MSC - Marine Stewardship Council Consultation feedback & MSC responses SCR Topics

Transcription

1 Project name: SCR Surveillance MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good This document includes the MSC response to late stage consultation feedback received on the following topics: Surveillance Audits Fishery Re-assessment Reporting Templates Timelines Extension of Fishery Certificates Peer Review College Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on SCR Surveillance and MSC responses Chapter/section/ Feedback received/ Issue raised consultation question (If applicable) Q1 - Do you think the Supportive: proposed criteria Yes, this is a positive move forward and is supported better reflect the Non Supportive: goals of what is being (1) The main concerns are that there appear to be no checks or checked at balances by which stakeholders can challenge any changes surveillance and will from the default surveillance programme allow the intended (2) Table C4 says that it would be acceptable for a fishery, that is in fisheries to have a subsequent assessment period and that has up to 7 conditions, reduced to have a reduced surveillance schedule, and also have a surveillance? reduced audit team of just one member. Such a strategy is extremely risky and is bound to lead to some poor audit outcomes with significant reputational risk to the client fishery, the CAB and to the MSC. (3) There is no explicit requirement that the audit teams involved in reduced audits must nevertheless cover the relevant skills and/or expertise needed to fully access all of the fishery s conditions. MSC response / Actions taken Thank you for your comment (1) Noted. The surveillance programme will be published in the PCDR so stakeholders will have the chance to comment. (2) Noted partially amended. New criteria for having 1 auditor in post-re-assessment surveillance cycles require that conditions must be associated with only one Principle. (3) Auditor competencies are detailed in CR section and (4) Table C5 has been simplified

2 Project name: SCR Surveillance MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good (4) The plethora of reduced surveillance options presented in Table C5 is very confusing. (5) Table C4, and the accompanying text, does not provide adequate guidance on what situations would lead to choosing which of the 6 options for levels 1 and 2 of table C5. Other comments/suggestions: I think that it would be better to only send 1 assessment team member on a surveillance audit with input remotely from the other members of the assessment team if relevant and also further flexibility on when the surveillance audit had to take place would be useful. It would depend on what would be the most appropriate for that particular fishery. Q2 - Should the minimum level of surveillance still require at least 2 onsite surveillance audits, given the current proposal to determine whether an on-site audit is Supportive of off-site minimum surveillance: (1) As the minimum is associated with 0 conditions, then there is no reason to have two on-site assessments; on-site for recertification only would be required (2) If all relevant information can be gathered remotely, there should be no minimal level required for onsite visits, particularly if the 4th surveillance audit must still be onsite due to the reassessment requirements. It comes down to a matter or risk; not simply showing your face. (3) The surveillance audit level should be defaulted as off-site and on a case by case basis, if the CAB, lack of or new information determines there is a requirement for an on-site surveillance audit then a variation request can be submitted to the MSC for approval. Non Supportive of off-site minimum surveillance: (1) Yes, it should involve at least 2 on-site surveillance audits to ensure that the audit team retains the opportunity to interact with all stakeholders to elicit all the information required to have a (5) Additional guidance has been developed to assist teams in developing the surveillance program Thank you for your comment, in order to reduce risk of not being able to assess what is necessary at surveillance, it is considered that if the fishery can provide information remotely that it is allowed to have a reduced team or and off-site audit, this is dependant of the characteristics of the fishery and is thus in line with your comment. Noted. As the criteria for reduced surveillance level consider whether the information needed to evaluate the fishery can be verified remotely, there is no need to require 2 on-site audits for the minimum surveillance level. The minimum surveillance level is: 1 on-site, 1 off-site and 2 review of information.

3 Project name: SCR Surveillance MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good high degree of certainty that the fishery is still meeting the MSC standard. It is our experience that remote interviewing, or eliciting of responses electronically is a poor substitute for on-theground investigation and face-to-face discussion of the issues. Q3 - Do you have any suggestions for the proposed design of the Surveillance Template? (1) The approach seems reasonable; we have no specific comments. Audit template looks good. (2) The proposal seems appropriate (maybe Table 2 is superfluous). (3) Assessors to comment separately. Thank you for the feedback. We do not propose to make any changes to the surveillance or review of new information templates at this time.

4 Project name: SCR Re-assessment MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on SCR Re-assessment and MSC responses Chapter/section/ consultation Feedback received/ Issue raised question (If applicable) Q1 - Do you think the proposed Supportive: criteria are suitable for (1) Yes, generally agree reducing the re-assessment (2) Only if there are no significant changes at all since the initial requirements? assessment. Non Supportive: (6) It would seem unacceptable for a fishery that had many outstanding conditions in any Principle to be able to undertake a less rigorous reduced re-assessment. The criteria for reduced re-assessment should probably be a cap on the number of conditions, not whether outstanding conditions are associated with one Principle. (7) Changes in scope are appropriate (target spp, gear, grounds) not changes in the UoC (which could be a single vessel joining/leaving). Conditions could be closed or on target for closure by 4th audit after all recertification couldn t (normally) happen if conditions are still open? Scale is difficult; perhaps tonnage would be appropriate, and more in-line with resources available to the fishery? (8) We do not believe that the criteria in table C6 are adequate for determining whether a fishery may be suitable for a reduced reassessment. Throughout this section of the standard review there seems to be an underlying assumption that most fisheries going into re-assessment will have few problems with their scoring on the PIs, so there is little need for a rigorous assessment process (ie fewer auditors and peer reviewers, as well as only one auditor on-site). (9) We do not believe that the conflict of interest problem that exists between CABs and their client fisheries has been properly resolved. In the past we have experienced this conflict of interest leading to either fisheries receiving inflated PI scores so that conditions were not imposed when they should have been, or to conditions being signed off when they should not have been. (10) It seems unfair that we would not quality if there is a change in the vessels that are participating in our fisheries; all vessels are MSC response / Actions taken Support for this proposal noted with thanks. (1) Noted, this was always the intent. Fisheries have to close out conditions by the 3 rd surveillance audit to be eligible for reduced re-assessment (2) Noted, language has been changed to reflect the fact that the fishery was covered under the previous certificate (3) Noted, an additional criterion has been included which requires that valid standard related stakeholder comments have been addressed prior to reassessment (4) MSC assumes there would be no conflicts of interest between CABs and clients as this a full assessment is an independent assessment of the fishery against the MSC standard. CAB impartiality is set out in ISO guide 65 clause 4.2. (5) Noted, language has been changed to

5 Project name: SCR Re-assessment MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good included in the UoC. For example, if one of our vessels is sold and leaves the fishery, we would not quality for reduced re-assessment. But this would not have increased our risk profile in any way. reflect the fact that the fishery was covered under the previous certificate Q2- Do you have any other suggestions for possible additional criteria that should be considered? Q3 - Are there other areas of the assessment process that could be reduced in a reassessment process? (11) Concern that issues that arise during site visit of a reduced reassessment cannot be adequately addressed by 1 auditor on-site and would hamper ability to assess the fishery (1) Alternatively would it not be more practical if nothing had changed to have an extended and fuller surveillance period and simply continue the certification on that basis until there are any significant changes as this sounds similar to the re-assessment process anyway and the costs would then be greatly reduced for the client. (2) No consultation on assessment team is a problem as CABs would have an increased number of complaints. (1) The report could be a description of the assessment process and the scoring table reducing the size of the report to be more akin to a fully comprehensive review during a surveillance audit. (2) Objections should only be permissible where there is a change in the basis of a PI score. (3) We would have thought that situations where more than one peer reviewer might be needed would be reasonably common (rather (6) Noted, however the fact that there is only 1 auditor that carries the on-site component does not mean that the support auditor is not involved in evaluating the information. Also CABs should consider competencies and qualification of which auditor goes onsite. The site visit should be well prepared by both auditors to enable collection of all relevant information. (1) Noted, however, the FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries which MSC complies with requires that a full reassessment is carried out before the end of the fifth year. (2) The auditor competency and qualification criteria combined with clearer presentation of auditor qualifications in the re-assessment announcement should address this issue. (1) Noted, a reduced re-assessment template has been developed to reduce the size of the re-assessment report in situations where the fishery has not changed from the initial assessment (according reduced re-assessment criteria) (2) Noted, however this was not taken further as it was considered that this change would have negative effects on credibility as stakeholders should be able to raise

6 Project name: SCR Re-assessment MSC contact: Mandy Doddema & Stephanie Good than exceptional). Many fisheries going through re-assessment have had significant issues with PIs in more than one Principle. In such circumstances it makes sense for there to be more than one peer reviewer. Q4 Do you think the proposed definition is appropriate for identifying small-scale fisheries? Q5- Are the additional considerations that are proposed for small scale fisheries appropriate? Are there further considerations that should be explored? Supportive: Generally, although for small-scale fisheries, the criteria for reduced reassessment should probably be a cap on the number of conditions, not whether outstanding conditions are associated with one Principle. Non-supportive (1) Too prescriptive as it depends on where the fishery is located in the world and what the other fishing fleet sizes, gears, etc. as all relative. It should be more flexible for each area. (2) The size of the fishery is irrelevant to the number of conditions imposed. All fisheries should have the same criteria for reassessment. (3) The considerations for small-scale fisheries are appropriate only if the rationale is that they are low-risk, not to give them a pass because they are simply small scale. (4) With small scale fisheries that have outstanding conditions the onsite team member should be the one with the skills/expertise in the principle that has the outstanding conditions. This new proposal does not have adequate checks and balances (including adequate stakeholder engagement) to ensure that fisheries are really appropriate/ eligible for the less rigorous reduced re-assessment process. an objection on new information even if this is not a change in the basis of a PI score. (3) Noted, comment shaped the final proposal which allows 1 peer reviewer during a reduced re-assessment but that this peer reviewer should have the competencies to review the significant issues in the PIs. Noted, however, the proposal to allow small scale fisheries to have reduced reassessment was not taken forward based on the non-supportive comments All comments noted, Small-scale fisheries specific criteria have been removed based on non-supportive comments.

7 Project name: SCR Reporting Templates: Pre-Assessment template MSC contact: Stephanie Good Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on SCR Reporting Templates and MSC responses Chapter/section/ consultation question (If applicable) Q1 - Will the proposed changes to the PA template have any implications for clients, CABs and other stakeholders? Feedback received/ Issue raised Supportive: Looks fine No implications for clients the improvement is that they are better able to ask their CABs for a relevant level for background detail. Same for CABs. Not clear why stakeholders would have implications as the PA is confidential. Non Supportive: None Other comments/suggestions: The concept is fine but the CR changes are not clear. The improvements should be about which components are required and which are optional. There are not simply two fixed templates; we as a client should be able to request additional optional sections are included but not be forced to go all or nothing. MSC response / Actions taken Thank you for your comments. Good point that stakeholders would not be directly impacted as the PA report is confidential. We have structured the changes in the PA template so that it is clear which sections are optional. The CR requirement was created to ensure that the CAB indicates that there are at least (not only) two options. The Guidance makes this intent clear, indicating that there can be some options between the all and nothing approach. There is also still scope to add sections to the PA report if a client requests additional sections to be included.

8 Project name: SCR - Timelines MSC contact: Maylynn Nunn & Cassie Leisk Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on changes to the SCR Timelines project and MSC responses Feedback received/ Issue raised Proposed Change MSC response / Actions taken Supportive: Agree with the proposal to allow fisheries to withdraw from assessment at any time and the associated re-entry requirements. In a voluntary programme, clients should be able to withdraw at any time. Noted, thank you. Agree with the 18 month maximum timeframe, provided the document checklist is up and running We agree with the need for consultation on modified assessment trees. Non Supportive: Consultation on the assessment team should not be removed this is potentially of critical importance to an assessment and adequacy/conflicts of interest may need to be tested. The 40 day maximum timeframe from fishery announcement to site visit is too rushed and may not allow adequate time to organise stakeholder engagement. Noted, thank you. Noted, thank you. Stakeholders are still able to submit comments via the complaints procedure, particularly alerting ASI to any potential conflicts of interest of team members. The competency requirements aim to ensure that the CABs have the skills required to undertake fishery assessments and have been developed with considerable stakeholder input. This has now been extended to 60 days to allow for extra time to plan engagement. The 18 month maximum timeframe is too

9 Project name: SCR - Timelines MSC contact: Maylynn Nunn & Cassie Leisk short a timeframe for what is effectively the whole assessment process, and could lead to fisheries being withdrawn. Other comments/suggestions: The changes imply stakeholders can only comment during the site visit and on the PCDR (or an objection thereafter). What are the consequences of not meeting timelines requirements? Thank you, noted. The Client Document Checklist requirements will be implemented at the same time. Stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout the assessment process and have been integral in developing the default assessment tree and competency criteria which are replacing the need for consultation during these stages. Stakeholder consultation is valued extremely highly by the Executive and the expectation is that stakeholders will continue to engage in the most effective manner possible, with comments at the PCDR stage, during the site visit consultation, by providing information about the fishery to the CAB, engaging during surveillance audits, and also participating in the MSC policy development process to ensure fishery assessments are undertaken in the most robust manner by CABs. Stakeholders are able to submit information and contact the assessment team to make information known throughout the MSC assessment process and beyond. There is also a complaints procedure and objections process that can be used by stakeholders. Depending on the assessment stage, additional information gathering may be required, a variation may be requested in exceptional circumstances, or the fishery will need to begin the process of withdrawing from assessment. Fisheries that withdraw from the programme can re-enter at any time.

10 Project name: SCR Extension of Certification (Group Certification) MSC contact: Yemi Oloruntuyi Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on SCR Extension of Fishery Certificate (Group Certification) and MSC responses Chapter/section/ consultation question (If applicable) Will the changes lead to efficiencies in assessments of fisheries? Are there other ways to improve efficiencies and cost savings when fisheries that are Feedback received/ Issue raised Proposed Change MSC response / Actions taken Supportive: Yes Non Supportive: The expansion of scope would allow surveillance reports to be exposed to peer review and stakeholder objections. This cannot be allowed. Other comments/suggestions: Yes, although this process needs to be undertaken carefully. The fishery seeking certification must obtain no benefits from an expedited assessment aside from making use of the PI scores that overlap completely (stakeholder engagement should be the same, timelines should be the same, etc.). Supportive: Non Supportive: Do not allow surveillance reports to be exposed to peer review as a consequence of expedited audits for extension of fishery certificate. The CR has been clarified to make it clear that, while the expedited assessment may take place during a regular surveillance, the two processes are on separate process tracks, and the peer review and stakeholder consultation that is required for the assessment to extend the certificate do not apply to the outcomes from the surveillance process. There are requirements in place that still have to be met during an expedited assessment to ensure that a robust assessment of the nonoverlapping PIs happens. Stakeholder engagement requirements and timelines remain the same.

11 Project name: SCR Extension of Certification (Group Certification) MSC contact: Yemi Oloruntuyi in the same location and have assessment components in common are being assessed? Other comments/suggestions: There could be default harmonisation where scores for common components are simply transferred to a new certification, unless the client wishes to rescore these. These should not be subject to an objection. These would need to be rescored at reassessment. Other comments/suggestions MSC needs to recognize efficiencies between assessments for regimes such as the QMS. These changes will not allow for efficiencies for us. For example, we would not be able to use these changes to expand our ORH certification because the stocks were not considered under In all cases, the ability to transfer scores for commonly held components will remain subject to the willingness of the initial client to do so. The scores that were obtained on the previous certificate will not be open to objection. The allowing of extensions in situations where the assessment component held in common is only one of the Principle 3 components potentially presents a high-risk situation for an assessment. This is because these cases lack target stock consideration in the initial assessment, meaning there is no information about the target stock from the previous assessment and thus resulting in lower levels of confidence. Additionally, in situations where the overlap of assessment outcome components is limited, the savings will be minimal.

12 Project name: Peer Reviewer College MSC contact: Graham Bruford Summary of stakeholder comments submitted on Peer Reviewer College and MSC responses Chapter/section/ consultation question (If applicable) 1. Are there any steps missing from the process outlined above? 2. Are there any steps which should be removed? 3. Which option for the level of editorial input of the college do you prefer - A or B? Feedback received/ Issue raised Proposed Change MSC response / Actions taken No comments received. Non-supportive: MSC shouldn t be directly involved in the selection of the peer reviewers this should be left to the college. Supportive: Some stakeholders would like the college to comment on the adequacy of the CAB s response to the peer review. Remove MSC from direct involvement in the selection of peer reviewers Keep option which allows the college to comment on the adequacy of the CAB s response. This is accepted. The Executive has drafted selection procedures for the college to implement and removed the reference to MSC in the process diagram. The Executive discussed this issue internally and with the peer review college focus group and concluded that the college s role should be restricted to checking the completed peer review for clarity and completeness, to avoid increasing

13 Project name: Peer Reviewer College MSC contact: Graham Bruford 4. Do you have any comments on how the financial and administrative arrangements of the college should be set up? Non Supportive: Some stakeholders do not want the College to have the right to comment on the CAB response and prefer the college to simply ensure the peer reviewers have completed their task correctly. CABs should be consulted on the selection of the peer reviewers and have the right to refuse reviewers and their comments Keep the option in which the college only ensures the peer reviewers have completed their task correctly. Ensure CABs have the right to refuse reviewers and their comments the time taken and creating another decisionmaker within the assessment process. However, it was felt important that the peer reviewers should have the right of reply to the CAB response, in common with other peer reviewer processes such as those used by scientific journals. The reviewer s reply would state whether they agreed or disagreed with the CAB s response as this could provide assistance to the Independent Adjudicator if the assessment went to Objection in determining whether the CAB came to a decision that any reasonable CAB would have done based on the evidence available. The proposed draft requirements allow CABs to agree the reviewers with the College and the Guidance G states CABs can express a preference for the peer reviewers they would like but the final decision is the College s. The system would lack credibility if CABs had a right of veto on individual reviewers as it would effectively give them the final say as they do with the current system. CABs will retain the right not to make changes in response to reviewer comments provided they put forward strong arguments to support their view.

14 Project name: Peer Reviewer College MSC contact: Graham Bruford The determination of the final number of peer reviewers should be carried out after the completion of the scoring rather than after the completion of the site visit, as the Assessment Team may not fully understand where the critical or most important issues are until after scoring days are complete. Clarification on who was responsible for determining peer reviewers conflict of interest was requested. Amend the timing of the determination of the final number of peer reviewers. Agreed. The current draft requirements have been amended to take account of this concern. Clarified. Sub-clause explicitly states this is the college s responsibility.