Standards Taskforce
Alfonso Marquez de la Plata
GSI objectives following Chile meeting
• GSI objective
– Improve industry reputation
• Expand licence to operate
• Avoid consumer resistance
• GSI approach
– Improve sustainable performance
– Transparency
– Industry cooperation
Role of standards task force
• Examine standards potential to
– Provide a framework for
• Sustainability improvements
• Transparent reporting
– Maximise public credibility of GSI progress
• ENGO support
• No green wash label
• Customer and government credibility
– Reduce the current standards “chaos”
The choice of a standard is essential for credibility
• Without an agreed framework “significant progress on
sustainability” and “transparent reporting” will be seen
as platitudes without enough substance
Focus on ASC
• Attractive because:
- Result of years of
dialogue
- Only global standard
with wide ENGO
support
- Already being actively
considered by large
industry players
• But problematic:
- Designed to be out of
reach for 80% of
industry
- GSI approach is to
raise the reputation
of all members not a
small proportion
GSI vs. ASC
• Both seek significant progress but the paradigms are
different:
GSI
ASC
Based on continuous progress
Binary approach
• No recognition until all standards
reached
70% of the industry involved
Targeting “top” 20% of the industry
• This will fail to boost the overall
reputation of the industry
Promotes cooperation
Rewards winners
• Delays overall industry improvement by
rewarding competitive behaviour
How can GSI and ASC be reconciled?
• Establish continuous progress metrics within ASC framework
• Set the ASC as the framework for GSI progress and transparency but
with an extended time horizon (5 years?)
• Pair the intention to achieve ASC over time with the recognition of the
technical and financial barriers that must be overcome
• Use a coordinated strategy to achieve needed flexibilities within ASC
• Recruit WWF as new partner for GSI to achieve immediate credibility
for GSI
Can we achieve this paradigm shift to ASC?
• Three tests
1. Is the ASC out of reach for GSI members if the time
horizons are sufficient (5 years)?
2. Will WWF and ASC cooperate?
3. Is there a willingness among GSI members to
coordinate?
Is the ASC out of reach?
• GSI members rated each of the 159 individual ASC
criteria for materiality and achievability
• Ratings were done by company and by region
• The results showed some variability reflecting
individual circumstances and attitudes
• Most criteria which were rated unachievable by some
companies were rated achievable by most others
Results of achievability ratings
GSI Score
1
2
3
Description
High chance of being successful
Possibility to be successful
Not likely to be successful
• Only seven of the 159 criteria were rated as
unachievable by more than 25% of the industry
– The problematic areas relate to feed, copper levels,
treatment and counting technology
• Of these seven, two were felt to be out of reach for
more than half of the locations
– These very problematic criteria relate to parasiticide
treatment index
Parasiticide treatment index
The current sea lice
mitigation is too
dependent on
medical treatments
PTI is unachievable
with government
policy of treatments
Based on previous
production cycles no
farms achieved a PTI
score of ≤ 13
PTI score also need
revision as it is not
scientifically based
This requirement needs
to be balanced with
consideration of animal
health and welfare
The way the PTI is
calculated any
treatment during JuneAugust will take the PTI
above 13.
SAD Standard is
proposing lower
treatment
thresholds and
therefore the
number of
treatments is likely
to increase under
such a regime and
therefore a
corresponding
increase in the PTI
score
Accuracy of counting technology
This is considered
unachievable at
present based on
available technology
All fishmeal and fish oil fisheries to be ISEAL certified
Feed supplier states
100% compliance to
IFFO RS, and full
compliance to ISEAL
by 2017
Currently no whole
fish fishmeal fish oil
fishery is MSC
compliant
Copper levels
Levels in farm sediments are
typically higher than SAD
Standard requirements
More a question on the use or non
use or alternative antifoulant
compounds which needs to be
addressed
Maximum number of lethal incidents
Fish Welfare also has to be
considered, as it’s the main
reason why lethal actions are
taken
Chilean law doesn't
allow this practice
Maximum on-farm lice levels
The levels are considered too
low and carry a risk of impact
on the available consented
treatment allowance of a farm
site
Not a practical level
Will WWF support the new paradigm?
• YES
• If we adopt ASC as our framework for progress
– Jason Clay, Senior Vice President, Markets, will come to Trondheim
to announce a partnership with GSI at our press conference
– WWF would accept a five year horizon as ambitious and worthy of
praise and support
– WWF will encourage the development of continuous improvement
metrics
• They are comfortable with the GSI being clear on obstacles within the
standard because it paints the standard as rigorous and tough
Will ASC adjust to the new paradigm?
• Yes
– They want most of the industry to reach ASC not just 20%
– They would regard movement of a significant percentage of
the industry as huge
– They think 5 years is an ambitious goal and will applaud it
– They are open to an “improvers program” to recognise
progress toward ASC
– They are open to revisions as long as those revisions meet the
“demonstrable best practices” criteria
Possible GSI statement on ASC
• The members of the GSI are committed to significant improvements in the
sustainability of their operations
• The ASC standard for salmon aquaculture provides a framework to guide that
progress
• It is the clear intention of the signatories of the GSI to bring their operations to
the level required for ASC certification
• It is recognised that this is a significant transformation which will take time
and face technical financial regulatory and other hurdles
• The intention is overcome all these challenges and achieve ASC certification
for the large majority of operations within a five year timeframe and to
measure progress toward ASC over that time period
• It is recognized that the ASC standard is new and will require adjustment in
the light of in the field experience. These revisions will provide an opportunity
to address any technical barriers while maintaining the necessary rigor to
ensure no lessening of sustainability outcomes
Key strategic questions
1. Do we adopt the ASC as the GSI framework?
2. Do we declare an intention to achieve ASC
certification in 5 years?
Key Tactical Dimensions
• Coordination between GSI members
– Getting the advantages of coordination without creating
rigidities
• Sharing solutions
• Focus on driving early first revision
• Gathering information on best available practices
• Finding solutions to technical barriers
• Not giving ASC easy wins that demotivate revisions
• Communication
– Need to ensure this is seen as difficult so credibility of
standard remains very high
– Need to focus the communication on the continuous
improvement approach