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 Multilateral Unilateral • RFMO-based / operated • Market-based / operated • Cover all fish in RFMO RA • Only cover imports into (few species/stocks) market (many fisheries) • Central registry • NO central registry (!) • Control international supply • Monitor intl supply chain chain from harvest forward from import backwards (strong enforcement) (weak enforcement) • Encouraged approach by: • Unilateralism is generally • Code of Conduct / IPOA-IUU discouraged • CDS Voluntary Guidelines • WTO 3
A tale of two models Only product Fishery PS traded to EU/US – A MARKET: single from (any or market State specific) marine Legend : (MS) fisheries worldwide PS : Port and/or PS Processing State – are covered and Fishery MS : Market State B accounted for MS PS Fishery PS PS C MS PS Fishery Fishery PS D E MS PS All product FISHERY: single moving through stock across its any and all port, entire MS PS processing and geographic range ICCAT end-market States is covered and MS PS accounted for 4
Are they the same? Multilateral CDS • Strong traceability design (with flaws) • Useful as fisheries management tools beyond law enforcement • Impacts at stock level established (ICCAT) Unilateral CDS • Weak or no traceability design • Not useful as fisheries management tools 5
But: common CDS objective 6
How does a multilateral CDS work? landing import import sales sales sales splits splits splits National processing processing processing distribution distribution distribution Traceability consumption consumption consumption Laws export re-export (re-export) NATIONAL TRACEABILITY COUNTRY A COUNTRY B COUNTRY C INTERNATIONAL TRACEABILITY landing export import re-export import etc. reefer(s) RFMO CDS Rules fishing 7 operation
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
Why is traceability a key element of CDS? • 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
What traceability must be covered by individual countries? � � � � � � � � � Transport� Processing� Importation� Harvesting� Transhipping� Landing� � � � � � � Costal� State� � � � � � � Flag� State� � � � � � � Port� State� � � � � � � Processing� State� � � Market� State� � � � � � And how it relates to MCS and Compliance?
There was nothing written about it. So with my friend Gilles Hosch we wrote a book about it. • FAO TP 619 • Written in 2016-2017 • Published November 2017 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i8183e.pdf
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 • 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 13
Type of States as traceability actors • 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 operations • Embody nexus in the supply chain • 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” 15
Selection of key recommendations (pls consult publication for full list)
Coastal States 1. Coastal states participating in RFMOs developing new CDS should ensure that options 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
Recommend
More recommend
