Thi thử VSTEP – 10 Bài Reading Test 9 Part 2

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

After 45 years of the queen’s rule, James IsucceededElizabeth I to the English throne in 1603, at which point the English economy was struggling. The population of England was swelling, food production was insufficient, and prices were high. Despiteitsinstability, a few industries brought reliable income to the English economy. In particular, many merchants relied on the export of cloth to continental Europe. For the first decade of James I’s reign, the cloth trade prospered and was an important source of revenue for the English. However, the king was to make a serious mistake that would eventually lead to the fall of the English cloth trade.

In 1614, William Cockayne, an English merchant and politician, proposed that James I make a dramatic change to the way the English exported cloth. At the time, the English produced primarily unfinished cloth. This meant that they sold cloth that had not been dyed, bleached, or otherwise processed. Most often, companies in the Netherlands bought the plain cloth from England and finished it themselves. The Dutch were experts in the complex procedures and technologies required to finish cloth, and these processes added significant value to the unfinished cloth they had purchased from England. As a result, Dutch cloth companies could sell their goods at much higher prices than the English could. Hoping to transfer these profits to English companies, Cockayne proposed that the English finish the cloth themselves to increase the value of their cloth exports. He also asked James I to establish a company, which was to function under Cockayne’s leadership, that would control and monopolize the export of finished cloth to continental Europe. The king was in need of money, and the prospect of increased revenue appealed to him. Thus, he agreed to Cockayne’s plan and, per Cockayne’s request, founded the King’s Merchant Adventurers, a company with a primary purpose of exporting finished cloth.

However, Cockayne’s plan disrupted the previously steady English cloth trade and was ultimately ineffective for a number of reasons. First, James I’s support of Cockayne’s company created a rift between the king and many powerful English merchants, particularly the members of the unfinished cloth company called the Merchant Adventurers, which had been cast aside in favor of Cockayne’s group. Furthermore, the Dutch, who had previously been Europe’s main supplier of finished cloth, responded to English competition by refusing to purchase any English cloth products, and many other European nations did the same. In addition, merchants in other countries refused to ship English cloth or charged English businesspeopleinflatedfees for shipping. The resistance from abroad was particularly damaging to the King’s Merchant Adventurers because it could not afford the ships that were necessary to transport its goods to European markets.

In addition to the difficulties caused by its widespread unpopularity, Cockayne’s company was unable to produce quality goods. For one, Cockayne did not have the funds to acquire the machines needed to finish cloth. [A] Moreover, English cloth makers were not experts in the finishing process and could not match the high-quality finished cloth produced by their competitors in the Netherlands. [B] By 1617, just three years after the company was established, James I had dissolved the King’s Merchant Adventurers. [C] The failure of the King’s Merchant Adventurers did more than bankrupt those who had supported its efforts. [D] The damage Cockayne’s plan inflicted on the cloth trade had disastrous economic effects on other industries as well.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In 1997, multinational corporate giant Unilever joined with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an organization created to set standards for sustainable, environmentally sound practices for the fishing industry. These standards were voluntary for fisheries and fish suppliers, but full compliance with the standards earned any supplier MSC certification, which assured buyers that the seafood was caught and handled responsibly. Seafood with MSC certification earns higher prices on the wholesale and retail markets, so achieving MSC certification is worth it for producers. The cost of making the changes required to become MSC certified ranges from $50,000to$500,000 for each fishing boat operator or processor, and can take up to two years to complete therigorousprocess. Despite this, becoming MSC certified makes sense for operators and processors because of the higher prices their products command.

There are two standards managed by the MSC: the environmental standard for sustainable fishing and the chain of custody standard for seafood traceability. The environmental standard contains three practices: 1) sustainable fish stocks, 2) minimizing environmental impact, and 3) effective management. Each of these 3 practices is supported by approximately 10 more detailed criteria.

Sustainable fish stocks are important so that the seafood population continues to thrive. Overfishing of certain species threatens their existence, so to prevent extinction, the MSC requires boat operators and fisheries to prove that they are fishing numbers of each species that allow for repopulation. The standard states that “The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continueindefinitelyand is not overexploiting the resources.”

Minimizing environmental impact means that fisheries commit to leave the ecosystems and neighborhoods in which they operate undamaged by their operations. The standard states, “Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.”

The effective management requirement is designed to prevent fisheries from receiving MSC certification once and then not responding to changes in the environment, local laws and policies, or fish populations. This requires fisheries to think about possible changes that can occur and how they will respond to those changes in a way that keepsthemin compliance with MSC certification standards.

The chain of custody standard is designed to ensure that fish that is labeled with the MSC certification was caught at a certified fishery, and that noncertified fish does not enter the MSC-certified system.This standardestablishes processes to check origin and chain of custody at all steps in the chain.

The actual MSC certification process relies on independent agencies, certified by the MSC, that audit fishing boat, fishery, and processing plant practices and chains of custody to guarantee that seafood is managed according to procedure from the time it is caught to the time it is sold to consumers. Because of the structure of the fishing industry, with many small, independent boat owners fishing and selling to various processors and suppliers, this chain of command can be complex and confusing. In addition, there is room for abuse of the system, with unscrupulous dealers selling frozen and thawed seafood as fresh, or lying about the location of origin or fishing practices they participate in.