Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 1 M SC – Marine Stewardship Council Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 2018 This document is publicly available on the MSC Program Improvements website (improvements.msc.org ) .
15
Embed
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the - improvements.msc.org · Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 4 Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 1
MSC – Marine Stewardship Council
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the
MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 2018
This document is publicly available on the MSC Program Improvements website
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 5
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
4. Objectives of the CoC Program Review The MSC CoC Program is reviewed to ensure it remains relevant, accessible, robust, and reflects best
practices in product integrity. The last review and revision in 2014 resulted in the CoC Standard being
split to form a Default CoC Standard with specific modifications for Group Certification and Consumer-
Facing Organisations. The CoC Certification Requirements (CoC CR) were substantially revised.
This next review will assess the success of these changes and address issues raised by stakeholders
since the release of the previous scheme documents. Revision will only be proposed where changes
are needed to ensure the objectives of the program are met. Some issues raised have already been
prioritised and projects to address them have begun.
MSC sets strategic objectives for each program review, developed from MSC’s broader objectives for
the CoC program detailed above. Four objectives for the 2017 review have been identified that are
met by various projects, as seen in table 1:
Achieve greater efficiencies. Efficiency is achieved when a task is conducted with fewer
resources (monetary, time, effort, labour). The 2017 CPR wishes to introduce efficiencies for
certificate holders. Options will be explored on increasing the eligibility for remote audits,
recognition of robust digital traceability systems, and improving Group certification
requirements.
Address risks to product integrity. The aim of the CoC program is to avoid and deter product
substitution. Key areas of attention since the last programme review have been around
traceability at the fishery and first landing and availability of more detailed origin information
throughout the supply chain. Additionally, the labour issues project is addressing reputational
risk present.
Align with industry trends and technological improvements. The CoC program must stay
abreast of technological improvements that can offer benefits to MSC, CABs, and certificate
holders and respond to changing expectations of consumers and government to maintain its
best in class status. Projects on digital traceability, product provenance information and labour
requirements are analysing what is changing and how MSC should respond to this
appropriately.
Broaden the MSC CoC offering. As MSC moves into new markets and products, the current
CoC model is not always suited to all supply chains. For this CPR the focus will be to launch a
new mass balance standard for aquaculture feed, which may also become available for other
business to business situations.
Changes proposed as a result of this review may be included in the following scheme documents
where requirements for achieving certification are found:
MSC Chain of Custody Standard (default, group and CFO versions)
MSC Chain of Custody Certification Requirements
MSC General Certification Requirements
MSC/ MSCI vocabulary
MSC Fishery Certification Requirements
MSC CoC Audit Checklists
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 6
4a. Projects within the scope of the review
A list of projects comprising this review are detailed below in Table 1. The outcome of these projects will be changes to the CoC scheme documents
released in 2018 or at the following update.
Table 1: Projects identified for the 2018 Program Review
Project Purpose CPR Objectives met Efficiencies Integrity Alignment Broadening
CPR 2015 Monitoring and Evaluation
To evaluate the impacts of the updated CoC Standard and CR, focusing on the following areas: 1. Monitoring impacts from audit process changes to the CoC
Certification Requirements v2.0, including the introduction of unannounced audits.
2. Monitoring the success of the new CFO standard in: a) engaging the food service and fresh retail sector (including growing CoC in this sector and reducing the administrative burden for existing clients) b) upholding product integrity
✓ ✓
Smaller improvements to the Scheme Requirements
Rectify gaps, inconsistencies, and redundancies in the scheme documents that have been raised by stakeholders. Options will be developed to address these issues. Solutions that are likely to result in changes to the requirements will be highlighted at consultation.
✓
Digital Traceability Develop a strategy for the long-term direction of the CoC program, giving changing expectations of the industry, consumers and governments and emerging new technology and digitalisation as main drivers. Deliverable objectives include:
Involvement in initiatives to establish alignment of data requests and formats
Engaging with governments to get MSC/ ASC certification recognised as low risk of mislabelling or IUU
Requiring more information on product origin to pass through the chain in more detail.
Consider including use of credible digital systems as reduced
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
Project Purpose CPR Objectives met
Efficiencies Integrity Alignment Broadening risk factor in standard
Fishery Traceability Ensure that traceability risks between harvest and first sale by a fishery client are effectively addressed within the MSC program. Whilst it is expected that the majority of fisheries have good traceability systems in place the MSC has identified the following challenges: Lack of comprehensive information within fishery assessment
reports Stakeholder concerns especially in relation to complex at sea
operations Lack of clarity around the need for CoC for on-land operations
and the responsibilities for the seller and/or buyer in verifying product is from the Unit of Certification
✓ ✓
Labour Requirements Labour abuses within the global fishing industry and supply chain remain a widespread concern. To ensure the MSC fisheries and supply chains are operating at internationally accepted norms and free from labour abuses, the MSC seeks to provide further assurance in addition to its current policy. Whilst several social standards have started to provide a solution for on-shore supply chain verification, there are significant challenges to providing similar assurances for at-sea vessels. Stakeholder perspectives and expertise will be essential to the process for developing a new set of requirements to eliminate labour violations in MSC fisheries and supply chains. These requirements will be integrated into the Fishery and CoC Standards.
✓ ✓
Mass Balance Standard Develop an alternative CoC standard based on mass balance and associated claim likely to be limited for B2B use only for application to supply chains where segregation is not possible or practical. This project was originally driven by the need for a mass balance CoC solution as part of the requirements for traceability of marine ingredients in the new ASC Responsible Feed Standard, to cover feed mills. May also apply to seaweed supply chains, where segregation is not possible at all steps.
✓ ✓
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 7
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
Project Purpose CPR Objectives met
Efficiencies Integrity Alignment Broadening For more information, refer to the Mass Balance CoC Standard ToR.
Provenance & Source Data
Allow fishery origin information to be passed through the chain to respond to changing expectations from governments, consumers and end of chain companies. The aim is to find solutions that provide more information about provenance, product form (fish meal/oil) and other data about origin through the supply chain, where needed in a verified form.
✓ ✓
Shared CoC Audit Checklists and increased recognition of other schemes
Several food/supply chain certification schemes exist that share similar objectives to MSC CoC. These include British Retail Consortium and Global Gap. MSC is keen to explore how CoC audits could take other certification schemes into account more explicitly. The overall aim is to reduce audit burden in supply chains, in frequency and/or scope.
✓
✓
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 8
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
4b Projects out of scope for the Review Some projects have been excluded, for reasons identified in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Projects excluded from the 2018 Program Review
Project Purpose Rationale for excluding
Restaurant licensing To offer an alternative to the CoC certification program to allow small independent restaurant businesses to use the MSC ecolabel and ASC logo. The aim was to make entry to the CoC program more accessible, by moving away from CoC certification, but retain product integrity by using inspections.
Pilots with a few dozen participants have been run in the Netherlands and Germany, and demonstrated poor compliance. As an alternative model, MSC has evaluated that licensing pilots are not acceptable as they introduce too high a risk of substitution. As a result, no change will be introduced to the requirements to allow for this model.
Product authentication testing (e.g. DNA) and tracebacks for traceability and assurance in the supply chain
An on-going workstream that involves product sampling to monitor and evaluate the ability of the CoC program to meet its objectives of upholding product integrity throughout certified supply chains.
This is a longer term workstream that informs MSC about the success of the CoC program, and directs the need for potential changes to requirements. It will not explicitly result in changes to the CoC Standard or auditing requirements in 2018.
Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU) fishing
IUU fishing is increasingly being prioritised by fishery managers, regulation authorities, and traceability systems. This project aims to ensure CoC and fishery requirements are enhanced to identify and prevent IUU fishing from entering certified supply chains.
Work investigating IUU at the fishery level and in supply chains and how this interacts with MSC certified supply chains is underway. Due to a lack of capacity it is uncertain whether changes will be introduced in 2018 as a result of this work.
Risk Management This project aims to develop a definition of CoC risk and establish a list of factors applicable at different levels of the supply chain. It will do this by:
Profile the various stages of the supply chain with common risk types, and identify factors that amplify or reduce risk of substitution
Test how effective current tools are in detecting, deterring, and mitigating risk
Improve data collection and availability Identify new internal and external datasets Test the utility of existing, accessible data to inform risk
management
Explore external partnerships to encourage research
The most pressing known risks will be addressed through the fishery traceability project and improving the scheme requirements. This is a longer-term workstream that will not result in changes to the CoC Standard or auditing requirements in 2018.
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 9
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 10
o Primary and secondary processors Governments/policy makers (Industry) o Traders, transporters and Media distributors Donors o Retailers Scientists/academics
5. Stakeholder participation
The review and subsequent revision of MSC standards are an open, transparent and stakeholder-led
processes. Stakeholder inputs are an integral part of the standard revision process.
The MSC’s processes for consultation on a new or revised standard follow the ISEAL Standard
Setting Code and FAO Eco labelling Guidelines. ISEAL requires two rounds of public consultation and
effective stakeholder engagement opportunities, particularly focussing on those who are typically
under-represented (such as those in the developing world). The MSC will monitor the participation of
stakeholders throughout the standard revision process to ensure balanced and effective stakeholder
participation.
Stakeholders are: Key Secondary
Fishery clients (including on-land operations, auctions and agents)
CoC certificate holders including:
MSC & ASC staff and governance bodies
International Standard Setters
o Consumer serving companies ASC Certification bodies (CABs) ASI (the Accreditation Body used in the
MSC multi-CAB system)
Industry partners
NGOs Technology (data or IT related)
MSC strategies for involving these groups of stakeholders in the Chain of Custody Program Review
may include the following:
Direct contact with company/ industry contacts
E-mail newsletter
Engagement in pilots if relevant (potentially for the mass balance standard, or digital
traceability)
Engagement through a third party (e.g. engaging clients via their CABs)
In-person seminars
In-person workshops
NGO networks
Online consultation/ questionnaires
Trade press
Webinars
Website (including improvements.msc.org)
MSC will identify stakeholders (type and region) and expertise needed for each project. We aim to
reach stakeholders and achieve good participation across groups that may be impacted by the
proposed policy changes through the opportunities identified below. More detailed stakeholder
engagement plans are available on request for each project. If you wish to provide more detailed input
in advance of full public consultation, your feedback is welcome via [email protected] at any
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSC Chain of Custody Program Review 15
9. Assessment of risks
The MSC have identified the following risks associated with changes to the scheme documents
resulting from this review:
Type of risk Identified risk Mitigation strategy
Reputational, credibility
Changes to make the program more flexible to different sectors may lead to criticism regarding integrity. This may include changes to the breadth of our traceability offering such as development of a ‘mass balance’ approach.
Monitor product integrity to assess whether risks are real or perceived.
Engage communications team to manage perceived risks.
Engage relevant stakeholders (e.g. retailers and NGOs) to discuss if potential trade-offs are required and acceptable.
Reputational, credibility
Changes to make the program more robust e.g. fishery traceability, may result in reduced accessibility and increased effort for some supply chain actors .
Engage fishery clients and supply chain companies throughout the process to understand feasibility and impact of proposed changes.
Operational There may be conflicting timelines and different governance structures for MSC and ASC, which could result in delay or uncertainty about objectives in collaborative projects.
Close on-going collaboration with ASC on all projects affecting them, and ensuring timelines are understood and objectives are agreed.
Operational, reputational
Extensively changing requirements for CABs and CoC holders may result in knowledge gaps and confusion. Initially, auditors may not be fully trained or competent in the new requirements.
Publish training and support materials in advance of new requirements becoming effective. Provide opportunities e.g. webinars, for stakeholders to ask questions.
10. Contact information Please contact [email protected] to submit any comments on this document and/or CoC program