Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic ... · Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic: Streamlining the fisheries assessment process Summary of feedback received Public

Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic: Streamlining the fisheries assessment process Summary of feedback received Public consultation period: 1 to 30 September 2017

Consultation topic: Streamlining fisheries assessment process - feedback received 1

Disclaimer:

“The MSC publishes this information in order to demonstrate transparency, allow others involved in the consultation to fully understand different stakeholder perspectives and to assist in growing understanding of sustainable seafood certification. Where stakeholder submissions have mentioned specific fisheries, fishery certifications, individuals or organisations, details have been removed to preserve anonymity and avoid publishing commercially sensitive information. Removals are indicated thus [..*..]

Questions 1 to 2 – Process stage 1. Before Announcement

1. Please indicate your preferred option for activities before announcement

Feedback received*

*Note: A single response may be from an individual or represent the views of a large group of stakeholders. Counts of the preferred option of respondents cannot be used to infer absolute levels of support.

We prefer the Pre-assessment Report for the following reason: i) We are used to work with the Pre-assessment template. The Pre-assessment reports prepared by (CAB) contained draft scoring ranges with the rationale and the approach to the score of each PI. Therefore, this option is not likely to increase the time dedicated to a pre-assessment. ii) If the pre-assessment becomes mandatory it will make easier for the CAB to convince the client to do it before they decide to do a full assessment. However, we propose to keep the site visit as optional because if it is binding the cost and the time will increase for sure. Furthermore, we need clarification in the stakeholder’s consultation. Do you mean we need to contact them and organize an audit plan or something similar?

In relation to Option A1, we find a clear inconvenience for the client and CABs in terms of duplication of the work if they have done a voluntary Pre-assessment. In case the client "pass" a Pre-assessment and they want to proceed to a Full assessment it might be confusing to the client the need to prepare a new CAB Desk Review with nearly a copy paste of the pre-assessment report. In addition, we consider that the publication of the Client Checklist would not contribute with relevant information to the process. From our experience the form sent by clients are poor and they are not keen to complete it. Considering abovementioned information our proposal is to leave both options (CAB Desk Review/Pre-

http://www.msc.org/

Public consultation – 1 to 30 September 2017


assessment) open and let the CABs decide on whether they prefer one or other form depending on the circumstances of the client. Both documents should be at the same technical level.

Although the MSC has rejected the CPAR we found it a beneficial tool/process for evaluation and summarising the fishery against the MSC standard. Although the CPAR has been criticised as introducing client bias, the Assessment teams CAB desk review should balance that.

Doing A1 has a number of problems. How much time does a CAB allocate to this? What does the client do if it identifies a problem - but they're already commenced the assessment process? As an assessor doing a CAB desk review I would be very, very precautionary with scoring unless I had sufficient time to properly look into some of the issues. It also undermines the whole point of a pre-assessment. So I would advocate bolstering the pre-assessment process. Although could this also be done by "qualified and experienced MSC assessors" rather than just CABs? You could perhaps also put a timeline on it - so pre-assessment should have been done within last x years.

We are concerned that the rationale behind the original proposal for simplification/streamlining is being lost in the detail.

Clients may have significant information and investment made prior to announcing an MSC assessment, notably:

A pre-assessment report (optional, but likely to be more extensive than at present)

A FIP

Previous Certification / Surveillances (updated as necessary)

Self-assessment or assessment by consultants.

Any of these could provide the information needed to populate a full assessment report.

The idea of the desk-review should be that the CAB can confirm from the information provided that the UoA has sufficient information and is appropriately placed to meet the MSC standard. This will be the draft scoring based on the information provided. If the desk-review does not indicate that there is sufficient information, or that the standard would clearly not be met, the assessment should not proceed.

If the assessment goes ahead, then the desk review will essentially provide the assessment report, barring clarification and modification following stakeholder input and the s ite audit. The Site Visit will allow the CAB to audit the client to verify (where the documentation or stakeholder input suggests a potential issue) that the standard is met. After the Site Visit, the CAB should be in a position to rapidly confirm or modify the Assessment Report and proceed.

So the time Post-Announcement should be significantly reduced as the background information to the assessment has been carried out and presented to the CAB – this would be needed to compensate for the time the client will spend ‘pre-announcement’ preparing for the assessment. This would also allow the Site Audit to be the date at which new information can be entered into the assessment – which is logical and makes peer review comprehensive and meaningful, and solves various other complications.

The cost of the audit should be significantly reduced – the desk review will be the main body of work and this should be significantly less than current reporting requirements. Total cost to the client may not be reduced as they will have costs in preparing for the assessment, but this must be compensated by reduced costs afterwards. As this may be tied in with pre-assessments or FIPs, however, this would prevent duplication of cost.

The MSC should not prescribe how information is presented to the CAB. As long as the CAB has sufficient information to carry out a desk-review, that is all that matters.

Also, as the standard and/or the fishery may change, new information (updating the previous) will be required at re-assessment, not simply repeating previous assessment/surveillance reports.

We are open to the idea that an onsite visit should be mandatory for the PA, but don't see that it should be mandatory that all assessments must have two onsite visits which will increase costs substantially. There appears to be a trade-off between the onsite during PA (stage 1) and any onsite in stage 3. In the case of the former, it will stimulate document submission earlier in the process and potentially allow more rapid scoring, but the team will be going onsite before receiving all stakeholders' comments and therefore might not be able to address all concerns with authorities or relevant parties. For the team, going onsite



after receiving all stakeholder comments is generally easiest, but documents will always come in after onsite meetings, so this makes the 1 week timeline proposed I stage 4 infeasible.

Avoid being too prescriptive. Some uncertainty of outcome is inherent to any assessment process. It is mainly to the interest of client, not MSC, to reduce this uncertainty. Insist on the output (draft scoring ranges) and not so much on the process to get it.

The Desk Review has been a challenge. The clients aren't necessarily capable of pulling the information together and don't necessarily appreciate the benefit of contracting a fisheries expert to help. Even then, if the expert contracted is not MSC proficient they don't have the understanding of the nuances of the info needed or the reasons why. Stakeholders are later unhappy with a report based on the clients' perception of the situation perceiving bias. A pre-assessment could be subject to the same criticism but puts more onus on the assessment team to undertake a rounded review of the fishery. I honestly think the process as stands has the right amount of SH interaction although I understand the desire to bring information to the front of the process. It's interesting to me that we're going from an announcement template that tells SHs practically nothing about the fishery under assessment i.e. no UoAs to the desire to give them incomplete information that will never satisfy them as it's simply not a complete report.

Of the options presented a pre-assessment puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs. I recently submitted a request for interpretation on CABS undertaking both Pre and Full-assessments. This would need to be resolved before choosing this option. If a CAB has to choose, they will all choose full assessments and you'll have no-one to perform pre-assessments. If individual contractors do them they're likely to present the same issues as the desk review.

If the Pre-A template includes a clear disclaimer about the information upon which it's based (i .e. a provisional review of readily available info provided by the client plus assessor knowledge of the fishery) the bias element should be diffused.

This went back and forth during the consultation and my views were recorded there as we landed on something that may be somewhere in between a rough desk report and a pre-assessment report. The main things is that there is a balance between an informative document and something that doesn't take the CAB too much additional time to prepare. Both to keep costs reasonable, but also to avoid a problem that occurs now, which is that stakeholders comments that are critical of CAB scoring are often resisted because the company has already invested so much time and work into producing the PCDR that they do not want to go back and change too much.

The workshop thrashed around the possibilities. I am struggling to see speed and cost reductions. Matt had a reasonable summary of the agreed process

Pre-assessment report could also be an alternative if available but upfront warning that review of report will be required is essential to prepare

The client may have several routes to provide the information required for a CAB desk review: FIP, pre-assessment, previous assessment (with updates), consultant, own work (several clients have dedicated staff to deal with this). All should be acceptable - the key thing for the MSC is to specify what the CAB desk review should be and what it should provide. Everything before this could be left to clients and CABs to organise - this makes for streamlining (only specify key outputs rather than prescribing an entire process).

I don't see a lot of difference between these two following the discussion today

What information should be included in the document that is published at announcement? e.g. Draft scoring ranges, indicator to state quality of information used etc.

Feedback received



Overall, having a report of some sort with indications of what the CAB has input through research and what the client has as well as rough scoring with 'information confidence' indicated would be good. It will allow stakeholders to focus their comments, site visits to be more productive, it would act as a way to gather relevant information without stakeholders spending time putting together information that is redundant since the CAB already has it; and it will allow for more clarity in the scope of the scoring indicators from the outset.

All of the sources/references found and to be used for that indicator. That way, stakeholders can see if any major papers/reports have been missed and send them along. Draft scoring ranges might not be as important, but they would be helpful for stakeholders to see if the CAB is interpreting a reference/source differently from the way they would, which would help focus their comments.

All of the above and as much relevant information as possible.

Draft scoring table and scoring ranges and refs. Still think we need the IT machine that can assist with this

I would really want to see as much information as possible, e.g. detailed observed data on a granular basis and where the information comes from has been generated by; Bycatch of sharks and ETP species should be listed in number of animals rather than just weight!

This should be tabular and clearly based on the PIs/SIs. A clear rationale should be provided as to where the fishery is in relation to the PI/SI. This information should be provided by the client as above. The CAB should then determine, based on the information, likely scores. The information provided should be sufficient for this. Areas of low scores or low reliability of information should be identified for investigation at the site audit.

2. For the CAB Desk Review – therefore in Process Option A only - The MSC requests that, to

provide Outreach support for fisheries entering the program, the CAB notifies the MSC when

they begin a CAB Desk Review for a fishery. To what extent do you support this proposal?

Feedback received




Oppose. As the desk-review should, in some cases, lead to the process stopping, this should be confidential. CABs should therefore inform MSC at the point that the desk-review is positive and the assessment proceeds. However, outreach should concentrate on informing stakeholders of

assessments underway and providing assistance/clarification to clients preparing for the desk -review.

Questions 3 to 4 – Process stage 2. Announcement

3. To what extend do you support the proposal for a 60-day consultation?

Feedback received


My support is already strong, but to provide rationale for this - if MSC is going to streamline the assessment process, it needs to make sure it maximizes the time for stakeholder engagement, given that the number of opportunities to engage will be reduced.

We agree with the 60-day consultation period. A 30-day period is not enough if the stakeholders need to review the draft scoring of the fishery. However, do we have to publish the site visit dates in the announcement of the fishery? if yes, it is important to note that depending on the information received during the 60-day consultation the site visit might be postponed to address the issues raised by the stakeholders resulting in the CAB might not comply with the 30 days of notification before the team is on site.

At present, there is 30 days consultation prior to a Site Visit (and 30 days consultation on a PCDR). We see no reason that this should change with the streamlined version, and having common practices throughout the assessment process (i.e. 30 days consultation periods) reduces the risk of mistakes. Indeed, presenting the desk-review with draft scores should greatly assist stakeholders. As there are often no stakeholders external to the management system, a 2-month delay is excessive. In extremis, a mid-point 45 day may be a suitable solution.

We agree with the 60-day consultation period. A 30-day period is not enough if the stakeholders need to review the draft scoring of the fishery. However, I have some questions:

i) Do we have to publish the site visit dates in the announcement of the fishery? if yes, it is important to note that depending on the information receive during the 60-day consultation the site visit might be postpone to address or prepare the issues raised by the stakeholders resulting in the CAB might not comply with the 30 days of notification before the team is on site.



Based on our experience with seven fishery assessment’s PCDR process the 30 day consultation period is sufficient for public comment. If a 60 day consultation standard was used the question raised is ‘What is it about the streamlining process that warrants 60 day’s consultation when the current standard PCDR consultation requires only a 30 day consultation.’

Sounds OK. Gives time to plan site visit and give stakeholders opportunity to comment.

Don't have a lot of energy on this, but I note that this introduces an additional 2 months into the process to placate stakeholders who I suspect will still only comment in stage 5, when there is a draft report. Stakeholders may be asking for more time, but more prominently, they are talking about how they may disengage from the process, how it is already taking too many organizational resources, how they have to prioritize participation etc. So, given the patterns we already see as CABs where stakeholders wait for the latest steps to participate in the process given the strategic advantages, we question whether the effective cost of extending assessments vs. the questionable increase in stakeholder participation is likely to be a sensible approach. Requires a pragmatic assessment and understanding of when stakeholder activity occurs and why it occurs strategically when it does. Very pragmatic advice is not to create additional steps/concessions if they have a low probability of being used.

I understand the intent but the model as established provides an understood and accepted process for review of something close to the final position of the assessment team. I don't think this element of the process needs fixing.

If you choose to have a 60-day consultation you need to review the Announcement as trigger for later deadlines. I've raised this point already but using the announcement to start the clock ticking encourages last minute announcements ultimately discouraging stakeholder participation.

Certainly, if there was a pre-assessment or desk report for stakeholders to comment on, add information too, etc 60 days would seem appropriate.

60 days should be given on request only.

It is a long time for all parties. On balance 30d should be enough

This is essential for complex fisheries and we assume to see more and more of these

30 days is a standard, accepted period for stakeholder consultations. Life is much easier if every consultation period is of the same duration. 60 days is a long time (20 was too short in the original pilots). If necessary, split the difference at 45.

4. Stakeholders should also be able to register interest without commenting

Feedback received




Stakeholders who wish to comment on the application of the standard or scoring after the site visit should not be required to submit comment up front just to secure the ability to do so. Not all issues will be identifiable at the beginning of the assessment. Any stakeholder that has information or feedback should be allowed to comment.

Stakeholders will be shown the desk-review report with draft scores and scoring commentary. If they have no comments on this, their status as genuine engaged stakeholders is clearly open to question.

Given that MSC is seeking to restrict 'spurious' objections etc., there needs to be a simple and easy-to-access way for stakeholders to get engaged. This provides that opportunity. However, it needs to be accompanied by meaningful attempts to engage likely detractors, and clear and simple means of feeding in to the consultation process. At present, MSC is often at cross-purposes with those providing input to certifications because MSC/CABs are seeking complex and specific input; this is appropriate, but difficult to achieve given the complexity of the standard, process and templates for inputting. This results in NGOs and other firing broadsides which, however, accurate or appropriate, can be disregarded by MSCs/CABs as not fulfilling the specific requirements for engagement.

To avoid accusations of operating in an opaque manner, it's vital to ensure that the opportunities are there for stakeholders to get engaged early on.

Yes, but we understand that if they do not send comments in the specific Template for stakeholders during the 60-day consultation (S2) they would not be able to do it later (S8). Is that correct?

The stakeholders have access to the desk-review report and draft scores, if having considered that information they do not raise comment then a reasonable assumption would be that they do not see their interests are impacted by the proposed assessment findings. Given that, there would seem to be no need for them to register. Only those stakeholders who participate in the site visit or make submissions should be registered.

They may only have something to comment on later in the process. The whole process should be open and transparent.

What purpose would it serve and what rights come with ""registering interest"" without commenting? Not possible to answer this question in an informed manner without this being defined.

With the right to participate in these very expensive, time-consuming and careful scoring processes, comes the responsibility to participate responsibly and actively. There needs to be far more definition in the MSC system over when and how stakeholders can participate and there must be some boundaries



in requirements in terms of when participation is no longer possible (not imposed discretionarily/unevenly by CABs, which then creates antipathy with stakeholders organizationally and set the stage for escalation of conflict). At present anyone can basically become a stakeholder at any time, and even IA's have not consistently enforced the responsibility for stakeholders to participate responsibly earlier in the process if they wish to retain the right to object.

Pragmatic suggestions.

Stakeholders must:

a) Self-define legally as either an individual or a legally recognized entity

b) Networks are not acceptable stakeholders as this is not manageable or fair for CABs who cannot clearly identify participants, how to direct communications, who is truly involved etc. The legal entities within networks are acceptable stakeholders and each legal entity within a network that wishes to participate in any process must self-declare (participation cannot be declared by another entity in the same network). If all legal entities in a network declare participation individually, then the network overall may produce comments.

c) Only entities that legally exist (whether individuals, organizations, businesses etc.) may participate in objections (versus brands or networks).

Did not understand what you ask here.

Forcing stakeholders to comment on an incomplete document is not a valuable use of their resources.

There should always be allowance for stakeholders to get involved in the process at any point. Realistically, stakeholders mainly do things other than follow MSC certifications and may miss the certification announcement, may not be aware it is happening until later in the process, may not have had time to work on something at an early stage. They should not be disallowed from adding comments later on.

In the past, some groups have missed this initial comment period, and then they can't object later. This would allow stakeholders that may be particularly busy and unable to comment during the period given to make their interest known, and CABs can reach out to them for an informal discussion, if they are so inclined, or at least they will be informed of the next audit or report.

Issues that are important and require comment later in the process from concerned parties could arise in the course of assessments.

So often SH reasonably want to watch and only respond when there is a consolidated position. This is understandable as it is the most efficient way to interact

Even if no immediate commenting is possible due to lack of sufficient data stakeholders should be given a possibility to register interest for later notification and participation

If they don't have any comment after seeing the initial scoring ranges, they are not real stakeholders. I heard the comment on having standard replies. This is fine as long as it is relevant (e.g. turtle excluders, bird excluders in longline fisheries). Comments should relate to PI/SI - facilitated by making the report more tabular

Questions 5 to 7 – Process stage 3. Site Visit

5. "Stakeholders must raise topics during the assessment process to raise a Notice of Mediation or Objection against the assessment." Here, the MSC intent is to ensure concerns are raised early and the assessment team can take them into account and focus questions at the Site Visit. Please provide your feedback on how specific the topic recording should be for it to count as being raised e.g. seabird mortality, reference points for a certain species, turtle bycatch etc.

Feedback received



We do not support this proposed requirement. While helpful, it is not always possible to identify topics at the start of an assessment process. If this proceeds, topic recording should be allowed to be very general and unspecific.

As stakeholders will be presented with ‘draft scoring’ and scoring commentary, ‘topics’ should be related to specific PIs or specific sections of a report (e.g. Traceability, RBF).

I think this should be kept fairly broad (i.e. concerns about ETP bycatch; habitat impact concerns; secondary species issue), again MSC has to be careful not to exclude legitimate concerns if they are raised 'too late' in the process - what if new information comes to light in the intervening period (i.e. a report on seabird bycatch highlights that cetacean bycatch is actually the issue of concern)? The credibility risks are substantial here, so the reasonable bounds of this requirement need to be carefully considered...

In our opinion the template provided for the stakeholders’ input should allow them to record the topic under the title they may choose (apart from suggesting some examples to guide them, we consider it will be difficult to find a standard level of specificity). But at the same time the template should provide them space to record the specific PI/PIs and eventually Sis they considered not fully achieved. They should be encouraged to refer which precise statements in the PISGs are not fully justified according to their point of view. In addition, they should be encourage to attach and/or properly quote all the relevant information supporting their comments (data, scientific papers, legislation, etc.)

In my opinion the stakeholder can complete the Stakeholders Template sent in the announcement to raise the concern in the specific PI. In addition, they can attached the information, data or other type of document for discussion.

In my opinion the stakeholder can complete the Stakeholders Template sent in the announcement to raise the concern in the specific PI. In addition, they can attached the information, data or other type of document for discussion. The input from the stakeholders can vary a lot therefore I think we need to keep this area as a “free” text.

Since the stakeholders will have copies of the desk review report and draft scores they should be able to raise very specific comment supported by data/information to substantiate their concerns. A topic that could be raised as an objection should be identified at the site review stage as being a specific concern supported by evidence based information.

Sufficient data should be provided alongside the topic.

Agree

You may have an objection from someone who should have been included as a stakeholder but wasn't, so did not previously comment because they were unaware of the process.

Stakeholder comments need to be received on the basis of particular PI numbers or particular CR requirements, also referenced by number. Thereafter, these are the only areas that can be raised in objections, and no other topics, PIs or CR requirements, which gives greater structure to al low CD 2.6.6, to work feasibly.

The emphasis of early registration for stakeholder comments should be to focus and strengthen the assessment, not to narrow the period of potential criticism.

I feel the stakeholder contributions should take the same format as PR comments. PI specific and then general comments. The Streamlined process insistence on using the template is perfect. I did have to go into the template and add a comment for responses as you have on the PR template.

6. When would ‘topics raised’ not work?

Feedback received



Any time there is a difference between draft scoring and final scoring, misapplication of the standard or requirements, errors of fact presented after the site visit, etc. The changes to the start of the process would help but it would remain far from certain that final CAB scoring would be justified and appropriate.

Never. Anything beyond the specifics of an assessment are clearly outside the scope of the MSC assessment.

See above - and again, to ensure this is effective and thorough, CABs need to be proactive in seeking out relevant groups to comment on assessments/engage them in a way that they can easily raise at least broad concerns in the first instance. For some fisheries, the risks to e.g. ETP species will be theoretical (i.e. poor data from observers/fishery, but overlap of susceptible species and gear type of concern), so very important for CABs to have a critical eye on these issues.

When the topics are raised after the team had scored the fishery. This question opens a new one, If after the site visit we only have one week for the scoring, how can we establish the final date for accepting information? Can we say to the stakeholder: sorry but it is too late.

If the topics are raised after the team had score the fishery. This question opens a new one, If we have one week for the scoring, how can we establish the final date of information reception

Presumably only when there is new information that was not available during the site visit, or a change in the PI score following peer review.

If no data is provided

Topics raised is far too ambiguous for an IA to be able to clearly judge whether a particular subject has been raised or not been raised. At present, there is already a tendency to allow objections if there is any possibility that the issue may be valid - even in the face of ample evidence that topics were not contained in the written Notice of Objection. There needs to be a clear and structured method to make this feasible to delineate for IA's or else there is no way to assure the intent of CD 2.6.6, that only matters raised in the Notice of Objection may be covered in an adjudication (including the oral hearing) will be honoured, which is extremely expensive for clients, and both unfair and time consuming for CABs.

Similarly, arguments raised must be clearly defined in Objections in order for this process to work, otherwise stakeholders are able to raise tangential or new arguments and later nest these under particular PIs, when they were not contained in a written Notice of Objection. This is not fair on the client or the CABs resources, which are spent producing detailed and expensive (>tens of thousands of dollars) responses to initial written Notices of Objection.

The decision to object may not be based on a very strong criticism to any single scoring or condition but an overall sense of too lenient an approach over a series of criticisms.

Topics Raised is open to interpretation. Detailed minutes may be taken and checked with the SHs but still has some ambiguity e.g. language barriers. A written submission allows for a more controlled submission from SHs

7. How should new information, received after the site visit, be considered?

Feedback received

Question is a bit unclear. New information should not be considered after the scoring meeting completed within one week of the site visit. However, late-received information should trigger an expedited audit.

Again, see above. If this information should make a material difference to scoring (and perhaps this is something that has to be adjudicated by MSC rather than the CABs themselves, given the conflict of interest), then surely it cannot be ignored...



We believe stakeholder should keep using the current template (or similar), but take into account that if the team has to score the fishery at the site visit or one week later, the new information should be received earlier. See response in previous question.

It shouldn’t. This will also greatly assist with ‘streamlining’ of the process. As the report will only be confirmed or adjusted on specific points after the Site Visit, it should be completed in very short order.

Time for assessments is important. Once the announcement is made, assessments should look to be complete within 4/5 months.

The client has a limited time to prepare a CAP and then the report is sent to Peer Review. For the PR to have validity, there should not be any new information introduced beyond the Site Visit.

In the stakeholder template but take into account that if the team has to score the fishery at the site visit or one week later the

The fishery assessment should be zeroed to a fixed point in time – being the fishery at the time of the site visit. The only new information that would influence the assessment should be an event or information so significant as to undermine the assessment if not considered. Lesser events or information should await consideration at the first surveillance audit (assuming the fishery is certified).

to be considered:

- how relevant is info to scoring of the fishery

- at what stage does the info enter into the process

Provide a discussion tree, providing info comes in at a certain time, etc. what should/shouldn't be taken into account.

Within the week that the scoring process is undertaken

The assessment must always be of the situation at a given moment in time. For example, new stock assessments frequently come out after scoring (and reporting) but before publication. Therefore scoring should be based on information available at that time. Information which becomes available after scoring should be addressed at the first surveillance (or if warranted) and expedited surveillance. However, if the information was missed, and should have been referred to at scoring, then as an assessor I would want to revise my scoring / reporting to include it. New stakeholder opinion should not need to be addressed after scoring, unless there has been a procedural failure in not notifying the stakeholder.

Based on experience it is not feasible to expect scoring to occur within a week: it's actually a little surprising as a CAB if stakeholders and MSC staff think that the scoring process is this simple: it often requires further conversation with members of agencies, a number of different team discussions, further evidence or records, harmonization conversations with other CABs etc. This currently occurs even in situations where we have done a pre-assessment: scoring is complicated and can take significant thought, reading, follow-up and discussions. Also, insisting on scoring immediately after an onsite will be challenging with the working reality of many of our contractors who have other projects and slot MSC work in around other commitments. This will force everyone involved to allocate almost two solid weeks to each project.

Feel strongly that new information received post PCDR must be dealt with after any certificate is issued. It is not economically feasible for CABs and clients to iterate an unknown number of re-scorings - which all add cost - on the basis of a budget that has allocated professional time to score all PIs one time. Some degree of economic/business reality needs to be respected by participants in the process, who cannot ask for perfection in a system that is already approaching financial infeasibility for all but large industrial fisheries. This is a nice to have and not a need to have. For fisheries that have a long period between their PCDR and certificate issuance then CABs and stakeholders can consider whether an Expedited audit is necessary when the certificate is issued. Alternatively, perhaps MSC wants to create requirement that mandates that a desk re-scoring shall be conducted if stakeholder comments have been received and more than x time has elapsed since the PCDR (e.g. 1 year), or something along these lines.



If it is very specific, changes substantially the assessment outcome and has some justification on why was not provided earlier.

I believe that MSC should set a deadline for admissibility if information. Information available before the end of the site visit as implied in the Streamlining Process would be pretty meaningful, allowing for the client to later produce information they may have neglected to earlier provide following the CDR and before PRDR.

I appreciate that this could lead to fisheries failing more frequently, particularly at re-assessment where conditions might not be closed at SA4 but are expected to close during RA. This would no longer be possible as the information needed to close the condition should be available at the SA4/RA site visit.

A clear statement is needed to define where input can be considered. I would suggest that new information only be included if it were to have a major impact on the assessment until PRDR; otherwise it's just more information/nice to have.

This all overlaps with your suggestion of expedited audits during assessment which I don't agree with (adding cost and time). Information that could lead to a fishery failing would of course be admissible at any time. A new condition in full assessment implies that PRs and stakeholders should have a right to reply but that doesn't impact conditions raised or rescoring at surveillance so the same tolerance could be applied.

Question 8 – Process stage 4. Scoring

8. Changes to the ‘Draft Scoring Ranges’ immediately post-Site Visit may benefit the assessment team, as topics will be memorable, and this scoring together may mitigate problems later in the assessment

Feedback received


Question 9 to 14 – Process stage 5. Conditions and Client Action Plan

9. Please indicate your preferred option for the Client Action Plan

Feedback received




Clients would not be able to predict all eventualities five years in advance (nor would objectors know in advance if a CAP will succeed or fail). Clients should show good faith, realistic, plans to meet the condition. If things change along the way, this does not matter as long as the SG80 requirement is met

within 5 years.

As clients do not gain credit for meeting their CAP, then the reverse is that they should not be penalised for deviation – meeting SG80 after 5 years is the goal.

The client action plan is a critical way to ensure that a client is prepared to fulfill its conditions of certification and thus the requirements of MSC certification. Certification should not be awarded if a strong client action plan is not in place. The current situation is that many fisheries do not end up for filling their conditions during the initially agreed timeframes, and this proposal would only further risk MSC credibility as it would be even easier for fisheries to fall behind on or avoid the work that needs to be done to meet any conditions. The client action plan should be binding, although there should be limited options for changing the initial plan – for example, if a way has been identified that will help meet the condition sooner, or better. Progress towards closing conditions should be verifiable and measurable.

These Action Plans should be the cornerstone of MSC's theory of change in action. Perhaps making them binding, but with the possibility of requesting an alteration when circumstances make this necessary is a compromise position?

Clearly A5. We agree with the feedback set in the Summary. The client might prepare a very precise action plan including actions, meetings, t imings which are likely to vary within 5 years framework. Therefore, if stakeholders have the option to comment on the Action Plan it might open a box for complex objections and this will be very time consuming for CABs. Option A5 do not affect the rigor, compliance or engagement of the client.

Clearly A5. We agree with the feedback set in the Summary. The client might prepare a very precise action plan including actions, meetings, timings which are likely to vary within 5 years framework. Therefore, if stakeholders have the option to comment on the Action Plan it might open box for complex objections and time consuming for CABs. Option A5 do not affect the rigour, compliance or engagement of the client.

The Certification process should focus on the deliverable – the achievement of the milestone set by the CAB. The Client Action Plan should be allowed to be modified (provided the CAB accepts the revised plan is likely to achieve the milestone). Plans are usually not perfect, so it should be expected that most



plans have to change over time. As General Eisenhower said “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” Option A 6 is acceptable.

situation might change during 4-5 years, flexibility is needed (while closing conditions in timely manner should still be priority, peer review of client action plan is needed)

The CAP often depends upon a several groups for delivery e.g. client and government management agency. The external groups can often be subject to other pressures and unable to deliver at the times proposed. The target for the CAP is finalisation within the period of certification the timing of the finalisation of conditions must be flexible to allow for management of work flows and changes in events outside of the control of the Client.

The CAB should make clear that the condition will only be closed when the SG80 is met. The client action plan may get the fishery to SG80 or it may not (for example if unforeseen circumstances). We must avoid a situation where a client makes a binding action plan and completes it, but the CAB feels that SG80 is still not met. As a client fishery I would feel very aggrieved if I’d done everything in the client action plan, only to discover that the condition was not listed. The CAB approval of a client action plan should therefore only be advisory - i.e. in the opinion of the assessors this action plan has a reasonable chance of bringing the PI up to SG80. CAB approval of the client action plan does not guarantee the PI will be rescored at SG80 on completion of the client actions.

This approach is necessary because for complex conditions, client may attempt one set of actions, which they may realize is infeasible and have to innovate a different way to reach the required performance. No one has a crystal ball and the standard is intended to allow client fisheries to reach a particular performance level, not take a particular path to a place of performance. No fisheries will be able to complete their client action plans with perfect foresight.

I agree with part of both options, but fully with none: the client action plan should be binding, but not objectable (it is an intention, not an outcome at this stage). A poor action plan should be evaluated along the audits and during re-assessment, when it can also become objectable as underperforming against the original condition. If alternative actions emerge in the meanwhile to address the condition, this should have the written approval of the CAB and be also able to assess/object to during re-assessment.

A fishery needs to meet scoring guideposts, full stop. Binding the client to an action plan for five years is inflexible and doesn't add any value I can see other than perhaps fulfilling some stakeholder's agenda (e.g. MPAs).

We would prefer that the milestones for conditions are clear and detailed and that those are binding. Clients should be able to meet these in any way they see fit and should be able to adapt as circumstances change. The action plan is their document. However, there is a need for some part of the milestones to be binding so that progress can be tracked more transparently and by stakeholders.

This doesn't particularly streamline the process, but I think it would make the end result stronger. Stakeholders may have information and tools needed to address conditions, and this would give them a role in the process, and provide help for clients and CABs (without the client having to hire another consultant), as well as less discord with the final closing of conditions.

Clients know that the conditions have to be met to improve a score and they should be left to do so at a pace they can afford to and with which they are comfortable. There should be some flexibility with this and deviations from milestones should be accommodated.

It is difficult to commit to plans for 5 years when so much will change over that period. Simply the fishery must achieve 80 by 4 years 364 days. How it is achieved matters not. The penalties for not achieving are severe

However, this only applies if the client action plan is able to define and appropriate to achieve for what is needed to close the conditions



Things may change and the plan may need to adapt. This must be allowed to achieve real changes on the water. Also, the client has no credit for meeting action plan, only for achieving SG80 requirements. Quid pro quo, the client should not be penalised for diverging from Action Plan.

10. Do you have any alternatives to the options provided? Please indicate why this option would be more suitable.

Feedback received

If the CAP continues to be non-binding and not required to be followed, there must be serious consequences for not achieving SG 80 over the certificate period, with zero possibility for rollover into the next certificate period.

Suggestion above

no comments

No comments.

No Option A6 is adequate.

See above.

see above

The current option seems perfectly acceptable to me. Perhaps it should be a requirement that un-fulfilled client action plans could be moved into recommendations at the team's judgement of whether the need remains and assuming that these plans all lead to better fisheries management.

There may be a way to include stakeholder ideas in the client action plan, so as noted above, they don't have to hire a consultant to help with that. Maybe adding another column to the comment sheet so that ideas could be given by indicator and stakeholder comment on how to address challenges would help develop a strong client action plan.

No

A client action plan should really be within the control of the client and not be referred to the RFMO or other fisheries like "out of our control" and thus enable propagation of conditions

If the action plan changes, transparent justification is provided in surveillance reports

11. Alternative actions should be allowed to close out conditions.

Feedback received




Alternative actions to what is indicated in client action plans, yes. However, we feel that milestones should be completed as set out. These are logical steps that, if followed, result in the 80 mark. It is not clear that conditions closed without completing all milestones are really properly closed nor are clients making the necessary changes.

But alternatives should be predefined or otherwise agreed on before

No

12. The actions set out in the Client Action Plan should be binding

Feedback received


13. In what situations would a binding Client Action Plan not work?



Feedback received

If a better way to meet the conditions is identified – see above

In an area where little information is available, it might be that certain elements of the plan are found to be impractical or hard to achieve in the timescales; so perhaps there can be some flexibility over the 5 year certification period to cover this

In case the condition relies on the action of other Parties. The client actions might not be able to define detailed actions and timelines because they are not responsible of them.

In case the condition relies on the action of other Parties. The client actions might not be able to define detailed actions and timelines because they are not responsible of them.

The initial CAP is just a best guess at what is the most efficient plan to achieve the milestone. Once the corrective actions starts a binding CAP may not necessarily work because of a host of factors: resources and inputs may change, once the corrective action starts and a better understanding of the issue/problem occurs the proposed solution may not be optimal, the environmental factors or other influences may change over the five-year CAP period, etc.

in changing situations (political/management)

Binding a client to a specific action limits the options for other outcomes to be pursued or alternative outcomes that may not have been contemplated at the time of the initial assessment. The CAB must still be satisfied that the outcomes is a lasting one rather than some short term solution.

At the start of a piece of fisheries improvement you do not know it will proceed. Approaches to projects need to be flexible. CABs should not get drawn into this. CAB focus should remain on the SG80 threshold and not on the specifics of the client actions.

All situations: this isn’t practical. Imagine being asked to lay out your entire workplace and all associated activities now, for the next four years, and then being penalized if you did not complete every activity despite completing all of the overall objectives - particularly in the face of unforeseeable issues such as changes in executive policy, HR, budget availability etc. These are the same sorts of issues that fisheries will face, compounded by unknowns beyond their control in agencies. It is impractical to expect all actions in a CAP to proceed precisely as projected.

See response at 9. Binding should add responsibility, but not rigidity.

Where the plans become irrelevant through overriding circumstances.

14. Any other comments or suggestions?

Feedback received

This is tricky, because surely what truly matters is whether the condition is met or not - but I have personal experience of commenting on fisheries making slow/no progress, but with CABs feeling able to score the fishery well and close off conditions on the basis of limited evidence. A binding process (with some built-in flexibility) would place more scrutiny and emphasis on the need to identify and tackle issues in a step-wise process.

no other suggestions

None

Demonstrable progress still needs to be checked during surveillance audits, 'no progress’ needs to be justified.



Make CAB approval of the client action plan advisory only. Progress will be judged against non-prescriptive milestones, not against the client action plan. Milestones should be phrased such as: - year 1 the project design phase should be underway; year 2 - the project should have commenced; year 3 - the project should have results; year 4 - results should have led to changes in operation / policy etc.

Suggest that in stage 5, there is first a Client draft and a requirement for the CAB to draft the conditions and the CLIENT to create the milestones and a requirement that the milestones be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, results-focused, and time- bound). It is problematic given ISO requirements for CABs to create milestones, because for these to be SMART and therefore actionable, becomes consulting. It makes far more sense to make the clients set the milestones, and then have consultation only on these milestones. CABs can interrogate these milestones to examine feasibility and whether they think that the timelines are achievable/too lenient. Setting the expectation with the client that what is binding is the milestones, rather than how they are executed, will also help to appropriately align expectations. CABs must be able to retain the right to refuse to accept client-generated milestones and also retain the responsibility to sign off on these milestones as SMART. These attributes are something that will be auditable by ASI such that if CABs are not assuring the clients generate strong milestones, there will be consequences.

The current structure always causes problems in a variety of ways.

a) Stakeholders often object to ""conditions"", which is silly, as CABs must issue conditions on a formulaic manner as the absence of a PISG 80. Please be sure to amend wording related to this on Objection form.

b) Then the CR is unclear about expectations w.r.t. milestones - on one side we have ISO 17065 requirements telling us that we can't consult and on the other stakeholders who want highly defined, measurable, time-bound milestones. This is understandable, but CABs are literally not allowed to create these type of recommendations. Therefore, the only logical approach that addresses both constraints is the one proposed.

Question 15 – Process stage 6. First Draft Report (Client)

15. To what extent do you support the proposal to focus client comments on major changes?

Feedback received


This is good but clients still need an opportunity to correct errors of fact, which may not be major, but still important.



All changes should be responded to.

The report provides a ‘window’ on a client’s operations. There may be inaccuracies or misinterpretations that could give a misleading view of a fishery. The client should be able to suggest changes to the CAB to address such situations. However, as most of the information in a report should be the information provided by the client, this should not be a major problem, and not one worth specific regulat ion.

From our experience the client focuses their comment on the scores and conditions. Therefore, it is aligned to the examples giving by the MSC in the consultation paper. However, if the client sent more comments in other sections we usually deal with them without problems. We do not consider this point as in important issue.

From our experience the client focus their comment to the scores and conditions. Therefore, it is aligned to the examples giving by the MSC in the consultation paper. However, if the client sent more comments in other sections we usually deal with them without problems. We do not consider this point as in important issue.

We have had several fisheries where we believe the assessment panel have not correctly interpreted/analysed the data/documents we have provided them with. The client draft report is a critical review stage for the client to check the accuracy/veracity of the CAB team’s assessment. There is no definition of what ‘Major’ and by inference ‘minor’ changes/issues might encompass.

Until the client sees the first draft report they are not explicitly aware of all of the considerations by the CAB as to influences on scoring. The Client should be able to provide comments or seek changes minor or major at this point.

While their view should be independently formed and evidence based the Client should have the right to provide some direction or advice to the CAB on any mater within the report.

I've never experienced problems with the client draft stage. The client should be able to correct matters of fact, regardless of whether this impacts on scoring. Not sure that this change is necessary.

We value the client's feedback in correcting any number of minor inaccuracies that they often catch. It would be a pity not to include these as they help to increase the accuracy of reports. We generally don't have a lot of problems with client comments but do manage expectations hard at this stage where we are clear that this stage is really just about assuring accuracy and correcting errors of fact, and not about debate over scoring.

A well informed client can completely derail the timeline for an assessment with editorial suggestions, additional info that doesn't help scoring and makes the report more encyclopaedic.

Questions 16 to 22 – Process stage 7. Second Draft Report (Peer Review)

16. Please indicate your preferred option for the Second Draft Report

Feedback received




To remain credible stakeholders must be able to review the work and interpretation of the CAB and check if concerns are appropriately addressed, including those of peer reviewers.

I think it's very risky to leave the final opportunity for stakeholder opportunity to the mediation/objections process. This puts a lot of pressure on the end of the process, when the stakes are highest, and actually reduces the opportunities for mediation (as the last time stakeholders will have inputted will be some time earlier, during the 60 day process). Given that there are elements of this process which are about restricting stakeholder inputs in the interests of streamlining, I think it is a risk to MSC to remove an opportunity for stakeholders to have their say.

As noted above, a proper and targeted dialogue with stakeholders will be critical in ensuring these new plans are effective. Broad e-mail updates and generic-looking posts with cryptically named processes and reports on the MSC website will not encourage more engagement in the details...

We consider Option B7 would not entail any reduction of time or cost, and we disagree on considering the client action plan as binding as expressed before.

However, we also consider advisable to share the second draft report with those stakeholders that have submitted comments in the first 60-day consultation period (see following answer)

The stakeholder consultation provided prior to and during the Site Visit would provide ample (and significantly imporved from the current situation) opportunity to identify issues/information relating to a fishery. After this, the report is peer reviewed and so any further input would presumably be limited to disagreements on scores. Such disagreements would be addressed through mediation/objection if of sufficient magnitude.

We don’t have a clear respond to this stage. We feel more confident with Option A because peer reviewers raised specific issues of team member’s work and have a better understanding of the scheme while the comments of stakeholders are not normally so focussed. It might be better to have comments from both part at this stage instead of waiting for S8. Furthermore, with this option the stakeholders can only present their comments to the final score at the Final Report (S8) with a formal objection which it high level that might not be the intention of the stakeholder.

I found that Option B is keep the process as it is right now without the reduction of time and cost.



Stakeholder’s opportunity to comment on the second draft report would assist with the transparency of the process and may forestall a potential objection (if the issue was addressed at the Second Draft Report Stage).

While the Peer Reviewer and Stakeholders may be provided the chance to comment on the CAP it is the Clients preferred strategy to address the proposed conditions and should be subject to variation on the opinion of a stakeholder or Reviewer. To allow for this process there then needs to be right for the Client to consider and determine the merits of any comments from that stake holder or the peer reviewer.

I think addressing peer review and stakeholder comments at the same time will be very problematic and difficult. For example if a stakeholder comments and page 32, but the page numbers have changed as a result of addressing earlier comments. The current process works - get the rigour of peer review out of the way, before stakeholder comment. Or the other way round. But not both at the same time.

We are recommending a different structure through stages 5, 6 and 7 from either Option a/ b. First, we think it makes sense to have to create the client draft with conditions, and have the clients create the milestones (they can create the activities in the CAP at this point, or not). The CAB needs to sign off on the MILESTONES. Then the report goes to peer review (PRDR) and to stakeholder comment (PCDR), as per Option B (only to stakeholders that have provided WRITTEN comments that contain reference to particular PI clauses or particular CR requirements). In addition, stakeholders may have had face to face meetings with team, but they MUST have submitted structured written comments. Thereafter the CAP is finalized by the clients who input their activities that are non-binding and their own tool to achieve their BINDING milestones.

Additional stakeholder commenting should also focus on major changes (and on the action plan). Focusing on major changes reduces the scope for generic comments, but does leave open the door for transparency and participation.

Neither. I don't think PRC should have 30 days for peer review (two days’ work per PR). It's excessive. I also think the current timeline means that the integrity of the standard is better served with public facing report having been PRDR and amended accordingly. If the PRC is adding any value to the process, it's undermined by parallel public comments.10 days has always been sufficient.

It is better for stakeholders to see a report that has already been peer reviewed. Without that step, you will surely see more objections. The peer reviewer comments are often insightful and very similar to what stakeholders bring up. The CABs have already responded and made necessary changes so the stakeholders can see that exchange. If anything, it would be better reduce the initial comment period - from 60 days back to 30 days on the new 'desk report' and allow for a normal 30 day period at second draft as well. Having no second chance for comments for stakeholders will not go over well.

I think this would make the report review more robust. Some peer reviewers may not have the latest info on all indicators or subject areas and may appreciate more eyes on those sections.

Sequential review is slower but ensures refinement of the report and reduces scope for juxtapositions to develop

But having peer review happening before rather than in parallel might avoid stakeholders having to correct errors and therefore provide a more focused review by stakeholders (rather than having to go through all details

I do not support having what is essentially stakeholder comment on a PCDR - this does not deliver streamlining, but just modifies slightly the current situation. We want the period from site visit to final report as short as possible. This also means that a common limit on eligibility of information would be the site visit, which makes sense from every perspective as long as this period is short.

17. For this process, the MSC is proposing a longer (60-day) initial consultation on ‘Draft Scoring Ranges’, publication of site visit comments, and mediation period before objections. Do you think the Second Draft Report should be shared with stakeholders?



Feedback received


The second draft report presents the final scoring. Removing stakeholder review from this process would be a serious credibility concern.

See above

We consider advisable to share the Second Draft Report with those stakeholders that have contributed with comments during the first 60-day period as they might have further comments to share with the team, but not a formal objection. If we don’t share any draft after the site visit, how they can give us their input in case we have changed the scoring range set in the fishery announcement?

See my comments in the question above. I see the point on sharing the Second Draft Report with the stakeholders because they might have straight forward comments to share with the team and not a formal objection. If we don’t share any draft after the site visit, how they can give us their input in case we have changed the scoring range set in the fishery announcement?

Based on our experience with seven fishery assessment PCDR processes, the 30-day consultation period is sufficient for public comment. If a 60-day consultation standard was used the question would be raised ‘What is it about the standard PCDR consultation that warrants only a 30-day consultation when the streamlining process uses 60 days’.

To avoid objections/complaints of 'non-transparency' later on.

We are slightly unsure on this, but lean towards saying yes. Otherwise, we think there is too much uncertainty for stakeholders between their chances to interact in the process. They go from making comments on draft scores, to then only really being able to launch an objection. The devil is in the detail of the scores and the milestones associated with the Action Plan, which is where stakeholders can feel assured that their concerns are being addressed.

See above. Meaningful engagement should be a target at all stages. Opportunity to comment on action plan should be provided (but not linked to objection).

As above. The Stakeholders shouldn't be limited to commenting on a half-baked report; it just adds to the degree of uncertainty around the process.



Yes - see above. It is important to see the peer review, the final scoring, changes from the client etc. Would rather settle on a shorter period at initial consultation - 30 days is generally sufficient - then lose the second consultation opportunity.

In the past, stakeholders have not been able to see a second draft report. In some cases, we've given information to add to a report in the public comment period on an indicator that previously had no information included, or had very few references included. Then, the final report didn't always necessarily draw conclusions or include all of this info, but the only mechanism we have for voicing that is by objecting, which can be a politically charged, time-consuming, and expensive process. Allowing for a second set of comments gives stakeholders one more chance at getting their point across.

This is very important indeed!

As above

18. The cost of assessment may be lower if review periods for CAB assessment team members are consolidated. Do you think the Second Draft Report should be commented on by stakeholders?

Feedback received


We do not support the inability for stakeholders to comment on the second draft report. Leaving stakeholder comments and concerns to the mediation and objection phase will be extremely costly, inefficient, and ineffective. The objections process as it currently stands is heavily skewed toward the CAB and client and does not work for reviewing the scientific justification behind scoring decisions. It is critical that the process allows for this prior to objection.

In addition, stakeholders must be able to see the peer reviewer comments and help to ensure that they have been incorporated by the CAB where appropriate. Currently peer reviewer comments are easily brushed aside by CABs with no consequence and until that process changes a backstop is needed here to ensure that peer reviewer comments are addressed.

Reducing stakeholder feedback to the objection or mediation phase should be avoided at all costs.

Again, see above. With other restrictions on stakeholder input, the MSC has to be careful about what could be seen to be freezing people out of the process - and also should be wary of 'saving up' issues for the end of the process, when there is most at stake.



Stakeholders should always have the opportunity to comment. Cost should not override the goal of sustainability.

We agree on the first statement, but at the same time we consider that those stakeholders that have contributed in the first consultation period should have an opportunity to review and comment the second draft report. The team would have to review and include peer reviewers comments anyway, and the first consultation period will give the CAB a clear idea on how ‘controversial’ is the fishery and the amount of comment can be expected during the second draft report…and this can be used by the CAB to foresee the expected load of work for the different team members.

In any case the second consultation period should not be public (only PR and previous stakeholders), as it is necessary to avoid answering questions that have already been tackled in the first consultation period.

The most aggregated the work for the team the better. We have experience with experts whom consider that their work has finished and do not want to work on the comments.

Refer to question 16 comment.

Second report should be shared. Costs of assessment might not be lower.

For their information only. This allows them the opportunity to consider if they deem it necessary to lodge and objection.

The cost of assessment will not be lower. If you address peer review and stakeholder comments at the same time it will not be quicker than assessing one first then another. You still need to address the same amount of comments. I think it is right that stakeholders should provide comment before scoring and then again on the finished report.

See comments above. We are agnostic to costs, if we have shorter assessments, we will take on more work, so this is net neutral to us. What becomes difficult personally and professionally is significant conflict with stakeholders, so we prefer options that produce more harmonious relationships.

Opportunity to comment on action plan should be provided (but not to include in objection). If the client has opportunity to add major comments, so should stakeholders.

I don't have a solution for the speed review I'm afraid. I simply think that SHs should comment on the final position of the team, ideally following PR.

See above. You cannot retain credibility by cutting out steps. there was a good discussion of this at the consultation, It seemed that it remained the best option to still have the client review, the peer review, the stakeholder review in that order.

In the past, stakeholders have not been able to see a second draft report. In some cases, we've given information to add to a report in the public comment period on an indicator that previously had no information included, or had very few references included. Then, the final report didn't always necessarily draw conclusions or include all of this info, but the only mechanism we have for voicing that is by objecting, which can be a politically charged, time-consuming, and expensive process. Allowing for a second set of comments gives stakeholders one more chance at getting their point across.

I believe that stakeholder comments need to be dealt with at this stage too, in order to increase their support for a sustainable fishery.

The more opportunities for comment may not lead to a more robust report. SH are fatigued. Teams will be fatigued

Again, as above.



19. Are there any other changes that could be made to keep stakeholders informed during this

part of the process?

Feedback received

This is not about keeping stakeholders informed, it's about allowing stakeholders to provide input into the process as a way to help ensure credibility. Credibility should be more important than speed of the process

See previous answer

I cannot think of others.

No

See comments in 16.

Indicate that reaction of peer reviewers to CAB responses on their major comments can be publicly followed.

The CAB could publish the summary scoring table, without rationales as early in the process as possible, e.g. a month after site visit. 30 day consultation to allow SHs to rally with rationales why e.g. 1.2.2 shouldn't meet 80 and then you could do away with the Second Report consultation.

See above - do not cut the second stakeholder period.

Any changes could be specifically highlighted.

SH generally want a consolidated report to comment on. Does it make sense to offer every iterations of the report to every party?

Communication is always helpful! So if CABs indicate to stakeholders how they are going to respond / incorporate their comments in the second report this could help to streamline and focus the review of this second report

Hopefully, this would be a short period - max 30 days client review, 15 days peer review? This could all be completed and final report produced within 2 months of the site visit. This is where we should be aiming - but this relies on a good desk review. MSC should be clear in their requirements on this.

Highlight major changes in 2nd report from 1st, including changes in confidence in scores

20. The report should be made available to stakeholders at the same time as peer reviewers

Feedback received




Stakeholders must be able to see the peer reviewer comments and help to ensure that they have been incorporated by the CAB where appropriate. Currently peer reviewer comments are easily brushed aside by CABs with no consequence and until that process changes a backstop is needed here to ensure that peer reviewer comments are addressed.

As a stakeholder I have sometimes found it useful to see the peer reviewer's comments and to be able to support/elaborate on these. But as a streamlining step, I can see that the points I raise will be there regardless - so if they receive them from two separate sources, this isn't a big deal. Broadly support this, but no strong feelings either way.

As exposed previously we don’t have a clear response on this step. I still thinking that the stakeholders should have time to comment on scoring but I am not sure when and how.

N/A already strongly agree.

See above.

See comments in 16.

Nothing. See above comments.

See comment above. It makes more sense for stakeholders to see report after peer review and response by CABs and ay changes incorporated. In the consultation it was clear that having peer review and stakeholder review at the same time does not make sense and does not reduce amount of work for CABs. The peer review is currently one of the most transparent and helpful parts of the assessment process for stakeholders to see and comment after. IT would be a loss to the process to change this. I think you would actually nullify the saving you get from more focused comments by having a desk review released before first stakeholder engagement - because, just like in that case, it is much more clear and quick for stakeholders to comment in a focused way on something that is complete. Putting the two steps together would actually result in more stakeholder comments and details. If the peer reviewers have already picked up on the same points that stakeholders are going to make (remember many stakeholders are also experts in fisheries and species like the peer reviewers) then stakeholders won't feel obliged to point all these things out as well. CABs will be able, as they do now, to present a more polished and final versions with peer review already accounted for.

See earlier comment on sequential review



please see above

Again, as above

21. During the Streamlining Pilot Process, the Target Eligibility Date was set as the ‘First Draft

Report’; however, this report is not made public and the date is therefore not recorded. If it is

published, the MSC propose to alter the Target Eligibility Date to the Second Draft Report (or

certification date). Please indicate your level of support for this proposal.

Feedback received



Feedback received

Would prefer the certification date

Given the comment in 21 the logic of changing the Target Eligibility Date seems obvious.

If the fishery is not recommended for failure following PR, some date around that time, perhaps involving an announcement from either the PRC or CAB.

Questions 23 to 26 – Process stage 8. Final Report & Objections

23. Please indicate your preferred option for Mediation and Objections

Feedback received




The client action plan is a critical way to ensure that a client is prepared to fulfill its conditions of certification and thus the requirements of MSC certification. Certification should not be awarded if a strong client action plan is not in place. Stakeholder review and objections to client action plans are important for ensuring the credibility of condition setting and that conditions will be fulfilled over the course of the certificate period. Too often client action plans are weak, unrealistic, or not able to improve scores to 80 or above. Additional review is critical to ensuring credibility here.

See above comments on action plans above. As a stakeholder currently involved with a fishery which I do not consider to be meeting its action plan (and with a lenient interpretation from the CAB on conditions), I think strengthening the 'next steps' part of the process will give greater comfort to stakeholders and reduce the risk of objections.

See previous answers

My opinion is expressed in previous questions.

Refer question 9 comment above

The problem with a client action plan being the subject of the objection and mediation is that it is non-binding on subsequent fisheries, who must harmonise with scores, not action plans. By all means mediation could be on the client action plan (without CAB involvement), but the objector should realise that this will not be binding on subsequent fisheries through harmonisation of scores. The client action plan should be in scope of mediation but out of scope of the formal objection, as it is non-binding.

Suggest hybrid approach that requires that elements of the CAP be thought about separately and understood properly, which is a problem with most sectors (except CABs who generally understand CAPs intimately).

Please see comments above about only MILESTONES being commented on by stakeholders. For this same reason, believe that only MILESTONES should be open to OBJECTION. I think it may be productive to allow both milestones and activities to be discussed in MEDIATION, as the client can make clear why they think a certain approach is most feasible and any backup ideas/constraints they may have. This will help stakeholders to work in a solution-oriented fashion with the fishery, rather than be combative.

It is an intention, not an outcome. Only becomes an objectable outcome at re-assessment. It should nevertheless be binding (but reversible with CAB approval) and all this process should be documented/justified so it can be evaluated and commented during re-assessment.



I would allow for CAP to be part of mediation but not objection. It would be amazing to me if a resolution on a dispute over a CAP (which I've never encountered) were not achievable through mediation.

See comments above re client action plan. More relevant are milestones and conditions that are set out by CABs - these can be objected to by stakeholders who know a fishery well and who may attest that the milestones being set out are not possible for the client to achieve in the certificate time.

Stakeholders should be able to comment if they don't think the client action plan will be successful. I think this enables the process to achieve its true intent.

See earlier comment on need to score 80 by 4 years 364 days by whatever means

This strongly depends on whether the client action plan will be binding or not... I am therefore not really able to provide a real answer to this

As discussed, the CAP should be allowed to change. Having it as part of the OP would make it fixed.

24. Do you have any alternatives to the options provided? Please indicate why this option would be more suitable.

Feedback received

No, it is important the CAP allows for flexibility, the focus should be on achieving the milestone and not on a fixed process to get there.

stakeholder input on client action plan, but still keep it non-binding

Appoint a separate advisory body (or even the peer review college) whose role it is to approve Client Action Plans. If the CAB becomes too involved in client action plans it will become a conflict of interest.

Please see suggestions above.

See above

Clients can themselves choose whether they want to expose their CAP to stakeholders, but it should not be mandatory.

not sure

No

25. If the Client Action Plan is non-binding, client’s involvement in the mediation and objection

should be reduced to the role of an observer

Feedback received





Feedback received

Strongly agree with this suggestion, however we believe the client should always be in the role of an observer unless the CAP is binding and it is the CAP that is specifically being objected to. Clients should not be a party to objections related to scoring or application of the MSC requirements as this only inserts a bias into the process. If and only if the CAP is being objecting to should the client be an official party.

Why would the client not be a valid participant in any mediation/objection? With the desk review based on information provided by the client, the client would be the primary source of further explanation on the actualities of a fishery and so would be integral to the process. CAP should remain outside the scope of an objection, as discussed above.

The client may want to raise an objection in the conditions or milestones even though the action plan is non-binding. Therefore, we think they should be a party.

The client may want to raise an objection in the conditions or milestones even though the action plan is non-binding. Therefore, we think they should be a party.

The observer status would by implication mean the client could not raise an objection of themselves (unlikely as that may be).

The client should be able to be a participant in the objection process raised by a stakeholder, but the mediator/objection adjudicator should have power to reduce the client to an observer status if she/he thought that appropriate.

While the purpose of a mediation or objection is to test the CAB's assessment the Client should be able to be joined with the CAB as a party in any mediation or objection. There should not be any opportunity for other parties to agree to an outcome that may compromise the Client without their opportunity for input. The purpose of a mediation is for the parties to reach a mutual consent on a matter of dispute - the (client) third party must be a part of that and not excluded.

The mediation stage is the perfect opportunity for the client and objector to discuss the content of the client action plan. As the client is paying for the objection process it is right and air that they should be able to make a representation.



It is important to parse out the elements of the CAP and which are most powerful. The milestones need to be the goalposts and commitments, whereas the activities are a best guess on how to implement that may change and where it may be appropriate or only feasible that the activities to achieve the goals change. What everyone needs to agree on is really the goals (MILESTONES). Therefore, we think it's actually particularly important that the client be allowed to speak with Objectors during the mediation in order to explain why they are taking a particular approach or why certain timelines are foreseen to be what they are. This is basically the same process the CAB will have already been through to build the initial consensus and sign off for the CAP. This discussion is the best way to build a collaborative supportive dynamic between stakeholders and the fishery.

The status quo of the client being involved as needed is sufficient.

They should be able to input in some way. But, the objection is really about a stakeholder questioning the performance of the CAB in how they interpret the information about the fishery, not the client.

I can see the rationale in the client not being there but the client is the commissioner for the assessment and undertakings to maintain certification. They bring to the objection a useful perspective, have the commercial risk and can decide to withdraw the assessment/certification.

Difficult at this stage to say

Clients may have a key role in explaining the actualities of the fishery to an IA. Objections should be limited to 'issues raised' at or before site visit and so specifically investigated by a CAB, but the client would provide further background and justification of their submission to the desk review.

No

Question 27 – Process stage 9. Scope Extension

27. To what extent do you support the proposal to frontload scope extensions?

Feedback received


Should use PA report



Even though it might be very strict I understand that the new process (S1) needs to be aligned with a scope extension. However, the expedited requirements (Annex PE) should remain in force.

Even though it might be very strict I understand that the new process (S1) needs to be aligned with a scope extension. However, the expedited requirements (Annex PE) should remain in force.

Option A using CDC and CDRs would be preferable to Option B using pre-assessment. Clients may want the pre-assessment kept confidential and secondly it is our experience that even using the same CAB for pre-assessments and full assessments the scores and conclusions may differ (pre-assessments being more superficial). The CDC and CDR process would likely result in a better ident ification for the gap analysis.

Haven't read this.

If you're forcing an onsite to review half a dozen PIs, at least leave the team with something to do onsite.

The frontloading would work if you were to allow a scope extension to be undertaken remotely. By forcing an onsite you're also encouraging scope extensions to be done in synch with SAs, limiting the application and reducing potential to bring new UoAs into the scheme.

Seeing what the checklist or desk review looks like/entails, in comparison to the pre-assessment would help.

The difference between both options is not really clear. If scope extensions are planned they should be announced at the beginning of the process and include as much information from the start as possible

Scope extensions should operate as for main assessments - the clients providing the necessary information.

Questions 28 to 30 – Report Names

28. If the names ‘First Draft Report’ and ‘Second Draft Report’ are used, there may be some

confusion if the ‘Second Draft Report’ is the first published on the MSC website. What are some

alternative report names?

Feedback received

Client Draft Report and then First Draft Report (or Initial Draft Report for a different acronym than below)

Initial draft report

Yes. If the report is only for Peer Reviewers we propose to name as 'Peer Reviewers Report'

Yes. If the report is only for Peer Reviewers I propose to name the report as "Peer Reviewers Report".

Don’t use the words first and second. Call the reports something like Client draft report and Public draft report respectively

Client Report

I'm already confused! I like Client draft report, peer review report, public comment draft report!

preliminary report + draft report

"Don't use the term First Draft Report! Use Client Draft Report. This is clear, it's established terminology and there's no reasons to change it. I'd also stick with PCDR or SCDR- Stakeholder Comment Draft Report - for the consolidated stage described in point 16. Again, this it's simplest and allows existing



clients to understand what's going on in streamlined processes intuitively without having to try to understand a bunch of new and very dense procedural terminology. The benefit of the term SDCR is that it makes it clear that you have to be an official stakeholder to comment and it's not just open to anyone, which may be useful"

Client draft report vs Public draft report

"Preliminary Draft Report - Draft Report

Preliminary Draft Report - PRDR (depending if you include SHs)"

29. The Final Report is preceded by the Public Certification Report and is therefore not final.

What are some alternative report names?

Feedback received

Final Draft Report

In our opinion the Final Report name has always leads to confusion for clients and stakeholders. If the Peer Review Report is changed as said above this Final Report could be the Second Public Report

The Final Report has always exist but we have always consider that this name leads to confusion for clients and stakeholders. If the Peer Review Report is changes as said above this Final Report could be the Second Public Report.

Relate the report name to the action of incorporating the Post Public Certification process – such as the Public Certification Review Report or Post Public Certification Report

'The Quite-Likely-to-Change Report'.

Sub-Final, Penultimate, Pre-Public?

consolidated

I've heard Final Draft Report used by some and that one word makes a big difference.

Final Draft Report - Certification Report

Final Draft Report - Public Certification Report

Final Draft Report - Final Assessment Report

30. Any other comments or suggestions on report names?

Feedback received

1. Desk Review – for Stakeholder consultation

2. Draft Audit Report – for Client Review

3. Audit Report – for Peer Review

4. Final Audit Report

i.e. call them what they are.

Agree that these need to be revised and made clearer

No.

The CAB desk review could be called 'The Definitely-Going-to-Change Report'.



Questions 31 to 33 - General

31. I believe my views are being heard and taken into account

Feedback received


32. With the changes suggested in this consultation response, I(/we) believe the revisions to the

fisheries assessment process will help the MSC to meet the prioritised objectives of the

Streamlining project.

Feedback received


33. Any final comments or suggestions?



Feedback received

Scoring shall/must include the entire assessment team (not should).

All concerns noted above are critical to our support of this process moving forward.

Appreciate that some of these suggestions may add complexity - but the balance needs to be struck here. As noted several times, so important for MSC/CABs to improve the relationship with stakeholders. Many view the current set-up as a bit of a racket shrouded in technical/process-y language. Some debunking to be done to get everyone on the same page for meaningful discussions and reducing the 'vexatious' or 'spurious' objections.

It is recognised that the ‘speed and cost review’ did not deliver significant reductions in either of these things. Although the TAB did not identify speed nor cost as imperatives for this work, the issue has not gone away. MSC should ensure that, as a minimum, the time and cost of preparing for the desk review and subsequent assessment activities do not lead to further increases in speed or cost (reductions should be a positive additional outcome). This requires that activities post announcement need to be significantly reduced. We make suggestions in this regard below.

The key to this process seems to be in having the clients fully prepared to submit the information to the CAB to inform the desk review.

The desk review is critical as a basis for the assessment report and for enabling targeted stakeholder input. This is the point at which MSC should be prescriptive, not in how the information is to be

provided.

This focus of work/cost to the client prior to the desk review MUST be recognised in reduced time and costs after the announcement of a main assessment. Speed and cost remain issues for expansion of

the MSC.

As the standard increasingly involves practices outside of ‘normal’ fishery management (RBF, unwanted catch reduction reviews etc), this client preparation is likely to be increasingly important and

should be a focus of MSC outreach.

This is therefore a key aim for pre-assessments and FIPs – that they provide the right information in the appropriate format.

We note that there should be more opportunities for e-NGOs to undertake site visits, and recommend that a fund be established so that this can be ensured.

The streamlining approach moves away from a focus on reducing the cost and duration of assessments. In discussing the MSC assessment process with WA fishers these two factors are significant hurdles to raising participation in the MSC certification programmes. MSC needs to address these issues at some stage in the future.

Making Client Action Plans a binding commitment is strongly opposed. This would very likely have significant perverse outcomes – requiring clients to persevere with actions that may become outmoded as circumstances change and so may not achieve the SG80 requirement or actions that the client needs to adjust with other external changes. A binding Action Plan may therefore force clients out of the MSC programme for no reason. We make further comments on this below.

Unfortunately I think some of the proposals, such as the CAB desk review and the joint commenting period of stakeholders and peer reviews, will add to assessor work load and do nothing to simplify the process. Inviting comment on a short desk review is just to invite more comment. Far better to allow general comment on the fishery prior to scoring, or on the results of the pre-assessment. And then subsequently allow comments once the assessors have reached properly informed conclus ions. Whatever happened to 'simplification' - of the standard? The process is OK as it is. But the standard needs streamlining!



We are critical to the fact that the streamlining process has not been able to better address the problems reducing cost and time for the certification process. This is a problem for many smaller fisheries that limits what can be certified.

Nope! I think it may address aspects of the process that aren’t working and improve these, but I think it’s likely to be longer and probably cost neutral. That said, alignment and decreasing friction and frustration and increasing collaboration in the process are very worthwhile and likely to increase support for the process as well as ease the experience for those involved, which can be quite stressful.

the annex table was informative, good job

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I've made a number of suggestions throughout this feedback which has taken some time. There are clearly improvements to be made but the current process is not terrible. The length of time between site visit and client draft report is the big stumbling block for assessments and imposing a deadline for that report as you do for surveillances would go a long way to speeding up the process. Happy to discuss any suggestions I've made.

The changes discussed during the consultation workshop made the proposals stronger, in my opinion that those first proposed in the document. This front loading of information will help to increase clarity of the process and will help to increase focused comments from stakeholders. It will not change the credibility of the assessments as they already have an oversight process. Nor will it reduce the cost or the time. However, there are many other parts of the process that according to CABs could reduce cost and time that are more administrative in nature.

Although reducing cost is an objective, it would be acceptable if this is not achieved but the process becomes less onerous, more effective and/or results in higher quality certifications.

There are incremental changes that can be made and that will make things incrementally better until the next issue challenges the system. A different model, probably disruptive model, should be developed and considered

If credibility is main objective than it is essential that stakeholder inputs are really heard and taken into account and not just "waved away" a not relevant or not provided in the proper format

There seemed to be some support amongst some NGOs for this type of arrangement (although opposition from others).I found this very encouraging.

Thank you for a rigorous and inclusive process!

Additional feedback received from CAB workshop – September 2017

Feedback received

CABs approved revised streamlining process to be taken to TAB, noting that some items may change in response to consultation feedback. CABs strongly encouraged consistency in updating requirements, including timelines and templates for stakeholder input.

CABs noted suggestion for teams scoring together, but stated that often this is impractical, and there are many parts of the standard that are straightforward and can be scored independently.

CABs discussed difficulty around setting milestones, and that some CABs would like their clients to write and follow milestones as it is their plan, and drafting of milestones often steers close to consultancy.

Documents

Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic ... · Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic: Streamlining the fisheries assessment process Summary of feedback received Public