Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the MSC . . . Please note that we have serious concerns with the documents released
by the MSC regarding the science and management of the pollock fishery in Alaska.
I am asking the Director of the Alaska Science Center to prepare a letter outlining
our concerns with the report, which will be sent to you shortly'.
Federal fishery managers were obviously very unimpressed by an overly critical
assessment report that appeared to accommodate the positions advanced by the
NGOs. The MSC realised quickly that the success of its programme depended
on a respectful, collegial working relationship with fishery management agencies.
The MSC sought, and received, an audience with the NMFS leadership to calm
the waters. As a result, at least one change was made to the MSC's certification
methodology to address this situation. Section 3.4.8 of version 6 of the MSC's
certification methodology (released for certifier use in September 2006) requires
that, '(T)he certification body shall consult with all relevant entities when setting
conditions, if those conditions are likely to require investment of time or money
by these entities, or changes to management arrangements or regulations . . . ' An
accompanying footnote defines 'entities' to mean 'all fisheries management or
research agencies, authorities or regulating bodies ...'.
13.5.3 Retroactive application of new rules
In early 2001, a number of NGO stakeholders criticised the New Zealand hoki
assessment, including the positive certification determination from the certification
body (SGS Product & Process Certification, The Netherlands). The MSC took an
active role in seeking to cure the perceived deficiencies identified by the NGOs by
developing and applying a more expansive objections procedure. Eventually, the
certification of the hoki fishery was found through the objections process to have
been a sound decision, although with some additional conditions placed on the
fishery. However, the MSC determined that it needed to further revise the procedures
through which stakeholders could object to the outcome of assessments. The result
was that the MSC posted a revised objections procedure on its website in November
2001, applying the new process retroactively to fisheries such as Alaska pollock
that were already engaged in the programme and within an assessment.
Both APA and the NGOs involved in the Alaska pollock assessment were dis-
pleased - for different reasons - with the new policy that suddenly emerged. The
MSC relented and withdrew its revised objections procedure. It proceeded to de-
sign yet another objections procedure, suggesting new approaches and soliciting
comment from APA and the NGOs opposing the pollock certification. It seemed
an unusual step then (and now) that in revising its procedures that the MSC would
retroactively impose the new procedures on fisheries that were in mid-assessment.
The problem was created by conducting a stakeholder and industry consultation
on a new set of rules and simultaneously involving the opposing parties that were
Search WWH ::




Custom Search