Question 1. Harmonisation meetings - To what extent do you support the following statements?

Transcription

1 Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic: Harmonisation Summary of feedback received Public consultation period: 1 to 30 September 2017 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 [..*..] Question 1. Harmonisation meetings - To what extent do you support the following statements? a. Only when fisheries have not yet been scored in a published report and scores will likely disagree, should a facilitated meeting be entered into outright. Strongly agree (a) Somewhat agree - This scenario is the more logical one for a facilitated meeting after a previous discussion among CABs failing to achieve an agreement. At this point, the CABs shall have a meeting and try to achieve a common scoring. For this scenario I agree with Table 4 of the consultation paper. Considering that it is always better to have face to face meetings it would be very possitive if the harmonization meetings can coincide for example with the MSC Tripartite meeting, MSC workshops or calibrations in order to save money. Other option could be that MSC cover the facilitation cost. However, it might not be the only case where a facilitated meeting be needed. (b) Somewhat disagree (c) Strongly agree (d) Disagree. Presumably, there should always be an initial meeting as per Annex PB. This must occur as the answer may be simple. Would not the decision on a facilitated meeting depend on the respective positions of the parties i.e. this may be immediately identified as a required solution? (e) Disagree, CABs should have opportunity to discuss and resolve the scores. Only if CABs can t meet agree should a facilitator be used i.e. MSC should not prejudge the initial outcome. (f) b. Having a facilitator involved can help the teams to reach consensus on scoring and rationales. Somewhat disagree (a) Strongly agree - Yes. However, the facilitator competences and qualification are outstanding. He/she shall have the team leader competences and qualification and met the competences of Annex PC3 corresponding to the topic of discussion. For example, if the PI discussed is stock status outcome he/she should meet Table PC3.1 Fish stock assessment. The facilitator might be chosen from the Peer Review College because this will ensure his/her knowledge of the MSC process and requirements. (b) Somewhat agree (c) 1

2 Agree, but the facilitator should be an experienced team leader/member (e.g. from Peer Review College) who can help interpret the CR (possibly with support from ASI/MSC if required) and direct a conclusion. (e) If CABs agree to disagree and agree that a facilitator could work, and if possible agree to abide by the facilitators final advice. (f) c. If draft scores and rationales are not agreed by all teams, the most precautionary approach (i.e. lowest score) should be adopted. Strongly disagree (a) Somewhat disagree - Although this solution might look like the easiest one in case of strongly disagreements between CABs it would be difficult to avoid CABs knocking on MSC door looking for some kind of facilitation, arbitration and/or interpretation from MSC...and then Table 3 will have to be applied... (b) Somewhat agree - Simple approach but could be effective - straightforward (d) Strongly Disagree. This may be an incorrect interpretation by one team. There is also a real possibility that teams may simply default to the lowest score, blame one of the assessors and move on without necessarily defending their positions. Further, this approach could ultimately result in fisheries failing mid-stream of their certificate or attracting difficult conditions, particularly if its has difficult P1 issues and already low Principle 1 scores. The additional risk of failure for an early adopter is hardly conducive to increasing the program's attraction with new or existing fisheries and in fact, a serious disincentive for multijurisdictional fisheries already dealing with a variety of other unpleasant MSC realities. In some cases, there is clear disagreement about both the stock distribution and the apparent need for harmonization (e.g. a cross boundary stock where national agencies are at clear odds as to whether or not a stock is shared). Our concern is that a default They are the same stock and we ll take the lowest score can be to the detriment of an already certified fishery on one side of the border. Rather, if there is a suitably qualified mediator/facilitator already engaged in the process, a better solution would be to have the mediator make a binding decision this would at least allow some balance in the argument? This could be based on most probably correct or best supported argument. (e) Yes, as an absolute bottom line the precautionary approach should be used as it is in line with the MSC standard and approach. (f) d. The outlined steps for harmonisation meetings are logical and feasible. Somewhat disagree (a) Strongly agree - If the question referes to Table 4 then yes. The steps are logical and feasible. The only issue to discuss is the type of meeting (remote or on-site) and the cost in the case of Scenario 2 Option A. (b) Somewhat agree (c) 2

3 Agree, but they are also very complicated and costly, especially if there are new fisheries entering, surveillances etc. (e) Yes, but they may become complex and costly. If the CAB is required to meet the cost one way or another that cost will be paid in the end directly or indirectly by the client. (f) e. The outlined process for harmonisation meetings would help lead to a harmonised outcome. Undecided (a) Somewhat agree - Yes, and if not the facilitator might take the final decision as in the objetion process. (b) Somewhat agree (c) Agree, of course. (e) Agreed. (f) f. The outlined process will reduce the cost, time, and complexity of conducting harmonisation. Somewhat disagree (a) Undecided - Cots: unclear. Depending on the cost of the facilitator and meeting Time: No for the first part of the process (announcement and PRDR) but yes for the PCDR, FR and certification stage. Complexity: Not really. (b) Somewhat disagree (c) Somewhat disagree - Meetings and external participants (e.g. facilitators) will increase cost (d) maybe yes, maybe no. What is needed is a rapid review of team positions; wherever possible, electronic communication solutions (e.g. skype, webex, goto meeting, conference calls) should be used to reduce travel time and costs. (e) Too early to say this would or would not be the case experience and time will tell. (f) Question 2. Before entering into a harmonisation meeting, how best should teams determine whether their draft scores and rationales agree or not? By reading previous assessment reports and potentially have a call with the team lead of the previous assessment. A meeting is not necessarily needed if the team lead is able to explain the rationale for a specific scoring. (a) 3

4 The best way is that each team draft the performance indicators rationales and scores and send them before the discussion. This shall be mandatory for the process. (b) Circulate them and discuss (c) Presumably by remote teleconference, as above? (e) It will depend on the circumstance but conference calling would seem to be a logical approach (f) Question 3. Harmonisation Reconciliation To what extent do you support the following statements? a. If fisheries are already scored and cannot reach consensus on scoring, entering into harmonisation reconciliation is appropriate. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Somewhat agree (a) Somewhat agree - Yes, but: i) see comments related to ASI role in the next answer. ii) It is not clear the implications on certified fisheries in case of disagreements (e.g expedited assessment will be needed?, move forward the next surveillance audit). In case an interpretation is needed by MSC. ASI should consider this interpretation as Requirements in their audits. (b) If fisheries are already scored, and if under a streamlined process, the client has proposed existing scores as their submission to the CAB, then these should be adopted (with concomitant reductions in time/team membership in the assessment). If the teams disagree with existing scores, and against the clients wishes, then the burden of time and cost should be open to question. If there is a genuine and supported disagreement, then reconciliation would be appropriate. (e) Agreed (f) b. ASI review of provided rationales and CAB conformity with the standard will help to resolve potential harmonisation disputes. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Undecided (a) Strongly disagree - We disagree on the proposal that ASI plays a role in the harmonisation process (Table 3 steps 2 and 3). We consider that in most cases disagreements will have technical motivations, rather than incorrect interpretation of the FCR... so ASI's role in the harmonization processes would not be fully justified (a facilitator should be able to detect errors of that kind too). Firstly, ASI arranges their yearly sampling and they usually chose the most controversial or complex fisheries. Therefore, it is highly likely that a harmonized fishery will be chosen. Secondly, in case a CAB has several fisheries which needs harmonization this will result in an increase of the audit sampling being a disadvantage compared to CABs without overlapping fisheries. Finally, the inclusion of ASI in the process can put pressure on the teams to accept previous scores and rationales in order to avoid problems with ASI, discouraging improvement and discussions (it will always be easier to accept previous scores than opening a discussion which can end up with ASI auditing your performance) (b) 4

5 Undecided - ASI review will only apply to procedural issues and not scientific issues. An independent reviewer who can assess scientific rationales and data might serve better. (c) Somewhat disagree - Limited pool of ASI staff could lead to overall lack of objectivity (d) Possibly, if there is a clear misinterpretation of the MSC requirements. Presumably, the focus here will be on CAB conformity with the standard. If ASI are to involve themselves closely in the scientific basis for the decision making, then they may adopt the role of mediator. This division of roles between ASI and mediators should be very clear. (e) Agreed where the underlying issue is the interpretation of the standard but that won t necessarily be the case. (f) c. Having a facilitator involved can help the teams to reach consensus on scoring and rationales. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Undecided - Costs need to be lowered, not increased for the fishery under assessment! (a) Yes, see comments on harmonization meeting. (b) Somewhat agree (c) Agree, if they are suitably qualified and with executive decision making powers. (e) Agree (f) d. If an agreement in scoring is not reached through ASI review, interpretations and facilitation, the most precautionary approach (i.e. lowest score) should be adopted. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Strongly disagree - That is not fair towards the fishery under assessment. It is a third party certification, thereby incorporating the fact that individual acessors can have different opinions on specific issues without reaching agreement. A fishery does not choose its expert team members, thereby it is already depending on the CAB choosing the experts. An already scored fishery could have had 'bad luck' (for lack of a better word) in having an expert that used a very low score on a specific issue, it should not be taken up in different certifications due to a difference in individual interpretation! (a) Strongly agree - Yes, I cannot think of another option. (b) Somewhat agree - As above - straightforward - leaves no room for interpretation and continued back and forth. (d) Strongly Disagree, as above. (e) Agreed but only as an option of last resort. (f) e. The outlined steps for harmonisation reconciliation are logical and feasible. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. 5

6 Somewhat agree - As long as you keep in the potential for scores to no longer agree (a) Somewhat agree - See comments on ASI participation. (b) Undecided - They will come at high cost (c) Agree, but they are also very complicated and costly, especially if there are new fisheries entering, surveillances etc. (e) Agreed. (f) f. The steps outlined for harmonisation reconciliation will help lead to a harmonised outcome. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Somewhat agree (a) Yes. I cannot think about other steps. (b) Agree, subject to comments above (e) Agreed but they may create complexity and cost. (f) g. The outlined process will reduce the cost, time, and complexity of conducting harmonisation. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concepts. Somewhat disagree (a) Time: For sure no Complexity: if we have to follow all the steps the complexity is not going to be reduce. The outlined process will increase efficiency and rigour. It will also avoid further complications and delays due to stkeholders comments and objections (b) Somewhat disagree (c) Somewhat disagree - As above - meetings etc will increase costs (d) Agree, subject to comments above (e) Only time will tell it is not possible to determine that for sure at this stage. (f) Question 4. Abbreviated process To what extent do you support the following statements? a. The abbreviated process provides ample opportunity for CABS to try and reach consensus on scoring. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concept. 6

7 Somewhat agree (a) Undecided - This process relays more in the previous work done by others than in a harmonization discussion. However, in some cases it might be the appropriate one specially in case you agree with the scores. However, ASI will audit the Annex PB even though the newest team has adopted the original scores. (b) The process allows some opportunity for agreement. A solution may lie between the two proposed processes have the more abbreviated process but with involvement of a mediator if a first discussion does not lead to agreement. The mediator can then allocate an appropriate decision based on the most convincing/best supported argument, as above. (e) It will likely depend on how the process operates and the level of both (many) CABs commitment to the process and reaching accommodation. (f) b. If an agreement in scoring is not reached through discussion, the decision to adopt the lowest score is appropriate. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concept. Strongly disagree (a) Somewhat disagree - Although this solution might look like the easiest one in case of strongly disagreements between CABs it would be difficult to avoid CABs knocking on MSC door looking for some kind of facilitation, arbitration and/or interpretation from MSC...and then an option A will have to be applied... (b) Strongly agree - Need clarity that both fisheries should adopt the lowest materially different score and clarification on when that should happen for any previously certified fishery (c) Strongly Disagree. It would be a major problem if conditions are imposed/fisheries fail because of decisions that (some) teams disagree with without trying to reach the (most) correct decision? This may be an extremely expensive and unnecessary outcome. (e) A bottom line solution will be needed and the lowest score approach is compatible with the MSC standard. (f) c. The outlined steps for the abbreviated process are logical and feasible. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concept. Somewhat disagree - I think is not so logical as the others and it is less rigourous. (b) Agree, with caveats above (e) 7

8 Agreed but time will tell. (f) d. The abbreviated process will reduce the cost, time, and complexity of conducting harmonisation. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concept. Somewhat agree (a) Somewhat agree - Yes, but see other comments of this process. (b) Somewhat disagree (d) Agree, but the cost and time of unnecessary or failed assessments could be significantly greater than the cost of having a mediator. (e) Only time will tell it is not possible to determine that for sure at this stage. (f) e. Adopting the lowest score (precautionary approach), is preferable to having to reconcile the added cost, time and complexity of the harmonisation process. Please note what would increase your support for the noted concept. Somewhat disagree (a) Strongly disagree - We consider unrealistic. See previous answer for more details. (b) Strongly agree - We would suggest that the MSC still develops a way to flag and address interpretation issues through this process. (c) Strongly Disagree, see comments above. (e) Disagree (f) Question 5. In your opinion, when would taking a precautionary approach not work? See above (a) In all those cases in which the necessary conditions to reach previous agreements have not been provided. (b) If the CAB coming up with the lower score is misapplying the standard (although the approach would still be precautionary) (c) When the low score is not appropriate. If 5 teams accept 80 and one 75 why is the score 75? If an assessment has been carried out, peer reviewed, TO reviewed, stakeholder reviewed and accepted for several years, why should a new assessment take precedence simply because it has a lower score? We can do better than this. (e) 8

9 Where there are several CABs participating at a meeting and all but one of them has scored a PI >SG80 but the last CAB scores the PI at <80. Why should the fishery be conditioned when only one of several CABS scores the PI below 80? It should be remembered that in this scenario the other CABS have been through the complete client draft/peer review/public consultation and final review to come to a score of SG 80 or more. (f) Question 6. Do you think there will be issues with adopting the lowest score with regards to timing within an assessment e.g. if an expedited audit is conducted in one of the fisheries when would other fisheries have to adopt the score? In which cases would you see this being an issue and how would you recommend handling it? Yes for sure the timing will be an issue. A timing harmonization might be needed and can be delegated to the MSC and discussed with ASI. (b) Timelines could also be an issue if there are two unscored fisheries in different parts of the assessment process. For example, what if one fishery is at the peer review stage and a new fishery that would need to be harmonized enters assessment? Also, we are unclear about the 30 day comment period under the harmonization meeting scenario. When does this occur? Is this before any other reports are posted? (c) Timing is always a big issue, including changing outcomes for certification in later stages (surveillance 3 or 4) or assessments that are almost complete if new scoring suggests a change? If already certified, changes would best be picked up at next surveillance audit, for which CABS and team members have already made provision. (e) In the [..*..] case where harmonisation was used, it was agreed that the PI that required score change (and consequently a condition raised) would be done at the next surveillance audit (and thus not require an immediate expedited audit). That seemed a reasonable approach to minimise the cost and impact of the change. (f) Question 7. Are there any harmonisation aspects you feel are missing or have not been thoroughly addressed? Implications for certified fisheries as a result of soring changes, conditions raised, client preasures,and timings. (b) We support the proposed precautionary approach but wonder what this would mean for the fishery or fisheries already scored if it is the new fishery in assessment that has the lower, more precautionary score. Will the previously scored fisheries be required to adopt the new lower score during the next surveillance audit or during re-assessment? This is not clear from the proposal. If the new precautionary score affects previously scored fisheries, presumably it could cause a fishery to have its certificate withdrawn. Perhaps this is incentive for CABs to ensure precautionary scoring and correct interpretation initially. Stakeholder participation must be included in the harmonization process. (c) See general comments (e) No (f) Additional feedback received through writing 9

10 General points: Adoption of first mover scores, especially if presented to the AT by the client in a streamlined assessment could usefully take precedence i.e. if the client approves an already published score. If an assessor wishes to disagree, this could be at their/cab cost. Similar could apply to disagreements between teams clients be given the choice to accept scores or support a contest? The default option of adopting the lowest score in the event of a no agreement between teams is strongly opposed. If meetings are held, and in the presence of a suitably qualified mediator, then a binding agreement based on best evidence, or even the best-supported argument, would be much more preferable. This may be an expensive process. Who should meet the cost of team members not being able to agree? One of the common problematic areas during harmonization is that assessment team members (and some leaders) may not all have similar experience/ education with regards to the purpose and process of harmonization. Additional assurance of CAB/ team understanding of the harmonization process may be required at the outset of the process as to what and how the process works. We still see harmonisation as a problem for which there is no apparent solution which does not have the potential to bring the MSC into disrepute. The fact that the standard, in many cases, allows for individual subjective decisions will inevitably lead to disagreement. For this reason, we still favour significant restriction of the PIs on which harmonisation is required. Additional feedback received from CAB workshop September 2017 CABs reported that the root cause of harmonisation issues stem from unclear requirements. Revised harmonisation process (Option A) feedback: Incorporation of ASI review was not highly favoured. Instead, MSC technical oversight was suggested in its place. Clarification initially requested on whether reconciliation would be mediated or arbitrated, with general consensus of the group being arbitration. Suggestion to consider peer review college. Abbreviated process (Option B) feedback: Process was viewed as favourable as it can provide a definitive decision. However, it was recognised that there would still be a need for MSC to provide interpretations or policy development to aid in resolving the root cause of the harmonisation dispute. Continued development needed regarding costs, ensuring fairness and timelines. Potential for gaming of the system recognised, but group consensus was that the opposite was likely to occur with regard to forcing of scores. CABs suggested a centralised location on MSC s website that contains fisheries that have been harmonised and the resulting scores and conditions, that can be reviewed when a new fishery enters. 10