is diminished.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Verdict out - Antarctic krill fishery is sustainable because MSC says so
Yesterday (25 May 2010) MSC released the legally sounding "Supplemental Decision of the Independent Adjudicator on Remand in the Matter of an Objection to the Final Report and Determination of the Proposed Certification of the Aker Biomarine Antarctic Krill Fishery under the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing".
The "Decision" is by the Independent Adjudicator (on staff to MSC) - lawyer Eldon V.C. Greenberg.
In his 4 page ruling he reaches the conclusion "In sum, after consideration of Moody's Response to Additional Remand, I conclude that the response is "adequate to meet the matters raised in the remand" within the meaning of Section 4.9.4(a) of the Objections Procedure, and I confirm the determination of the certification body with respect to PIs 1.2.2 and 2.5.3. I conclude that Moody has cured the procedural defect identified in my remand of May 5, 2010 and provided a reasonable explanation for its decision not to alter the scoring of the PIs in question in light of Watters 2009."
See post on this blog on May 7 for background
So Moody wins another one and MSC can check an additional sustainable fishery to its growing world-wide list.
But what do conservation bodies think? The influential Pew Environmental Group does not like it one little bit. The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a US-based non-governmental organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improving public policy, informing the public and stimulating civic life.
PR Newswire reports that "The Pew Environment Group today criticized the decision by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to certify Antarctic krill. The certification gives the false impression that the entire fishery for Antarctic krill is sustainable when in reality it is not."
Gerald Leape, director of Pew's Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) points out the main grounds for objecting to the certification of the Aker krill fishery as sustainable:
The "Decision" is by the Independent Adjudicator (on staff to MSC) - lawyer Eldon V.C. Greenberg.
In his 4 page ruling he reaches the conclusion "In sum, after consideration of Moody's Response to Additional Remand, I conclude that the response is "adequate to meet the matters raised in the remand" within the meaning of Section 4.9.4(a) of the Objections Procedure, and I confirm the determination of the certification body with respect to PIs 1.2.2 and 2.5.3. I conclude that Moody has cured the procedural defect identified in my remand of May 5, 2010 and provided a reasonable explanation for its decision not to alter the scoring of the PIs in question in light of Watters 2009."
See post on this blog on May 7 for background
So Moody wins another one and MSC can check an additional sustainable fishery to its growing world-wide list.
But what do conservation bodies think? The influential Pew Environmental Group does not like it one little bit. The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a US-based non-governmental organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improving public policy, informing the public and stimulating civic life.
PR Newswire reports that "The Pew Environment Group today criticized the decision by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to certify Antarctic krill. The certification gives the false impression that the entire fishery for Antarctic krill is sustainable when in reality it is not."
Gerald Leape, director of Pew's Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) points out the main grounds for objecting to the certification of the Aker krill fishery as sustainable:
- MSC's standards allow for the certification of a single operator in a fishery. In general, this runs contrary to its mission of ocean protection. If a few ships are acting responsibly but the vast majority are not, the target population could still be at risk of being overfished.
- Climate change impacts to species are not considered by MSC methodology. As krill have been proven to be susceptible to climate change, the impact of warming temperatures on the population must be considered, if fishing is to be sustainable.
- Numerous uncertainties are associated with the determinants and drivers of krill population size. Though extensively studied, scientists are still learning what affects krill population size. Without this knowledge, it is difficult to set appropriate catch limits.
PR Newswire reports Leape saying: "Unfortunately, perception is reality...The MSC's label falsely advertises the message that all krill are sustainably caught and that consuming krill-based omega 3 supplements or purchasing farmed salmon raised on krill meal is okay. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish fishery MSC certification in question
FIS is reporting today that MSC Independent Adjudicator Michael Lodge has questioned the scores Moody Marine has assigned to six performance indicators for the Ross Sea Antactic toothfish fishery following an objection made by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC). Lodge however dismissed eight of the ASOC objections and also rejected an objection against the definition of the “Unit of Certification”.
See previous blog entry on this fishery: http://fishyfellow.blogspot.com/2010/01/case-6-sw-ross-sea-antarctic-toothfish.html
FIS reports that ASOC is calling Lodge’s remand a “victory for science and the Antarctic marine environment.” The Coalition argued that the dearth of data on the stock and lack of scientific rigour in the assessment did not support certification of the fishery as sustainable. Also supporting the objection were the Centre for Biological Diversity and 39 marine scientists under the collective name of Friends of the Ross Sea Ecosystem (FORSE).
FIS reports ASOC Executive Director James Barnes as stating “This fishery should never have been allowed to undergo full assessment in the first place - there are simply far too many unknowns about this highly vulnerable stock, which is precisely why the fishery is officially classified as 'exploratory' by CCAMLR....The adjudicator has agreed with ASOC that Moody cannot justify its scores for a number of crucial indicators.”
Moody Marine has 10 days to issue a “reasoned response” regarding the remand but can apply to Lodge for an extension. The objections process will be finalised once Lodge considers the response and makes his decision on whether the fishery should be certified or not. No fishery has thus far been denied MSC certification based on an objection.
Link to FIS article http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=11&id=36508&l=e&special=&ndb=1%20target=
See previous blog entry on this fishery: http://fishyfellow.blogspot.com/2010/01/case-6-sw-ross-sea-antarctic-toothfish.html
FIS reports that ASOC is calling Lodge’s remand a “victory for science and the Antarctic marine environment.” The Coalition argued that the dearth of data on the stock and lack of scientific rigour in the assessment did not support certification of the fishery as sustainable. Also supporting the objection were the Centre for Biological Diversity and 39 marine scientists under the collective name of Friends of the Ross Sea Ecosystem (FORSE).
FIS reports ASOC Executive Director James Barnes as stating “This fishery should never have been allowed to undergo full assessment in the first place - there are simply far too many unknowns about this highly vulnerable stock, which is precisely why the fishery is officially classified as 'exploratory' by CCAMLR....The adjudicator has agreed with ASOC that Moody cannot justify its scores for a number of crucial indicators.”
Moody Marine has 10 days to issue a “reasoned response” regarding the remand but can apply to Lodge for an extension. The objections process will be finalised once Lodge considers the response and makes his decision on whether the fishery should be certified or not. No fishery has thus far been denied MSC certification based on an objection.
Link to FIS article http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=11&id=36508&l=e&special=&ndb=1%20target=
Friday, May 7, 2010
Objection to Antarctic Krill fishery certification as sustainble by MSC
On December 4 2009 the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC, a coalition of over 200 non-governmental organizations in fifty countries concerned with the preservation of the Antarctic environment) filed a notice of objection with MSC regarding the sustainability determination of Moody Marine with regard to the Aker Biomarine Krill Fishery.
The Aker Biomarine pelagic trawl krill fishing fleet is a major participant in the Antarctic krill fishery in Area 48 in the Southern Ocean waters around the Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia. ASOC and its partner the Pew Antarctic Krill Conservation Project have been advocating for management reforms in the fishery and have concerns about the Aker Biomarine krill fleet’s role in that fishery.
The MSC report by Moody Marine, together with comments from two independent reviewers and Moody’s responses, were published on their website on 6 August 2009.
One of the reviewers, Stephen Nicol, is an acknowledged world expert on krill in the Antarctic. He made a number of critical comments on the report which Moody Marine mostly dismissed. For example, he stated that “There is little doubt that the data being collected are insufficient to detect impacts of fishing – and there is no mechanism to alter the krill management approach even if impacts were detected.” Moody Marine responded that “The reviewer is correct, but his concerns do not render the harvest strategy ineffective, in our opinion.”
In another instance Nicol comments that he is “unaware of any evidence that exists that the [existing management] strategy is effective other than the absence of an obvious stock collapse. Nicol argues for a lowering of the scores in a number of instances, for example “Because of the lack of a mandatory observer scheme, the shortfalls of the CEMP [CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program] and the uncertainties over bycatch it is difficult to see how information/monitoring can be considered adequate.” Again, Moody Marine is dismissive.
Nicol concludes that “Overall, the assessment probably falls somewhat short of what I might hope given the MSC principles. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the operator has a very short history in the krill fishery and has not yet had a chance to establish its credentials or to fully examine the impacts of its new technology [mid-water trawl continuous fishing system]. This suggests to me that this proposal is slightly premature. Secondly, the proposal assumes that the procedures implemented by CCAMLR in pursuit of its ecosystem approach to management are sufficiently robust to enable the krill fishery to meet the MSC criteria.” Moody Marine considers that although “The harvest strategy has not been fully tested, … monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.”
The outcome of the review resulted in Moody adjusting its scoring as follows:
1.2.1: Score reduced to 90
1.2.2: No change
2.5.1: Score increased to 100
2.5.2: Score reduced to 75
2.5.3: No change
The change in score for PI 2.5.2 has resulted in a new Condition – Condition 3 at the end of this document.
The basis for a 100% score under 2.5.1 is that “There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.” Presumably this increase is necessary to counteract the decrease in the score under 2.5.2.
Overall scores for the fishery are now:
Principle 1: 84
Principle 2: 91
Principle 3: 93
This would therefore maintain the determination that this fishery be certified.
The objection by ASOC noted that the company seeking certification was only one of the operators in fishing krill in the Antarctic and felt that for the MSC label to have any credibility it must reflect the impact of the fishery as a whole.
ASOC also criticized Moody Marine for not paying any attention to a report by Watters et al. (2009) which they suggest demonstrates that “recent risk assessments conducted for the krill fishery clearly show that measures currently in place are not sufficient to prevent irreversible harm to several krill predator populations” [WG-EMM-09/12, George M. Watters, Simeon Hill, Jefferson T. Hinke, and Phil Trathan. The Risks of not Deciding to Allocate the Precautionary Krill Catch Limit among SSMUs and Allowing Uncontrolled Expansion of the Krill Fishery up to the Trigger Level.]
Moody Marine argued that the study conducted by Watters et al. (2009) was produced after their final report was completed, but ASOC claimed that this was incorrect because these findings were highlighted in comments by Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) on Moody Marine’s draft report. ASOC claimed that Moody Marine “simply chose not to respond to it, but they had ample opportunity to become familiar with this important document, which is being provided to the Independent Adjudicator and should be a part of the formal record.”
The Independent Adjudicator is lawyer Eldon Greenberg, one of three new lawyers recently appointed under salary to MSC to hear and judge objections. He is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Garvey Schubert Barer. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Mr Greenberg was deputy general counsel of the Agency for International Development and general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Carter Administration. He specializes in environmental and natural resources issues, including fishery management, marine mammal and endangered species. He also teaches international negotiation as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
Under the MSC “Objections Procedure” a remand can only be ordered where the Independent Adjudicator determines that one or more of the following circumstances apply: (a) There was a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment; or (b) The score given by the certification body in relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and this was material to the outcome of the determination; or (c) It is necessary to remand the Determination in order to enable the certification body to consider additional information.
Although the “Objection Procedure”sounds very legal and official, it is difficult to see that it has any real legal standing. There is no contract in existence between MSC and the the resource owners, the civil public, to make any of this legal and binding – it is just a bunch of rules much like in a game of Monopoly.
The ASOC objection is based on three claims (i) Moody has misapplied the MSC principles in relation to the “unit of certification”, contending that the unit of certification must be the entire Antarctic krill fishery; (ii) Moody has incorrectly applied the MSCs procedures in reaching its conclusions; and (iii) The scores given by Moody in relation to a number of the Performance Indicators cannot be justified.
Eldon Greenberg found, in his judgment, that “Moody explicitly addressed the comments of both peer reviewers, including the one who was most critical of the analysis [Steve Nicol], and had made a rational judgment call about what changes should be incorporated in its report.” Greenberg concluded that this satisfies MSC requirements.
While dismissing other claims by ASOC, Greenberg did concede that Moody should have considered the Watters 2009 report because it was available “substantially in advance of completion of the certification body’s final report”. He stated that information brought to light in a timely fashion by commentators on a draft report cannot be ignored and to do so would “diminish the utility and value of the public comment process”.
Greenberg cites the precedent of the Pacific Hake Mid-Water Trawl Fishery decision where the Independent Adjudicator considered whether new material that arose after the draft report had been prepared would have made a “material difference to the fairness of the assessment”.
Without calling any expert scientific experts, Greenberg passes judgment on the contents of the Watters 2009 report and finds that the report “did not conclude that the fishery was not managed in a precautionary manner, but rather that the management system was not “as precautionary” as previously posited in the event of an “uncontrolled expansion” of the fishery.”
Greenberg finally decides on a “limited remand to the certification body to consider Watters 2009 in the context of the specific PIs where ASOC asserts that this study supports its objections to Moody’s scoring”.
Greenberg acknowledges that ASOC levels a “series of weighty arguments against a finding of sustainability” by Moody based on the role of krill in the Antarctic Ecosystem, lack of an adequate management strategy and the large amount of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge. He states that “I cannot (and will not) substitute my judgment for that of the certification body as long as its finding and determinations have a rational basis in the record and the rationale stated is consistent with the facts found here”.
After considering each issue raised by ASOC under each of the PIs through reams of text, Greenberg repeatedly finds that “I am not persuaded that Moody made a mistake of material fact, failed to consider material information, or acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in awarding the score” on each PI element contested by ASOC.
Finally Greenberg concludes that “Having considered the written submissions and supporting documentation of the parties, I find that, with one exception, ASOC’s grounds for objection…have not been established under the Objections Procedure. However, he did find “a serious procedural error” with regard to Moody not taking into account the Watters 2009 report in the scoring of a number of criteria under PIs 1 and 2. Moody now has the opportunity to reflect on the judgment and make changes, if any, in a response to Greenberg after which he will decide whether the objection is upheld or dismissed.
Note that there was no oral hearing in this case. Written submissions were instead considered and no scientific experts were called. This may reduce the considerable cost for leveling an objection imposed by MSC, to be borne by ASOC.
The Aker Biomarine pelagic trawl krill fishing fleet is a major participant in the Antarctic krill fishery in Area 48 in the Southern Ocean waters around the Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia. ASOC and its partner the Pew Antarctic Krill Conservation Project have been advocating for management reforms in the fishery and have concerns about the Aker Biomarine krill fleet’s role in that fishery.
The MSC report by Moody Marine, together with comments from two independent reviewers and Moody’s responses, were published on their website on 6 August 2009.
One of the reviewers, Stephen Nicol, is an acknowledged world expert on krill in the Antarctic. He made a number of critical comments on the report which Moody Marine mostly dismissed. For example, he stated that “There is little doubt that the data being collected are insufficient to detect impacts of fishing – and there is no mechanism to alter the krill management approach even if impacts were detected.” Moody Marine responded that “The reviewer is correct, but his concerns do not render the harvest strategy ineffective, in our opinion.”
In another instance Nicol comments that he is “unaware of any evidence that exists that the [existing management] strategy is effective other than the absence of an obvious stock collapse. Nicol argues for a lowering of the scores in a number of instances, for example “Because of the lack of a mandatory observer scheme, the shortfalls of the CEMP [CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program] and the uncertainties over bycatch it is difficult to see how information/monitoring can be considered adequate.” Again, Moody Marine is dismissive.
Nicol concludes that “Overall, the assessment probably falls somewhat short of what I might hope given the MSC principles. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the operator has a very short history in the krill fishery and has not yet had a chance to establish its credentials or to fully examine the impacts of its new technology [mid-water trawl continuous fishing system]. This suggests to me that this proposal is slightly premature. Secondly, the proposal assumes that the procedures implemented by CCAMLR in pursuit of its ecosystem approach to management are sufficiently robust to enable the krill fishery to meet the MSC criteria.” Moody Marine considers that although “The harvest strategy has not been fully tested, … monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.”
The outcome of the review resulted in Moody adjusting its scoring as follows:
1.2.1: Score reduced to 90
1.2.2: No change
2.5.1: Score increased to 100
2.5.2: Score reduced to 75
2.5.3: No change
The change in score for PI 2.5.2 has resulted in a new Condition – Condition 3 at the end of this document.
The basis for a 100% score under 2.5.1 is that “There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.” Presumably this increase is necessary to counteract the decrease in the score under 2.5.2.
Overall scores for the fishery are now:
Principle 1: 84
Principle 2: 91
Principle 3: 93
This would therefore maintain the determination that this fishery be certified.
The objection by ASOC noted that the company seeking certification was only one of the operators in fishing krill in the Antarctic and felt that for the MSC label to have any credibility it must reflect the impact of the fishery as a whole.
ASOC also criticized Moody Marine for not paying any attention to a report by Watters et al. (2009) which they suggest demonstrates that “recent risk assessments conducted for the krill fishery clearly show that measures currently in place are not sufficient to prevent irreversible harm to several krill predator populations” [WG-EMM-09/12, George M. Watters, Simeon Hill, Jefferson T. Hinke, and Phil Trathan. The Risks of not Deciding to Allocate the Precautionary Krill Catch Limit among SSMUs and Allowing Uncontrolled Expansion of the Krill Fishery up to the Trigger Level.]
Moody Marine argued that the study conducted by Watters et al. (2009) was produced after their final report was completed, but ASOC claimed that this was incorrect because these findings were highlighted in comments by Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) on Moody Marine’s draft report. ASOC claimed that Moody Marine “simply chose not to respond to it, but they had ample opportunity to become familiar with this important document, which is being provided to the Independent Adjudicator and should be a part of the formal record.”
The Independent Adjudicator is lawyer Eldon Greenberg, one of three new lawyers recently appointed under salary to MSC to hear and judge objections. He is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Garvey Schubert Barer. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Mr Greenberg was deputy general counsel of the Agency for International Development and general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Carter Administration. He specializes in environmental and natural resources issues, including fishery management, marine mammal and endangered species. He also teaches international negotiation as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
Under the MSC “Objections Procedure” a remand can only be ordered where the Independent Adjudicator determines that one or more of the following circumstances apply: (a) There was a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment; or (b) The score given by the certification body in relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and this was material to the outcome of the determination; or (c) It is necessary to remand the Determination in order to enable the certification body to consider additional information.
Although the “Objection Procedure”sounds very legal and official, it is difficult to see that it has any real legal standing. There is no contract in existence between MSC and the the resource owners, the civil public, to make any of this legal and binding – it is just a bunch of rules much like in a game of Monopoly.
The ASOC objection is based on three claims (i) Moody has misapplied the MSC principles in relation to the “unit of certification”, contending that the unit of certification must be the entire Antarctic krill fishery; (ii) Moody has incorrectly applied the MSCs procedures in reaching its conclusions; and (iii) The scores given by Moody in relation to a number of the Performance Indicators cannot be justified.
Eldon Greenberg found, in his judgment, that “Moody explicitly addressed the comments of both peer reviewers, including the one who was most critical of the analysis [Steve Nicol], and had made a rational judgment call about what changes should be incorporated in its report.” Greenberg concluded that this satisfies MSC requirements.
While dismissing other claims by ASOC, Greenberg did concede that Moody should have considered the Watters 2009 report because it was available “substantially in advance of completion of the certification body’s final report”. He stated that information brought to light in a timely fashion by commentators on a draft report cannot be ignored and to do so would “diminish the utility and value of the public comment process”.
Greenberg cites the precedent of the Pacific Hake Mid-Water Trawl Fishery decision where the Independent Adjudicator considered whether new material that arose after the draft report had been prepared would have made a “material difference to the fairness of the assessment”.
Without calling any expert scientific experts, Greenberg passes judgment on the contents of the Watters 2009 report and finds that the report “did not conclude that the fishery was not managed in a precautionary manner, but rather that the management system was not “as precautionary” as previously posited in the event of an “uncontrolled expansion” of the fishery.”
Greenberg finally decides on a “limited remand to the certification body to consider Watters 2009 in the context of the specific PIs where ASOC asserts that this study supports its objections to Moody’s scoring”.
Greenberg acknowledges that ASOC levels a “series of weighty arguments against a finding of sustainability” by Moody based on the role of krill in the Antarctic Ecosystem, lack of an adequate management strategy and the large amount of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge. He states that “I cannot (and will not) substitute my judgment for that of the certification body as long as its finding and determinations have a rational basis in the record and the rationale stated is consistent with the facts found here”.
After considering each issue raised by ASOC under each of the PIs through reams of text, Greenberg repeatedly finds that “I am not persuaded that Moody made a mistake of material fact, failed to consider material information, or acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in awarding the score” on each PI element contested by ASOC.
Finally Greenberg concludes that “Having considered the written submissions and supporting documentation of the parties, I find that, with one exception, ASOC’s grounds for objection…have not been established under the Objections Procedure. However, he did find “a serious procedural error” with regard to Moody not taking into account the Watters 2009 report in the scoring of a number of criteria under PIs 1 and 2. Moody now has the opportunity to reflect on the judgment and make changes, if any, in a response to Greenberg after which he will decide whether the objection is upheld or dismissed.
Note that there was no oral hearing in this case. Written submissions were instead considered and no scientific experts were called. This may reduce the considerable cost for leveling an objection imposed by MSC, to be borne by ASOC.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
MSC assessment of BC sockeye salmon enters the adjudication process
One of the objections to the MSC assessment of the sustainability of the BC sockeye salmon fishery has been withdrawn but the second has been allowed to proceed to adjudication. This is a process under the control of lawyers hired by MSC, although scientific experts may be called by the adjudicator. See http://fishyfellow.blogspot.com/2010/02/objection-mlord-three-new-lawyers.html for more information.
The letter from the lawyer to the objector, the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, can be read here:
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/assessment-downloads-1/22.04.2010-bc-sockeye-ia-objection-wwss.pdf
The oral hearing will be sometime in late May or early June but it is unclear whether this is a public hearing or in camera. What is clear is that the lawyer alone decides whether the objection is sustained or dismissed. Note that objections are usually based on scientific aspects of the determination of sustainabililty. No objection has been sustained thus far under the MSC process. Therefore the outcome from this hearing will have wide public interest and should be covered by a simultaneous public webcast, so that we, the resource owners, can see and hear that justice has been done with regard to safeguarding our property.
The letter from the lawyer to the objector, the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, can be read here:
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/assessment-downloads-1/22.04.2010-bc-sockeye-ia-objection-wwss.pdf
The oral hearing will be sometime in late May or early June but it is unclear whether this is a public hearing or in camera. What is clear is that the lawyer alone decides whether the objection is sustained or dismissed. Note that objections are usually based on scientific aspects of the determination of sustainabililty. No objection has been sustained thus far under the MSC process. Therefore the outcome from this hearing will have wide public interest and should be covered by a simultaneous public webcast, so that we, the resource owners, can see and hear that justice has been done with regard to safeguarding our property.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Objection m'lord! - Three new lawyers appointed by MSC to adjudicate objections to certification
MSC has just announced the appointment of three new lawyers as "Independent Adjudicators" to deal with the increasing number of objections being received to the eco-certification of controversial fisheries as sustainable. So far NO objection has resulted in an assessment of sustainability under the MSC process being overturned, and a number (most?) have been dismissed out of hand by the adjudicator as having insufficient grounds to proceed further.
The MSC website states that the the Independent Adjudicator will assess the objection to determine whether it has ‘a reasonable prospect of success'. This depends primarily on whether:
a. The objection identifies a serious procedural or other irregularity in the assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment;
b. The score given for one or more performance indicators cannot be satisfactorily justified by the certifier due to factual errors, omission of relevant information or arbitrariness;
c. Additional information has been identified that is relevant to the assessment by the date of Determination and was not available or known to the certifier.
Most of the objections relate to shortcomings in the assignment of passing scores under the three MSC principles. These objections tend to be technical in nature related to fish population dynamics, stock assessment and the sustainability of management strategies. It is difficult to see how lawyers with no training in these areas could evaluate whether an objection should proceed.
If the objection is allowed to proceed, the certifier is given the opportunity to address the objection and then the adjudicator consults with the objector, the fishery and the certifier in order to determine whether the certifier has adequately addressed the issues raised in the objection. If no resolution is achieved through consultation, the adjudicator will notify all parties that the matter will proceed to adjudication and convene an oral hearing of the objection.
If the objector(s) decides to proceed to oral hearing, they have to undertake to pay costs currently limited to £15,000. During the oral hearing the objector(s), the certifier and the fishery present their respective cases. The adjudicator may seek external expert advice on technical matters relating to the issues raised in the objection. (Hmmmm.....this part worries me a lot....the adjudicator can pick the technical experts...how would the adjudicator know who to pick and whether the advice was independent, expert and objective?)
Following the hearing, the adjudicator issues a written decision either confirming the original Determination by the certifier or remanding the Determination by the certifier. If the Determination is remanded the certifier must submit a written response to the MSC, the fishery and the objector. The adjudicator then either accepts the response as an adequate resolution of the matters raised in the remand and approves the original (or amended Determination) or upholds the objection. The certifier then amends the Final Report and Determination in the light of the findings and this forms the basis for the Public Certification Report.
Link to news item:
http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/world/2811-marine-stewardship-council-appoints-three-new-independent-adjudicators.html
The MSC website states that the the Independent Adjudicator will assess the objection to determine whether it has ‘a reasonable prospect of success'. This depends primarily on whether:
a. The objection identifies a serious procedural or other irregularity in the assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment;
b. The score given for one or more performance indicators cannot be satisfactorily justified by the certifier due to factual errors, omission of relevant information or arbitrariness;
c. Additional information has been identified that is relevant to the assessment by the date of Determination and was not available or known to the certifier.
Most of the objections relate to shortcomings in the assignment of passing scores under the three MSC principles. These objections tend to be technical in nature related to fish population dynamics, stock assessment and the sustainability of management strategies. It is difficult to see how lawyers with no training in these areas could evaluate whether an objection should proceed.
If the objection is allowed to proceed, the certifier is given the opportunity to address the objection and then the adjudicator consults with the objector, the fishery and the certifier in order to determine whether the certifier has adequately addressed the issues raised in the objection. If no resolution is achieved through consultation, the adjudicator will notify all parties that the matter will proceed to adjudication and convene an oral hearing of the objection.
If the objector(s) decides to proceed to oral hearing, they have to undertake to pay costs currently limited to £15,000. During the oral hearing the objector(s), the certifier and the fishery present their respective cases. The adjudicator may seek external expert advice on technical matters relating to the issues raised in the objection. (Hmmmm.....this part worries me a lot....the adjudicator can pick the technical experts...how would the adjudicator know who to pick and whether the advice was independent, expert and objective?)
Following the hearing, the adjudicator issues a written decision either confirming the original Determination by the certifier or remanding the Determination by the certifier. If the Determination is remanded the certifier must submit a written response to the MSC, the fishery and the objector. The adjudicator then either accepts the response as an adequate resolution of the matters raised in the remand and approves the original (or amended Determination) or upholds the objection. The certifier then amends the Final Report and Determination in the light of the findings and this forms the basis for the Public Certification Report.
Link to news item:
http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/world/2811-marine-stewardship-council-appoints-three-new-independent-adjudicators.html
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Case # 6 SW Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish longline fishery
(CCAMLR Subareas 88.1 and 88.2)
MSC Assessment completed by Moody Marine Ltd in 2009- Currently under Objection Procedure (Jan 2010).
Latest scientific assessment available – CCAMLR 2007 (2009 assessment not yet available on the web?)
This fishery is on the Antarctic toothfish Dissostichus mawsoni, a conspecific of the infamous Patogonian toothfish D. eleginoides which is found further north and commonly marketed as Chilean Sea Bass. This means that supply chains (both legal and under the table) are already well developed for the marketing of D. mawsoni around the world.
The “Unit of Certification” (UoC) comprises vessels belonging to Argos Georgia Ltd UK), Sanford Ltd (NZ) and New Zealand Longline Line Ltd (NZ). This poses a bit of problem right of the bat because there are also Argentine, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, South African, Spanish, and Uruguayan vessels involved in the fishery - 21 vessels in Subarea 88.1 and 15 vessels for Subarea 88.2. Some of these countries have been implicated in the collapse of toothfish populations elsewhere.
Both the fishing effort and the catch have been increasing over the last decade. Currently the catch limit is 3,267t (exceeding scientific advice, see below). All vessels are supposed to carry at least two scientific observers, one of which is appointed “in accordance with the CCAMLR scheme”, so IUU catches are considered to be low.
The Ross Sea toothfish fishery is in what is called an “exploratory phase”, during which information is collected on the biology and productivity of the stock - information that will help in doing an assessment of the sustainable yield for a commercial-scale fishery. Although the catches have been increasing, the current stock assessment is still highly uncertain. The catch-at-age data comprise a relatively short time series, and are not very informative for determining current or initial stock size. The tag– recapture data provide the best information on stock size, but the total number of tagged fish recaptured in the Ross Sea is still relatively small. The population model of stock size and yield is therefore uncertain but should improve as more data are collected.
Scientific advice by CCAMLR is based on projections of the modelled stock under different catch levels. The catch level advised is either the constant catch that results in a 10% probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation level over a 35-year harvesting period, or the catch that results in the median escapement at the end of a 35-year period being 50% of the median pre-exploitation level. Which ever one is lower is selected as the scientific advice.
The projection carried out in the 2007 assessment under a constant catch of 2,700t is shown below. This trajectory would be consistent with a stock being fished down towards the biomass that gives MSY and would not be considered to be overfished. However the confidence intervals are wide and there is also a number of untested assumptions in the model. One of these is that the steepness in the stock-recruit model is 0.75. This implies when the spawning stock is depleted to 20% of the unexploited level, recruitment remains at 75% of the maximum recruitment level. While this is a reasonable assumption for a number of species, it is not clear that it is reasonable for this stock until more data are available. If recruitment declines faster with decreasing stock size than is currently assumed, the stock could become rapidly depleted under the 2,700t catch level. Other important uncertainties in the projection are the age at maturity and the age of recruitment into the fishery (see ASOC objection below). Note also that the current catch limit being implemented (3,267t) exceeds the scientific advice of 2,700t.
The Moody Marine Ltd assessment of the sustainability of the fishery resulted in passing scores on all three MSC Principles: Sustainability of Exploited Stock, Maintenance of Ecosystem, and Effective Management Systems. However, they did attach a number of conditions for ongoing certification. Knowledge on the life history and population characteristics of the target stock must be improved. Stock assessment must be improved through a wider tagging program to reduce uncertainty. The impact of the longline fishery on the benthic habitat must be better understood. There needs to be better information of the trophic effects of the fishery and the impacts of bycatch.
An objection to the Moody Marine report was filed by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition on 11 December 2009 (although a member, the WWF did not participate in the objection). ASOC represents more than 30 environmental and conservation organizations and is the only NGO allowed by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and CCAMLR to participate in their respective meetings. In their objection, ASOC expressed grave concerns about the lack of a precautionary approach adopted by Moody Marine and the MSC in their determination that the fishery is sustainable and can therefore be certified and carry the MSC ecolabel.
ASOC claimed that there was an absence of any real understanding of its natural history, the impacts of the fishery on stocks, and in stock size itself. They also claimed that, given the large body of information regarding the negative impacts of significantly reducing the prevalence of top predators in ecosystems elsewhere, it is not precautionary to allow it in the Ross Sea, particularly in the face of recent science indicating the age of sexual maturity is a mean age of 16, far different (almost doubled) from the models on which management of the fishery currently is based. ASOC concludes that fishing now and doing the science later is in not precautionary. They note that at the 2009 CCAMLR Fish Stock Assessment (FSA) meeting, the age of recruitment for Antarctic toothfish was revised upwards from 8–10 years to a mean of 16 years. They consider that this, coupled with “juvenisation” of the population (big, old fish removed) means that upwards of 75% of the fish landed up to this point likely have been pre-breeders. The implications of this have yet to be considered by CCAMLR FSA. They also note that both CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) have listed the Ross Sea in an agreed list of the first 11 of a representative network of marine reserves spread across the Southern Ocean. ASOC submits that certification of this fishery as “sustainable” by the MSC and its certifying agent is contrary to the “ecosystem as a whole” principle and precautionary approach of CCAMLR, given all of the realities outlined in their appeal. Moreover, ASOC claims that the “conditions” proposed by Moody Marine, however likely or unlikely ever to be realized, would not change the problems with the underlying fundamentals.
The Independent Adjudicator, (appointed and on salary to MSC, and therefore not at arms length?) will now determine if the basis of the objection has standing. If not, the objection will be dismissed. If it has standing, then Moody Marine is required to review the issues identified. After review Moody Marine, in consultation (with whom?), may make changes to the Final Report and Determination. If the issues identified in the objection are still not considered addressed (by whom – the Adjudicator?), a specified adjudication process will begin. That process can take approximately three months. Moody Marine has until 5pm GMT 22nd January 2010 to submit their response.
Only one fishery has ever gone past the pre-assessment phase and not passed assessment according to David Agnew, Chair of Technical Advisory Board of MSC. Nobody seems to know what fishery that was. Will this be the second?
MSC Assessment completed by Moody Marine Ltd in 2009- Currently under Objection Procedure (Jan 2010).
Latest scientific assessment available – CCAMLR 2007 (2009 assessment not yet available on the web?)
This fishery is on the Antarctic toothfish Dissostichus mawsoni, a conspecific of the infamous Patogonian toothfish D. eleginoides which is found further north and commonly marketed as Chilean Sea Bass. This means that supply chains (both legal and under the table) are already well developed for the marketing of D. mawsoni around the world.
The “Unit of Certification” (UoC) comprises vessels belonging to Argos Georgia Ltd UK), Sanford Ltd (NZ) and New Zealand Longline Line Ltd (NZ). This poses a bit of problem right of the bat because there are also Argentine, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, South African, Spanish, and Uruguayan vessels involved in the fishery - 21 vessels in Subarea 88.1 and 15 vessels for Subarea 88.2. Some of these countries have been implicated in the collapse of toothfish populations elsewhere.
Both the fishing effort and the catch have been increasing over the last decade. Currently the catch limit is 3,267t (exceeding scientific advice, see below). All vessels are supposed to carry at least two scientific observers, one of which is appointed “in accordance with the CCAMLR scheme”, so IUU catches are considered to be low.
The Ross Sea toothfish fishery is in what is called an “exploratory phase”, during which information is collected on the biology and productivity of the stock - information that will help in doing an assessment of the sustainable yield for a commercial-scale fishery. Although the catches have been increasing, the current stock assessment is still highly uncertain. The catch-at-age data comprise a relatively short time series, and are not very informative for determining current or initial stock size. The tag– recapture data provide the best information on stock size, but the total number of tagged fish recaptured in the Ross Sea is still relatively small. The population model of stock size and yield is therefore uncertain but should improve as more data are collected.
Scientific advice by CCAMLR is based on projections of the modelled stock under different catch levels. The catch level advised is either the constant catch that results in a 10% probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation level over a 35-year harvesting period, or the catch that results in the median escapement at the end of a 35-year period being 50% of the median pre-exploitation level. Which ever one is lower is selected as the scientific advice.
The projection carried out in the 2007 assessment under a constant catch of 2,700t is shown below. This trajectory would be consistent with a stock being fished down towards the biomass that gives MSY and would not be considered to be overfished. However the confidence intervals are wide and there is also a number of untested assumptions in the model. One of these is that the steepness in the stock-recruit model is 0.75. This implies when the spawning stock is depleted to 20% of the unexploited level, recruitment remains at 75% of the maximum recruitment level. While this is a reasonable assumption for a number of species, it is not clear that it is reasonable for this stock until more data are available. If recruitment declines faster with decreasing stock size than is currently assumed, the stock could become rapidly depleted under the 2,700t catch level. Other important uncertainties in the projection are the age at maturity and the age of recruitment into the fishery (see ASOC objection below). Note also that the current catch limit being implemented (3,267t) exceeds the scientific advice of 2,700t.
The Moody Marine Ltd assessment of the sustainability of the fishery resulted in passing scores on all three MSC Principles: Sustainability of Exploited Stock, Maintenance of Ecosystem, and Effective Management Systems. However, they did attach a number of conditions for ongoing certification. Knowledge on the life history and population characteristics of the target stock must be improved. Stock assessment must be improved through a wider tagging program to reduce uncertainty. The impact of the longline fishery on the benthic habitat must be better understood. There needs to be better information of the trophic effects of the fishery and the impacts of bycatch.
An objection to the Moody Marine report was filed by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition on 11 December 2009 (although a member, the WWF did not participate in the objection). ASOC represents more than 30 environmental and conservation organizations and is the only NGO allowed by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and CCAMLR to participate in their respective meetings. In their objection, ASOC expressed grave concerns about the lack of a precautionary approach adopted by Moody Marine and the MSC in their determination that the fishery is sustainable and can therefore be certified and carry the MSC ecolabel.
ASOC claimed that there was an absence of any real understanding of its natural history, the impacts of the fishery on stocks, and in stock size itself. They also claimed that, given the large body of information regarding the negative impacts of significantly reducing the prevalence of top predators in ecosystems elsewhere, it is not precautionary to allow it in the Ross Sea, particularly in the face of recent science indicating the age of sexual maturity is a mean age of 16, far different (almost doubled) from the models on which management of the fishery currently is based. ASOC concludes that fishing now and doing the science later is in not precautionary. They note that at the 2009 CCAMLR Fish Stock Assessment (FSA) meeting, the age of recruitment for Antarctic toothfish was revised upwards from 8–10 years to a mean of 16 years. They consider that this, coupled with “juvenisation” of the population (big, old fish removed) means that upwards of 75% of the fish landed up to this point likely have been pre-breeders. The implications of this have yet to be considered by CCAMLR FSA. They also note that both CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) have listed the Ross Sea in an agreed list of the first 11 of a representative network of marine reserves spread across the Southern Ocean. ASOC submits that certification of this fishery as “sustainable” by the MSC and its certifying agent is contrary to the “ecosystem as a whole” principle and precautionary approach of CCAMLR, given all of the realities outlined in their appeal. Moreover, ASOC claims that the “conditions” proposed by Moody Marine, however likely or unlikely ever to be realized, would not change the problems with the underlying fundamentals.
The Independent Adjudicator, (appointed and on salary to MSC, and therefore not at arms length?) will now determine if the basis of the objection has standing. If not, the objection will be dismissed. If it has standing, then Moody Marine is required to review the issues identified. After review Moody Marine, in consultation (with whom?), may make changes to the Final Report and Determination. If the issues identified in the objection are still not considered addressed (by whom – the Adjudicator?), a specified adjudication process will begin. That process can take approximately three months. Moody Marine has until 5pm GMT 22nd January 2010 to submit their response.
Only one fishery has ever gone past the pre-assessment phase and not passed assessment according to David Agnew, Chair of Technical Advisory Board of MSC. Nobody seems to know what fishery that was. Will this be the second?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Case #3 Pacific hake (whiting)
In the final stages of MSC certification (October 2009)
This stock straddles the territorial waters of Canada and the US. During 11-14 February 2008, a joint Canada-U.S. Pacific Hake / Whiting Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel met in Seattle, Washington, to review three stock assessment documents authored by US and Canadian scientists. The revised documents and the STAR Panel review were forwarded to the Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory groups, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) managers and the PSARC (DFO Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee) Groundfish Sub-committee.
For the last number of years, the stock assessments were done using the Stock Synthesis (SS2) assessment model by Helser and colleagues (US fisheries scientists). Two alternative assessment models were also presented to the STAR Panel by Canadian scientists, TINSS (Martell) and ADAPT VPA (Sinclair and Grandin). The ADAPT VPA was deemed unreliable but the TINSS model provides a viable alternative to SS2. The STAR Panel chose to endorse the SS2 model as the basis for providing advice to the mangers even though the TINSS model provided arguably plausible but more pessimistic estimates.
The Canadians filed a minority report, a rare event in stock assessment circles where consensus is the norm. The Canadians claimed that the advice from the SS2 of a large increase in the “allowable biological catch” (ABC), if implemented, had a high risk of causing serious harm to the hake stock. They complained that the TINSS model, which was substantially more pessimistic regarding the status of the stock, was, for all intents and purposes, ignored by the STAR review panel. They suggested that prudent management should reduce the allowable catch, not increase it, given the state of the stock.
Throughout all of this, the third party assessment team put together by TAVEL Certification Inc., a private consulting company, continued its assessment of the Pacific hake fishery relative to the MSC standard and reached the conclusion in May 2009 that the fishery was indeed sustainable. An objection to certification was jointly filed by Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium on 10 June 2009, during the formal objections period. The Independent Adjudicator Michael Lodge, a lawyer retained by the MSC, denied the objection in early October stating that "Having heard arguments from all parties, supported by written submissions and supporting documentation, I find that the grounds for objection are not made out and there is no basis to remand the Determination to the certification body for further consideration...I confirm the Final Report and Determination issued by TAVEL Certification Inc. on 19 May 2009."
So there we have it, a fishery on a stock that looks like it is either close to the lowest spawning stock biomass ever recorded, (the more optimistic SS2 model) or at the lowest spawning stock biomass level ever (the TINSS model) is deemed “sustainable” and can carry the MSC logo. What are your views? Was the process fair? Were the objections valid? Did Michael Lodge uphold the interests of the resource owners, the civil public?
SS2 Model estimates
This stock straddles the territorial waters of Canada and the US. During 11-14 February 2008, a joint Canada-U.S. Pacific Hake / Whiting Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel met in Seattle, Washington, to review three stock assessment documents authored by US and Canadian scientists. The revised documents and the STAR Panel review were forwarded to the Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory groups, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) managers and the PSARC (DFO Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee) Groundfish Sub-committee.
For the last number of years, the stock assessments were done using the Stock Synthesis (SS2) assessment model by Helser and colleagues (US fisheries scientists). Two alternative assessment models were also presented to the STAR Panel by Canadian scientists, TINSS (Martell) and ADAPT VPA (Sinclair and Grandin). The ADAPT VPA was deemed unreliable but the TINSS model provides a viable alternative to SS2. The STAR Panel chose to endorse the SS2 model as the basis for providing advice to the mangers even though the TINSS model provided arguably plausible but more pessimistic estimates.
The Canadians filed a minority report, a rare event in stock assessment circles where consensus is the norm. The Canadians claimed that the advice from the SS2 of a large increase in the “allowable biological catch” (ABC), if implemented, had a high risk of causing serious harm to the hake stock. They complained that the TINSS model, which was substantially more pessimistic regarding the status of the stock, was, for all intents and purposes, ignored by the STAR review panel. They suggested that prudent management should reduce the allowable catch, not increase it, given the state of the stock.
Throughout all of this, the third party assessment team put together by TAVEL Certification Inc., a private consulting company, continued its assessment of the Pacific hake fishery relative to the MSC standard and reached the conclusion in May 2009 that the fishery was indeed sustainable. An objection to certification was jointly filed by Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium on 10 June 2009, during the formal objections period. The Independent Adjudicator Michael Lodge, a lawyer retained by the MSC, denied the objection in early October stating that "Having heard arguments from all parties, supported by written submissions and supporting documentation, I find that the grounds for objection are not made out and there is no basis to remand the Determination to the certification body for further consideration...I confirm the Final Report and Determination issued by TAVEL Certification Inc. on 19 May 2009."
So there we have it, a fishery on a stock that looks like it is either close to the lowest spawning stock biomass ever recorded, (the more optimistic SS2 model) or at the lowest spawning stock biomass level ever (the TINSS model) is deemed “sustainable” and can carry the MSC logo. What are your views? Was the process fair? Were the objections valid? Did Michael Lodge uphold the interests of the resource owners, the civil public?
SS2 Model estimates
TINSS model estimates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
