MSC - Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Document: Shark finning Consultation Dates: 9 28 April 2014 MSC Contact: Patricia Bianchi FOR CONSULTATION Summary The MSC s requirement is that MSC fisheries shall not engage in shark finning. Stakeholders have proposed a revision of the MSC s current requirements concerning the information that should be used to provide assurance that shark finning is not taking place. This would remove the possibility, at Scoring Guidepost (SG) 80 SG100, of ling fins carcases separately. Allowable actions would be processing / utilising sharks ling sharks with Fins Naturally Attached (FNA). The MSC has developed a proposal for expedited consultation on this topic. Initial analysis suggests there is new science management practice on this topic that should be considered. Background At its December 2011 meeting held in Berlin, the MSC Board of Trustees resolved that fisheries engaged in shark finning would not be eligible for certification to the MSC stard for sustainable fisheries. After two public consultation stages, targeted dialogues with stakeholders Technical Advisory Board (TAB) Working Group 4 MSC executive considerations, changes to the Guidance to the Certification Requirements (GCR) Certification Requirements (CR) were agreed by the TAB in CR version 1.3. Shark finning requirements were released on 14 January 2013, became applicable for all fisheries on 14 March 2014. MSC requirements now prohibit shark finning, defined as the removal of fins the discard of carcases. Fisheries are required to provide evidence that finning is not happening, at SG80 they can do this by either a) requiring that all sharks are led with FNA, or b) if carcases fins are led separately that there is at least 5% observer coverage fins carcases are led in accordance with an appropriate ratio, or c) sharks are processed on board there is good observer coverage full documentation of the destination of shark bodies.
Consideration in the 2013 Fisheries Stard Review (FSR) Because shark finning had been subject to a recent consultation (2011-2012) it was not included in the scope of the FSR as decided by the Board in February 2013. However, stakeholders have raised the issue, firstly in the feedback to the second consultation round (October 2013) more recently in the direct consultation with the Stakeholder Council (StC) (Dec 2013 March 2014). This feedback was to the effect that increasing science management best practice supported the view that evidence from fin-to-carcass ratio methods was not reliable that a FNA policy should be implemented. The Board has subsequently directed the Executive to consult on this matter. New science management The Board s criteria for implementing changes to the stard are that there should be improved scientific understing, with widespread scientific support, improved fishery management best practice, with growing support in fishery management policy circles. There have been some further developments since the consultations that led to the MSC decision in 2012. In terms of new management, research by the executive in March 2014 has established the following: o A 2012 review 1 identified 24 countries 2 as having FNA policies. Although the EU has had FNA included in its policies since 2003, derogations applied by some countries allowed separate ling of fins carcases. In 2013 the EU eliminated this derogation now requires FNA for all shark lings (EU Regulation 605/2013 of 12 June 2013). Taiwan has implemented a full FNA policy for all domestic lings from 1 July 2013. India has implemented a FNA policy (2013). New Zeal has implemented a National Plan of Action (NPOA) which commits to elimination of all shark finning by 1 October 2016. o The Memorum of Understing on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (adopted under the CMS) which contains provisions for FNA now has 27 signatories, including recent signatures from all UK overseas territories (2012), Vanuatu (2013) Columbia (2013). o International pressure for changing RFMO FNA policies continues: for instance finsattached proposals have been made to ICCAT (2013: US, Belize, Brazil, EU, Egypt, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Senegal, the Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom), WCPFC (2013: EU) IATTC (2013: Costa Rica). Nevertheless, many countries retain regulations for separate ling of fins bodies at a 5% ratio, the Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) conservation measures currently allow separate ling of fins carcases. In terms of new science, several new publications studying variability in fin to carcass ratios have concluded that these ratios are not a reliable way of ensuring that shark finning is not taking place (Santana Garcon et al, 2012; Biery & Pauli, 2012; Passantino, 2013 3 ). This information was brought to the attention of the MSC in the FSR consultations. The EU regulation 605/2013 preamble cites advice from the European Commission s scientific advisory body, STECF, that supports FNA. 1 Pew Environmental Trust, 2012. Navigating global shark conservation: current measures gaps. 2 Argentina, Belize, Australia, Cayman Isls, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, The Gambia, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Martinique, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sierra Leone, USA, Venezuela Wallis Fortuna 3 J. Santana-Garcon, S. Fordham S. Fowler, 2012. Blue shark Prionace glauca fin-to-carcass-mass ratios in Spain implications for finning ban enforcement. J. Fish Biology 80, 1895-1903. Biery, L. Pauly, D. 2012. A global review of species-specific shark-fin-to-body-mass ratios relevant legislation. J Fish Biol. 80, 1643-77. Passantino, A. 2013. The EU shark finning ban at the beginning of the new millennium: the legal framework. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst190. Consultation Document: Shark finning 2
Rapid consultation The whole of the fishery stard has been out to consultation twice during 2013. As noted above, this issue was raised in the consultation, but specific options were not presented. The current, rapid, consultation will follow the following path. 1. Expedited consultation on the proposal outlined above in Annex 1. a. 3 weeks from 9 April to 28 April b. Wide public engagement through the MSC website c. Specific consultation with the StC d. Specific consultation with consultees responding to the 2012 consultation on shark finning e. Specific consultation with at-risk fisheries 2. Consideration at the TAB meeting 29-30 April 2014 3. Revised proposal presented to the Board 24 June 2014 Proposal for amendment of the CR MSC s proposal would be to make the following changes to the shark finning text: continue to allow ling of fins carcases separately at the SG60 level remove the possibility of ling fins carcases separately at the SG80 SG100 levels slightly broaden the definition of processing to allow for utilisation that includes processing. Annex 1 presents a draft of the changes. Implementation timeframe Fisheries that are certified or in assessment when the new requirements come into force (1 October 2014) will have to implement the new requirements at their first recertification after 1 October 2017. Fisheries that announce assessment after 1 October 2014 will have to implement the new requirements at that time. Questions to stakeholders 1. Do you consider that there is sufficient scientific evidence (meeting the Board s requirements) to support a conclusion that ling using a default fin-to-carcass ratio is inadequate to ensure that shark finning is not taking place? Please provide references to support your answer. 2. Do you consider that there is improved fishery management best practice (meeting the Board s requirements) to support a conclusion that best practice is comprehensive management of utilised / processed sharks or FNA? Please provide information to support your answer. 3. Is the drafted certification requirement guidance (Annex 1) adequate for delivering these changes? 4. Are you aware of unintended negative or positive consequences of the changes proposed? Consultation Document: Shark finning 3
Who can comment? This consultation is open to any interested stakeholders. Next steps Following this consultation based on the stakeholder input, new requirements guidance will be drafted. This will be submitted to the MSC Technical Advisory Board for final approval subsequent publication in August 2014. Further information For further information on this topic, please contact the MSC project lead: Patricia Bianchi, by email: patricia.bianchi@msc.org Consultation Document: Shark finning 4
ANNEX 1. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS CB2.5 Harvest Strategy PI (PI 1.2.1) Table SA3: PI1.2.1 Harvest Strategy PISGs Compo nent PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Harvest strategy (manage -ment) Harvest strateg y 1.2.1 e. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. There is a robust precauti onary harvest strategy in place Shark finning CB2.5.1 If the target species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (e) to ensure that shark finning is not being undertaken in the fishery. CB2.5.2 The CAB shall interpret the level of onboard observer coverage as a level capable of detecting whether shark finning is occurring. CB2.5.2.1 A default rate of 20% shall apply for good onboard observer coverage, but the CAB may accept other rates with sufficient scientific justification. CB2.5.2.2 A rate of at least 5% shall apply for some onboard observer coverage. CB2.5.3 When scoring the PI 2.1.2 (e ) at SG60, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: CB2.5.3.1 If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks, b. shark fins carcases are led in compliance with an appropriate ratio ; i. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight. CB2.5.3.2 If sharks are processed onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be Consultation Document: Shark finning 5
determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are strong regulations in place governing the management of sharks, including but not limited to the prohibition of shark finning; b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; c. There is good some onboard observer coverage to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.4 When scoring PI 2.1.2 (e ) at SG80, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: CB2.5.4.1 All sharks are led with fins naturally attached or, CB2.5.4.2 If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks, b. shark fins carcases are led in compliance with an appropriate ratio ; c. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight; d.a. There is some onboard observer coverage or other equivalent evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.4.3CB2.5.4.2 If sharks are processed (utilised) onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks; b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; c. There is good onboard observer coverage to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.5 CB2.5.5.1 CB2.5.5.2 When scoring the e. scoring issue of PI 2.1.1 (e) at SG100, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: If sharks are led with fins naturally attached, there is good onboard observer coverage or equivalent evidence that no sharks are led without fins attached. If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks; b. shark fins carcases are led in compliance with an appropriate ratio Consultation Document: Shark finning 6
c. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight; d. There is onboard observer coverage of all operations to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.5.3CB2.5.5.2 If sharks are processed (utilised) onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are regulations in place governing the management of shark; b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; c. There is onboard observer coverage of all operations to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. 4 4 Derogation, TAB 21 (date of application 14 March 2013) For fisheries commencing assessment before 14 March 2013, the clauses from CB2.5.3 tocb 2.5.7.3 the modification to the PI (Table CB4) shall apply by 14 March 2014. Consultation Document: Shark finning 7
PROPOSED CHANGES TO GUIDANCE Shark finning GCB2.5.1 At its December 2011 meeting held in Berlin, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Board of Trustees resolved that fisheries engaged in shark finning will not be eligible for certification to the MSC stard for sustainable fisheries (see Board decision). The Board s decision is based upon international norms consensus, such as that expressed in the FAO s International Plan of Action for the Conservation Management of Sharks, as well as scientific management grounds. This Scoring Issue (SI) intends to assess the arrangements that are in place to ensure shark finning is not taking place. The SI is a combination of management strategy implementation. The intent of the MSC Board of Trustees decision (see above) is that shark finning shall not be undertaken within MSC certified fisheries. The intent of 1.2.1 (e) is to provide a mechanism for scoring a fishery on the level of certainty that a CAB has that shark finning is not taking place. Thus regardless of a fishery s performance against 1.2.1 (e), the CAB should not certify or maintain the certification of a fishery when there is objective verifiable evidence that indicates shark finning is taking place. Objective verifiable evidence could be any documented statement or fact based on observations, measurements or tests which can be verified. The MSC considers that policy requiring the ling of all sharks with fins naturally attached is the most rigorous approach to ensuring that shark finning is not occurring. However, the MSC recognises that in some fisheries this may be practically difficult to achieve when sharks are destined for processing utilisation, therefore also recognises that ling fins carcases other shark parts separately, including as meal, in an appropriate ratio allowing other processing (e.g. process the body as fish meal) of shark carcases, may be allowed if adequately regulated observed. On ling transhipment, wherewhere reference is made to the requirement for fins to be naturally attached (FNA) to the body in order to facilitate freezing storage, the fishery could partially cut the fins, including for the purposes of draining blood to avoid ammoniation, fold them around the carcasses. GCB2.5.2 Percentage onboard observer coverage generally refers to fishing effort, although CABs may accept other expressions of coverage. In order to establish whether onboard observer data are representative of the activity of the vessel during a year, can be relied upon to have detected representative encounters with sharks, CABs could seek evidence for the management system having examined the onboard observer data for consistency with the reported/led/etc. catches of sharks. This could be done, for example, by comparing the onboard observer report to the logbooks. GCB2.5.2.1 In reference to CB 2.5.5.2c, 2.5.6.2d 2.5.6.3c., equivalent objective evidence could be effective electronic monitoring (e.g. using VMS-linked video monitoring with a high percentage coverage of fishing activity), along with dockside verification of catch. Consultation Document: Shark finning 8
GCB2.5.3 See below GCB2.5.3.1 At the SG60 level, Iit is recognised that fisheries not engaged in shark finning may find it difficult to comply with fins naturally attached regulations. In that cases where a ratio of shark fins to shark carcass is used by the management system to ensure that shark finning is not occurring, a default of 5% fin:carcass wet weight should be used, unless an alternative can be objectively justified by the management system (e.g. where it is scientifically accepted that the ratio of fins: carcass for a species differs from 5%). a. Regulations refers to regulations governing the management of sharks including but not limited to prohibiting shark finning, such as ratified RFMO conservation measures, national or international MOUs or agreements, implementation of NPOAs on sharks, national legislation, etc. GCB2.5.3.2 Processing should involve the transformation the retention of a substantial part of the shark apart from the fins. Retention of a minor body part, such as teeth, should not be counted as processing. The definition for processing includes highly utilised, meaning that a major part of the animal is retained during the processing (either on board or once led). GCB2.5.3.2 The removal of fins from a led shark during processing does not conform to the MSC definition of shark finning. The removal of fins alone does not count as processing, if the carcass was discarded would conform to the MSC definition of shark finning. Note that: GCB2.5.3.3 Processing should involve the transformation the retention of a substantial part of the shark apart from the fins. GCB2.5.3.4GCB2.5.3.3 as teeth, should not be count. a. See GCB2.5.5.1a Retention of a minor body part, such Management regulations controlling shark capture for processing utilisation may include the definition of species-specific ratios of fins to other shark products, other mechanisms, that allow the management authority to confirm that shark finning is not taking place. GCB2.5.4 No guidance at this time When sharks are processed onboard the number of animals taken should be recorded as specified in the reporting template. The CAB could validate recorded data by using a conversion factor to calculate how much shark product is equivalent to the original live sharks. Consultation Document: Shark finning 9