Seafood traceability for compliance: Country-level support for CDS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Seafood traceability for compliance: Country-level support for CDS implementation

World Tuna Forum 2018 Francisco Blaha

www.franciscoblaha.info

Which CDS or similar exist today?

• Toothfish CDS: CCAMLR (2000)
• Tuna CDS:

ICCAT (2008) & CCSBT (2010)

• Market CDS:

EU (2010) USA (2018)

• Fish under multilateral CDS represent ±0.1% of global

fish catch (by volume)

• Global fish harvest not covered by CDS: 99.9%

2

Multilateral vs Unilateral CDS

• RFMO-based / operated
• Cover all fish in RFMO RA

(few species/stocks)

• Central registry
• Control international supply

chain from harvest forward

(strong enforcement)

• Encouraged approach by:
• Code of Conduct / IPOA-IUU
• CDS Voluntary Guidelines
• WTO

3

• Market-based / operated
• Only cover imports into

market (many fisheries)

• NO central registry (!)
• Monitor intl supply chain

from import backwards

(weak enforcement)

• Unilateralism is generally

discouraged Multilateral Unilateral

Fishery A Fishery B Fishery C Fishery D Fishery E PS PS PS PS PS

A tale of two models

4

FISHERY: single stock across its entire geographic range MARKET: single market State (MS) All product moving through any and all port, processing and end-market States is covered and accounted for Only product traded to EU/US – from (any or specific) marine fisheries worldwide – are covered and accounted for

PS PS PS PS PS MS MS MS MS MS

Legend: PS: Port and/or Processing State MS: Market State

ICCAT

Are they the same?

• Strong traceability design (with

flaws)

• Useful as fisheries management

tools beyond law enforcement

• Impacts at stock level established

(ICCAT)

5

• Weak or no traceability design
• Not useful as fisheries

management tools

Multilateral CDS Unilateral CDS

But: common CDS objective

6

7

fishing

• peration

landing export import re-export import landing sales splits processing distribution consumption export

NATIONAL TRACEABILITY INTERNATIONAL TRACEABILITY COUNTRY A COUNTRY B

National Traceability Laws RFMO CDS Rules

import sales splits processing distribution consumption re-export import sales splits processing distribution consumption (re-export) etc. reefer(s)

COUNTRY C

How does a multilateral CDS work?

A trade based tool

How does a CDS function?

• CA certifies unloading of legally harvested fish
• CDS traces certified volumes from unloading, through

processing & trade, into end-market

• Batches are traced by linking catch certificates to

resulting trade certificates (CDS document system)

• Effective CDS able to detect “non-originating” fish

entering supply chain, and to deny laundering

• Result: illegal product cannot go to market, losing its

value

8

• Core CDS mechanism: to enforce mass balance (!)
• …between:
• landed certified product (catch certificates) and later re-

exported product (trade certificates)

• imported certified product (trade certificates) and later re-

exported product (trade certificates)

• Therefore:
• A CDS must be able to link product that leaves a country with

the source product that entered the country

• Only a “solid traceability core” enables this
• Rule: No more than what entered may leave – else

there is laundering (!)

9

Why is traceability a key element of CDS?

• Core tool enabling CDS-level traceability:
• Central registry (or “certificate repository”)
• Function:
• Record & link issued and related certificates (and data)
• Enable monitoring and enforcement of mass-balance along

all steps of the international supply chain

• Detection of laundering (and objective of CDS) is

largely achieved on this basis

• A CDS with no central registry (or lacking a certificate

system altogether) is largely blind and likely to perform poorly

10

Why is traceability a key element of CDS?

What traceability must be covered by individual countries?

• Harvesting
• Transhipping
• Landing
• Transport
• Processing
• Importation

Costal State

• Flag

State

• Port

State

• Processing

State

• Market

State

• And how it relates to MCS and Compliance?

There was nothing written about it.

• FAO TP 619
• Written in 2016-2017
• Published November 2017

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i8183e.pdf

So with my friend Gilles Hosch we wrote a book about it.

Type of States as traceability actors

• Coastal States – existing under UNCLOS &

“forgotten” by CDS

• Currently no involvement in certification of

legality under CDS (undermining international provisions on coastal State rights and duties)

• No involvement in the supply chain
• No involvement in CDS traceability

13

• Flag States – FAOCA & UNFSA targets & current

CDS champions

• Certify legality of fishing operation and validate

catch certificate

• Have no involvement in supply chain (beyond

certification)

• Little to no involvement in CDS traceability

• End-Market States – do not exist

under UNCLOS, the Code, or otherwise…

• Must ensure that non-certified product

from a CDS-managed fishery may enter the market

• One form of “market State”
• Limited involvement in the supply

chain as the final importer of consumer products

• Very little relevant involvement in CDS

traceability (any country may import fisheries products… and they do not re- emerge in trade)

14

Type of States as traceability actors

• Port States – the new PSMA target…
• Tracing certified batches into, through

and out of port

• Verify/establish landed weights
• Warehousing and distribution
• perations
• Embody nexus in the supply chain

15

Type of States as traceability actors

• Processing States – the other non-existing

entity under international fisheries law

• Tracing products confidently “from entry to

exit”

• Distribution, splitting, processing, domestic

sales, exportation

• B2B transactions
• The other (very important) form of “market

State”

Selection of key recommendations

(pls consult publication for full list)

Coastal States

• 1. Coastal states participating

in RFMOs developing new CDS should ensure that

• ptions are considered

whereby coastal states can validate or counter-validate certificates, or formally endorse the validation of certificates made by other authorities – such as the flag state.

• 2. Such options should be

developed into formal CDS validation mechanisms to provide coastal states with the statutory role provided under international law.

17

Flag States

1. Flag states must designate competent authorities with the statutory powers to check catch certificates submitted for validation against independently collected MCS data before validating them, or to deny validation of certificates where evidence of IUU fishing has emerged. 2. Even if other forms of sanction are unavailable, this powerful deterrent to IUU fishing enables CDS to function effectively.

18

Port States

1. Port states participating in CDS and complying with PSM must prevent the unloading of IUU products in fishing ports by:

• designating specific fishing ports;
• requiring advance notice of and

authorization for vessel entries;

• mandating port inspections;
• checking the existence of validated

catch certificates;

• monitoring landings;
• establishing verified weights for

landed products; and

• collaborating with national

authorities and other fishery authorities.

19

Processing States

1. Processing states should develop national traceability capacities in support of CDS to identify sources of inconsistencies in product transactions that trigger CDS alarms. 2. This is the only way in which processing states can prevent the laundering of IUU fishery products in national supply chains. 3. Competent authorities must ensure that:

1. any traceability system can track products throughout an entire national supply chain and can accurately identify fraudsters; 2. the supporting legal framework mandates complete record-keeping and provides for sanctions on a scale that deters laundering fraud.

4. As a minimum standard, processing states should refuse to issue trade certificates in cases of fraud.

20

End-market States

1. Fishery authorities in processing states with end-markets for CDS covered products should establish traceability mechanisms based on “inward trade” certificates; these should be issued to buyers by processors to account for sales into national end-markets. 2. This mechanism:

1. i) ensures traceability and accountability in product flows; 2. ii) enables accurate monitoring of mass balances as products move in and out of supply chain segments; and 3. iii) prevents laundering of IUU products.

21

• The eCDS scene today is much wider than ever at the moment.
• Two FAO lead initiatives that have a profound impact on the CDS

landscape came into play:

• Port Sate Measure Agreement
• CDS voluntary guidelines and two technical publications.
• In the Pacific Region
• the Niue data sharing agreement signed by members of FFA, has set up the

scene for a NZ funded regional state or the art eCDS

• PNA/FIMS requested an update to further improve the eCDS module

presently existing under the FIMS platform

• and then there is a long (10 years+) discussed WCPFC initiative.
• The technical and development side are not issues at the present
• Is political will and costs.

Where are we up to with a eCDS in the Pacific?

• China
• World’s largest subsidizers of commercial fishing, estimated US$4 billion annually.
• China operates in over 90 countries, and all oceans and regions of the world, except

in the Caribbean, the North Atlantic and the Arctic.

• China has 50% of the all of the fishing vessels larger than 24 meters. By way of

comparison, no other country has more than 10% of this industrial fleet.

• EU
• Almost €3.5 billion in subsidies annually
• More than 2/3 of these subsidies have the ability to enhance fishing capacity.
• 13 EU countries had more fishing subsidies than the value of the landings of fish in

their ports.

• Only close to €150 million were paid to 14 countries to secure access to fisheries for

European fleets

• Taiwan
• €400 million on the distant water fishing industry in the period 2002 to 2010.
• Of the total, about 75% was used to increase the capacity of the fleet, including

subsidization of diesel for vessels and vessels buy- back programs.

• Korea
• Total value of fisheries subsidies in 2014 was USD 1.7 billion
• USA
• The total subsidy in the United States was estimated to be EUR 1.5 billion in 2013.
• The catching subsector accounted for 100% of the total subsidy in 2013

Cost… Well… Have you seen your subsidies?

Political will… well… this all of you here!

And we have not given up hope that you will do the right thing