12.07.2015 Views

Summary of Changes made to SCAD for Draft Standards released in ...

Summary of Changes made to SCAD for Draft Standards released in ...

Summary of Changes made to SCAD for Draft Standards released in ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>SCAD</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Draft</strong> <strong>Standards</strong> <strong>released</strong> <strong>in</strong> Public Comment Period 2 (Aug 19,2013).1) Revisions based on Public Comments received.Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 1No comments received <strong>in</strong> PC period 1 <strong>for</strong>Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 1Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 2- <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> Comments by Indica<strong>to</strong>r2.1.1- Add a draw<strong>in</strong>g outl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the concept <strong>of</strong> anAZE <strong>to</strong> clarify2.1.2 Suggestions <strong>to</strong> better def<strong>in</strong>e sampl<strong>in</strong>gdesign <strong>of</strong> environmental surveys such as benthiccomparisons, particularly <strong>in</strong> cases wheregeographic considerations might limit the ability<strong>to</strong> compare with a reference site2.1.2 Comment on the costs <strong>of</strong> the sampl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>smaller farms2.1.3 Comments <strong>made</strong> around develop<strong>in</strong>g a clearlist (globally) <strong>of</strong> such <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r species or if it isacceptable <strong>for</strong> the farms identify those keyspecies and communicate those species withaudi<strong>to</strong>rs2.2.1/ 2.2.2 Suggestions were <strong>made</strong> that DO isbest <strong>for</strong> a health and animal welfare <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>rrather than an <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> impact on biodiversity2.2.1/ 2.2.2 It was suggested that DO level shouldbe set at 80%SC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong>It was decided that the footnoted def<strong>in</strong>ition was clearenoughThe SC believes it should stay as is (comparison vs.absolute value) as the ma<strong>in</strong> consideration is not <strong>to</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>e the ultimate quality as some conditions andvariables may be <strong>of</strong> different quality due <strong>to</strong> other fac<strong>to</strong>rs,the key essential piece <strong>of</strong> this <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r is <strong>to</strong> compare thefarm's impact vs. area not impacted by the farm and <strong>to</strong>motivate a farm <strong>to</strong> reduce their own impact. The SC added"statistically" be<strong>for</strong>e significant <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> def<strong>in</strong>e thechange level. The SC recognizes that this AZE approach isnot perfect but still believes overall that this representsthe best way <strong>to</strong> track and <strong>in</strong>fluence farms.The SC believes this <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r and sampl<strong>in</strong>g must rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>the standards though the cost issue is recognized. SCsuggests this issue, or reduced costs <strong>for</strong> smaller operationscould be raised with the certification bodies (CBs) or ASCdirectly.The SC believes it would not be possible <strong>to</strong> develop aglobally applicable list, however resources such as naturalhis<strong>to</strong>ry museums <strong>of</strong>ten track such species and are able <strong>to</strong>conduct samples and such <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation could bedocumented and <strong>made</strong> available <strong>to</strong> audi<strong>to</strong>rs and farms <strong>in</strong>the future. The SC decided <strong>to</strong> reach out <strong>to</strong> stakeholders <strong>to</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>e whether farms generally have a sense <strong>of</strong> thesespecies <strong>in</strong> local contexts.The SC recognized that a well-run farm should have highDO levels <strong>for</strong> the sake <strong>of</strong> the fish however DO is notsometh<strong>in</strong>g a farm generally can manage <strong>for</strong>. The process<strong>for</strong> test<strong>in</strong>g and calibrat<strong>in</strong>g DO is also very difficult <strong>to</strong> doconsistently. The SC decided <strong>to</strong> move this <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong>Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 5.The SC <strong>made</strong> the decision <strong>to</strong> look <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> the DO moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>gpractices and DO levels <strong>in</strong> the Japanese sec<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> get asense <strong>of</strong> current practices <strong>for</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> producers. Itwas decided that 70% would be a more realistic number <strong>in</strong>order <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>clude/ motivate the better producers.


2.2.4 Suggestion was <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> set an absolutevalue <strong>for</strong> ammonia levels2.4.5 Comment was <strong>made</strong> that the practicality <strong>of</strong>a .5 mortality <strong>of</strong> mar<strong>in</strong>e mammals over 2 yearswas not a practical measurePr<strong>in</strong>ciple 3- <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> Comments by Indica<strong>to</strong>r3.3.1 Comment was <strong>made</strong> that clarity around"already exist<strong>in</strong>g" needs <strong>to</strong> be <strong>made</strong>3.3.2/3.3.3 Comment was <strong>made</strong> that thetechnology exists <strong>to</strong> count but needs <strong>to</strong> take <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>account early stage cannibalism3.3.4 The metric used here should be a number,not "yes"Rationale <strong>in</strong> P3, comment was <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> add thatcobia are also poor spawnersPr<strong>in</strong>ciple 4- <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> Comments by Indica<strong>to</strong>r4.2 FFDR. Comments were raised about the factthat the body size <strong>for</strong> market <strong>of</strong> different Seriolaspecies differs, there<strong>for</strong>e so does their energyconsumption. In order <strong>to</strong> drive efficiency andbest practice should SC explore the FFDR <strong>for</strong>different species/ sizesPr<strong>in</strong>ciple 5- <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> Comments by Indica<strong>to</strong>r5.2.4 Comment was <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> clarify that<strong>for</strong>maldehyde is banned <strong>for</strong> use <strong>in</strong> Japan andthere<strong>for</strong>e P1 takes precedence.5.3 DO comments reiterated as stated <strong>for</strong> DOcomments <strong>in</strong> P2Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 6No public comments received <strong>for</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 6Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 7No public comments received <strong>for</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 7The SC once aga<strong>in</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that comparative value is themost effective way <strong>to</strong> encourage farm level improvementand <strong>to</strong> account <strong>for</strong> the geographic and situationalvariations across farms.The SC debated and agreed, .5 is not a logical number andthere<strong>for</strong>e agreed <strong>to</strong> move the number <strong>of</strong> acceptablemar<strong>in</strong>e mammal mortalities <strong>to</strong> one per two years.SC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong>SC added a note on "commercial" and def<strong>in</strong>ed this as nonexperimentalproduction.Given the challenges associated with count<strong>in</strong>g and exist<strong>in</strong>gmarg<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> error, the SC revised this <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> focus oncollection <strong>of</strong> data <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> set a mean<strong>in</strong>gful number <strong>in</strong>future iterations <strong>of</strong> the standard.Standard was changed <strong>to</strong> focus on data collectionSC Added clarificationSC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong>SC reached out <strong>to</strong> producers and us<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationcollected, calculated new suggestions <strong>for</strong> more specificFFDR standards. 3 separate FFDR levels were set <strong>in</strong> order<strong>to</strong> encourage cont<strong>in</strong>uous improvement <strong>for</strong> all species/sizes <strong>of</strong> fish sold, particularly with regard <strong>to</strong> JapaneseHamachi sold at sizes above 3 KGsSC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong>SC added footnoteStandard was modified <strong>to</strong> 70% and similar standard fromP2 was moved <strong>to</strong> P5.SC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong>SC Response <strong>to</strong> Comment/ <strong>Changes</strong> <strong>made</strong><strong>Summary</strong> <strong>of</strong> additional changes <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> draft standards by the <strong>SCAD</strong> Steer<strong>in</strong>g Committee.Additional <strong>Changes</strong>discussed by the SC<strong>Changes</strong> MadeIntroductionRationale


Introduction addedThe SC felt the document needed a section <strong>to</strong> provide context <strong>of</strong> the ef<strong>for</strong>t as well asscope and details around process. The SC used other dialogues <strong>in</strong>troduction as a modeland modified with specific details from the <strong>SCAD</strong>Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 11.1.2-1.1.4 The SC debated whether 1.1.1 covers 1.12- 1.1.4. It was decided <strong>to</strong> leave all <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>further clarity on the scope <strong>of</strong> the relevant legal frameworksPr<strong>in</strong>ciple 22.3.2 Suggestion was <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> add language around when a farm pre-dates a MPA and <strong>to</strong>clarify that economic activities are relevant <strong>to</strong> those that are <strong>in</strong>compatible with themanagement and conservation goals <strong>of</strong> the protected area2.4.2 "and adjacent areas" but due <strong>to</strong> farm activities was added <strong>to</strong> standard <strong>to</strong> ensure thatthis covered farm related activities.2.4.3 (non-endangered or non- red listed) was added as a clarification s<strong>in</strong>ce no farm that takeslethal action aga<strong>in</strong>st an endangered or red listed species would be eligible <strong>for</strong>certification2.4.5 Clarification on footnote 8 was <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> further clarify accidental and <strong>in</strong>tentional lethal<strong>in</strong>cidentsPr<strong>in</strong>ciple 33.1.1 SC chose <strong>to</strong> add "commercial" <strong>to</strong> the def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g so as <strong>to</strong> exclude smallexperimental operations be<strong>in</strong>g grandfathered <strong>in</strong> as exist<strong>in</strong>g. SC also chose <strong>to</strong> add a flag<strong>for</strong> feedback <strong>to</strong> solicit <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on current farm<strong>in</strong>g regions where Seriola and cobiafarm<strong>in</strong>g may be legally occurr<strong>in</strong>g but is be<strong>in</strong>g actively discouraged by regula<strong>to</strong>ryauthorities.3.3.1-3.3.4 The SC f<strong>in</strong>ds these <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>rs very challeng<strong>in</strong>g due <strong>to</strong> the issues <strong>of</strong> cannibalism, theft andescapement, problems with count<strong>in</strong>g methods (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a standard deviation <strong>of</strong> 15-20% <strong>in</strong> some cases). Additionally, it is very expensive <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>ck fish when they are at alarger stage yet technology is much worse <strong>for</strong> count<strong>in</strong>g smaller fish. The SC decided <strong>to</strong>require escape plans and evidence <strong>of</strong> best standards <strong>for</strong> escape prevention, net<strong>in</strong>spection and then <strong>to</strong> require data collection <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> set future metrics basedstandards on escapement. Data collection <strong>in</strong>cludes s<strong>to</strong>ck<strong>in</strong>g vs. recovery rates,<strong>in</strong>cidences <strong>of</strong> escapes, count<strong>in</strong>g methodology etc.3.4 The SC chose <strong>to</strong> add a standard related <strong>to</strong> the capture <strong>of</strong> wild f<strong>in</strong>gerl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>for</strong> Seriola andcobia culture. In order <strong>to</strong> meet ASC certification, wild f<strong>in</strong>gerl<strong>in</strong>gs must come from afishery that is certified by a relevant ISEAL compliant fisheries certification schemewith<strong>in</strong> 5 years <strong>of</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> the standard. The SC also added requirements ontraceability <strong>of</strong> wild caught f<strong>in</strong>gerl<strong>in</strong>gs.Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple 66.1- 6.11 Formatt<strong>in</strong>g and organizational changes were <strong>made</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>dica<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> 6.1 through 6.11. Thiswas ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> address that the previous version <strong>of</strong> section 6 did not have "standards"organized/ def<strong>in</strong>ed as they are <strong>in</strong> other places <strong>in</strong> the document. SC will seek <strong>in</strong>put fromASC <strong>in</strong> public comment period 2 re: def<strong>in</strong>itions, consistency, and auditability <strong>of</strong> socialcomponent <strong>of</strong> already <strong>released</strong> ASC species standardsPr<strong>in</strong>ciple 7


7.1 M<strong>in</strong>or <strong>for</strong>matt<strong>in</strong>g changes <strong>made</strong>. SC will seek <strong>in</strong>put from ASC <strong>in</strong> public comment period2 re: def<strong>in</strong>itions, consistency and auditability <strong>of</strong> social component <strong>of</strong> already <strong>released</strong>ASC species standards.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!