Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The implementation of the new objections procedure was managed poorly, but
the procedure was much clearer about process than the previous one. Nevertheless,
the South Georgia fishery was the first in which it was used, and this exposed several
fundamental problems. The most serious of these was the burden that it placed on
the MSC to oversee and fund the process.
The procedure required that within a period of 21 days following the publication
of the determination on the MSC website (in this case, 7 October 2002), any party
that had previously provided input to the assessment team and/or the certification
body in regard to an evaluation could send a written statement of intent to lodge an
objection. Within 30 days of that initial statement of intent being acknowledged as
received by the MSC and the certification body, the objecting party had to send a
detailed objection to the certification body. The certification body was required to
respond in detail to the objection within 30 days of its submission. If an objecting
party was dissatisfied with the certification body's response, then it might file a
further objection to the determination within 14 working days.
Objections could, and still can, be made on merit or procedural grounds and must
follow the requirements of the MSC Objections Form. A critical part of this form is
the section dealing with a merits objection. Merits objections relate to concerns that
the assessment team has ignored, failed to obtain, or misinterpreted information. The
objector is asked to 'identify the issue(s) within the final report you believe meet or
fail to meet one or more of the MSC's principles and criteria for sustainable fishing
by omission of information or misinterpretation of information' and 'for each issue
identified, . . . please explain your rationale and/or evidence . . . [and] provide any
supporting information that was available at the time of the original assessment you
believe has not been used and is required in order to reach a proper decision' (MSC
Objections Form Version 2, April 2004). This is the latest version of the form. The
requirements were stronger in the 2002 version of the objections form: 'For each
issue identified in question 4.1, please provide the information you believe has not
been used and is required in order to reach a proper decision'.
In respect of the original objection by NET/TAP (22 November 2002), the fol-
lowing issues were raised:
Whether the management system used by GSGSSI and CCAMLR is consistent
with international understandings and agreements (UNCLOS).
The sovereignty dispute over South Georgia and the extent to which certification
might exacerbate tensions in CCAMLR.
The inadvisability of certifying one stock in the context of widespread IUU
fishing on other stocks of Patagonian toothfish.
The certification of chain of custody was highly unlikely to be secure, and
therefore certification of the fishery was pointless.
Identification of the two species of toothfish is difficult (however, it must be
noted that only one occurs at South Georgia).
The stock assessment method and long-term objectives were unclear.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search