Marine Stewardship Council. Consultation Topic: In Transition to MSC Program. Summary of consultation feedback

Transcription

1 Marine Stewardship Council Consultation Topic: In Transition to MSC Program Summary of consultation feedback Public Consultation: 1 March to 30 April Introduction In June 2016, the MSC s Board of Trustees approved the development of, and consultation on, a new program that will independently verify and recognise fisheries that are making demonstrable fishery improvements towards achieving MSC Certification - the In Transition to MSC (ITM) Program. The consultation paper set out initial proposals for the ITM Program and sought feedback on options relating to the following components of the ITM Program: 1) Program requirements initial proposals for entry requirements to participate in the ITM Program, the timeframes within which fishery improvements should be completed; and penalties for non - performance. 2) Verification system - an initial set of options for the verification system which will provide independent confirmation that fisheries meet Program requirements; and 3) Benefits - an initial proposal of the benefits for fisheries who meet ITM Program requirements. 2. Stakeholder Consultation The MSC Executive held a 60-day public consultation on this topic from 1 March to 30 April In addition, three webinars 1 were conducted and presentations on the ITM Program public consultation were made at three workshops 2 : 21 individuals or organisations submitted comments on the ITM Program during public consultation. 15 of these were submitted through the online survey, 2 were written responses to the survey questions with extensive comments, and 4 were separate written responses. Responses were received from organisations and individuals from: the USA, the UK, Germany, France, New Zealand, Panama, Switzerland and Indonesia. Responses were received from NGOs, wholesaler/distributors, primary and secondary processors, importers, retailers, fishers, a certification body, a standard setting body, the food service sector and fishing industry associations. 3. Summary of stakeholder feedback 17 respondents provided specific feedback to the 13 questions in the public consultation survey. 4 respondents provided written responses therefore their comments have been incorporated into the question feedback table (Table 1) under the most relevant questions. Where comments did not pertain any survey questions, they have been collated in an additional feedback table (Table 2). This section provides a summary of the analysis of the results of the survey questions and a summary of the additional comments received. The summary of comments is intended to provide a flavour of the responses received rather than to portray all issues raised. The full set of feedback received is provided in Section Survey results Minimum performance entry requirements (Q1, Q2 & Q3) 1 1) A public consultation webinar - 9th March, 2) Public Q& A webinar - 6th April, and 3) 2 x FisheryProgress.org webinars - 19th April 2 1) MSC Capacity Building workshop, Cancun, 6th 10th March, 2) MSC Capacity Building Workshop, Madrid, 13th 17th March and 3) MSC Tripartite meeting, London, 28th- 29th March In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 1

2 Respondents were asked to choose the option they thought the MSC should adopt with respect to a minimum performance level as an entry requirement of the ITM Program. 82% of respondents chose the option to exclude minimum performance criteria as part of ITM Program entry requirements Figure 1: Options for minimum performance criteria Additional comments in relation to entry requirements include: MSC should consider the inclusion of social elements in entry requirements The use of minimum performance requirements should be tested before introducing them Important entry requirements are a pre-assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard and an action plan that is capable of delivering the necessary improvement in specified timeframes for all fisheries in the ITM Program. The focus should be on the primary requirement of being able to demonstrate a credible path. Entry requirements are not complimentary to existing initiatives Option a requires a timeframe requirement which should be considered as a performance entry requirement ITM Program timeframes (Q4) Of those who provided input on timeframes (12 respondents) two thirds (67%) were not supportive of the MSC s proposal that the maximum timeframe for a fishery to participate in the ITM Program would be 5 years, with an extension to 7 years for small scale developing world fisheries. The issues raised in relation to timeframes included: The same timeframe should apply to all fisheries in the ITM Program some respondents suggested this standard timeframe should be 5 years, other respondents suggested longer timeframes should be applied. A two-year extension for small-scale developing world fisheries is not the appropriate mechanism by which to address accessibility issues with regards to small-scale fisheries - 2 years is too short a timeframe to be meaningful or make a difference The MSC should explore a different approach e.g. specification of timeframes based on pre - assessment results or species life characteristics. The MSC needs to define and clarify small scale developing world fisheries Current models for basic and comprehensive FIPs do not have a maximum timeframe (see Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement Projects ). The suggestion of a 5-7-year inclusion is not complementary to this approach. Penalties of non-performance (Q5 and Q6) The MSC proposed that that if a fishery in the ITM Program falls behind its progress targets by more than one year, its status as being In Transition to MSC, i.e. an ITM fishery, will be removed. A fishery could reenter the ITM Program, but will only be eligible for a cumulative 5- or 7-year period in the ITM Program. This proposal was supported by 88% of respondents. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 2

3 This support was accompanied by requests for clarification on progress verification, removal and rejoining processes. There were also suggestions for the MSC to consider mechanisms that would identify if a fishery is falling behind progress, why progress is not being made and to understand the external factors influencing fishery improvements. It was noted that the process applied to the progress of certified fisheries against conditions should be applied to the ITM Program. Alternative approaches to the cumulative timeframe were suggested, for example a minimum amount of time between a fishery being removed from the ITM Program and being able to re-join. Concerns were raised about fisheries in the ITM program that decided not to enter MSC full-assessment or that failed full-assessment and the implications of these outcomes on the ITM Program and the MSC Certification program. Frequency of independent verification of progress (Q7 & Q8) Independent verification of progress every 2 years was the most preferred option with 65% of respondents (11) ranking it as their 1 st or 2 nd choice (i.e. most preferred). The MSC s proposal of independent verification of progress by the end of Year 2 (in a 5-year ITM Program) was also supported with 59% of respondents (10) ranking it as their 1 st or 2 nd choice. Annual independent verification of progress was the least preferred option with 65% of respondents (11) ranking it as their 3 rd or 4 th choice Figure 2: Respondent preference for verification frequency options *most preferred = combined 1 st and 2 nd rankings, **least preferred = combined 3 rd and 4 th rankings Additional comments on verification frequency included: Annual verification is beneficial in identifying progress and challenges in a timely manner, anything other than annual review may identify issues too late and compromise the ability of the fishery to meet timelines imposed. Annual independent verification of progress is costly for fisheries Verification frequency and timing should be informed by looking at data from past FIPs to identify the stage at which FIP progress stalling occurs Align verification frequency with FisheryProgress.org process and requirements Verification should be sufficient to ensure progress is being made Verification system options (Q9 & Q11) Respondents were asked to rank the three options proposed for the verification system in their order of preference. There was little difference between 1 st choice rankings across the 3 options. The accredited auditor and independent committee option received the highest number of 2 nd choice rankings. The CAB choice option received the most 3 rd choice rankings. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 3

4 Figure 3: Respondent preference for verification systems Additional comments and suggestions on the verification system options included: The MSC should consider collaborating with FisheryProgress.org and their FIP review and verification processes An Independent Committee made up of volunteer-based third party scientists and other independent experts (much like a peer review system) is an ideal way to remove biases and vested interests in the outcomes of the processes. Option 1 (CAB) provides consistency with current MSC processes Composition of the proposed Committees and the availability of its members is an issue e.g. availability of 3 rd party experts The Accredited Auditor seems to guarantee a more rigorous review process than that which could be achieved with an Approved auditor Who will pay for the Independent Committee or Oversight Committee? The MSC Technical Consultant or CAB who prepares the FIP Action Plan could be the same as the Consultant or CAB who then verifies the FIP - they will have a familiarity with fishery stakeholders and be knowledgeable about the fishery. Then have the Committee review. If there is an existing, understood system it should be used to avoid creating new systems within systems. Options 2 and 3 require the development of entirely new programs and significant extensions of MSC s competencies, and may create the potential for new problems of their own, and conflicts of interest. Recognition approach (Q10 & Q12) Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the MSC s proposed step-wise approach to the recognition of fisheries participating in the ITM Program: confidential communication of information about fisheries in the ITM Program for the purposes of funding/investment and meeting requirements of other sustainability standards, with market-focused and public recognition being conditional upon a fishery s progress having been independently verified. Respondents also asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with an alternative approach which would provide recognition during the entire ITM process (i.e. unconditional recognition). Confidential communication was supported by the majority of respondents (13). However, there was a mixed and inconclusive response to both the conditional and unconditional recognition approaches. 9 of the 17 respondents disagreed with a recognition mechanism that is conditional of progress verification, whereas 6 respondents agreed with this option. 9 respondents agreed with an alternative approach of recognition of fisheries in the ITM Program during the entire ITM process, whereas 5 respondents disagreed with this approach. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 4

5 Figure 4: Respondent preference for recognition options Comments and suggestions relating to the recognition of fisheries in the ITM Program can be loosely categorised into 2 opposing camps: Recognition, promotion or endorsement of fisheries in the ITM Program by MSC would undermine the value of the MSC s certification and ecolabelling program, and would undermine the position of MSC certified fisheries in the market place. Therefore, the MSC should not give recognition fisheries unless they are certified, i.e. recognition should not be a part of the ITM Program. Recognition should be given to fisheries in the ITM Program, and that this should be incorporated into the FisheryProgress.org platform. Alignment with FisheryProgress.org (Q13) General support for the ITM Program to align with FisheryProgress.org came from 11 respondents. However, 4 respondents were not supportive of the alignment proposed. Comments on the alignment with FisheryProgress.org related to the alignment being necessary to avoid duplication of effort for FIPs and to avoid confusion for both FIPs and the market. It was also noted that the MSC should not promote the website, and that FisheryProgress.org did not provide the level of detail needed by FIPs Additional feedback Additional issues raised by respondents related to: Exclusion of traceability and Chain of Custody mechanisms from the ITM Program The ITM Program would provide added rigour to progress verification but in doing so would add cost which FIPs would struggle with. The ITM program as currently envisioned will only target fisheries that are already working with NGOs on FIPs, therefore making incremental conservation gain. FIPs need technical and financial support FIP timeframes and progress can be compromised by matters beyond the stakeholder s control (e.g. funding shortages, government inertia and change, natural phenomena, stock externalities). The ITM Program proposal does not include protocols for addressing these. For all additional comments please see Table MSC Response Thank you very much to all stakeholders who took the time to look at the consultation document and provide such detailed feedback on the development of the In Transition to MSC Program. We appreciate receiving your thoughts on the initial proposals. The MSC has noted all comments and will endeavour to incorporate these, where possible and relevant, into the next phase of the ITM Program development. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 5

6 Next Steps All feedback received will be considered in the development of this work and presented to the MSC Stakeholder Council steering committee, the Board of Trustees and the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) in the coming months. These governance bodies will decide on the next steps of the ITM Program and further consultation. 6. All consultation feedback Table 1: Survey feedback Q1. With reference to Section 4.1 in the consultation document, please select the option that you think the MSC should adopt with respect to a minimum performance level as an entry requirement of the ITM Program. Option a: No minimum performance criteria. Fisheries would simply have to demonstrate, on verification, that their action plans would enable them to meet an unconditional pass against the MSC standard and enter certification according to the timeframes above. Option b: Performance requirements focus on a percentage of Performance Indicators (PIs) meeting minimum requirements (i.e. SG 60). For example, 60% of all PIs meet SG 60. Setting a minimum BMT index as an entry requirement could be a useful and simple way to implement this option. Option c: Performance requirements focus on critical Performance Indicators e.g. PI (stock rebuilding) and PI (compliance and enforcement) meeting SG 60. No. of respondents % of respondents Option a Option b 2 12 Option c 1 6 Q2. Please suggest the Performance Indicators you believe to be critical in relation to ITM Program performance requirements Respondent a) Operating an ITM is a risky development for MSC for many reasons. Surely all PIs apply so it would be incorrect to make any one the critical factor Respondent c) if the goal of this program is to be able to include more SSF in developing countries, including minimum performance requirements could be a limiting factor for some fisheries. Respondent g) None - all should be viewed as equal. The social elements should apply though (no conviction of forced labour etc.). Respondent f) Does this not follow from the "regular" PIs in a normal MSC full assessment? In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 6

7 Respondent l) 'In transition to MSC' should be arranged in such a way that WWF always distributes a provisional score of 3 for fisheries in program. The IT MSC doesn't make sense for us if that doesn't happen. Respondent q) Overall we feel that there should be no minimum performance criteria in order to encourage and incentivize change via the MSC ITM program. This is based on i) transparency around access that could be compromised by the need to meet a few key indicators and could cause some FIP participant concern and ii) encouraging and incentivizing change via the MSC program in the greatest number of fisheries. Specific to the question, PI is seen as ensuring that vulnerable, critical and those severely depleted stocks will be obligated to meet some minimum requirement before being admitted to the ITM program, to ensure long term sustainability and exploitation of the stock would not be compromised within the FIP program. Respondent s) Regarding the conditions for participation, we believe it is necessary that a minimum level of performance be required to participate in the program and prefer to exclude option a. Options b and c appear to be interesting and deserve further elaboration in order to define the indicators to be retained. Q3. Do you have any other comments on the ITM Program entry requirements as proposed in Section 4.1 in the consultation document? Respondent a) Option a, b, c are too binary. It could be a blend of all Respondent b) We agree with giving immediate access to those FIPs in FisheryProgress.org and requiring the necessary steps to others. Respondent c) The MSC pre-assessments can be really expensive and sometimes take a very long time. This might represent a barrier to entry into the ITM system for developing world countries. Respondent d) We suggest keeping the bar relatively low so that you maximize the number of fisheries that you can support towards MSC full assessment. Respondent f) Option B (a percentage of PIs meeting minimum requirements) could be introduced in a few years' time, but I think this needs to be tested before strictly enforced. For the time being, all action plans established against a valid MSC Pre-Assessment aiming to (realistically) achieve completion within the applicable timeframe should be acceptable. Respondent h) No, except that entry requirements would necessitate auditing for those requirements. Respondent i) We agree that setting a minimum performance level as an entry requirement would act to negate the use of the ITM Program as a tool to support and incentivize fishery improvements. Additionally, entry requirements for the ITM program would necessitate an audit. We see no downside to encouraging as many fisheries as possible into this program, with the condition that acceptance to the ITM Program only be made available to fisheries that are verified to have a pre-assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard and an action plan that is capable of delivering the necessary improvements within the specified timeframe. Respondent k) We fully support the proposal to make the ITM available to all fisheries in both developed and developing countries and the specific proposal to set a minimum performance level as an entry requirement at this time. Respondent p) A minimum entry requirement is necessary to avoid the risk of green washing through the ITM program. Minimum standards in addition to being independently verified as credibly able to meet MSC within 5 years may create problems of their own. The focus should be on the primary requirement of being able to demonstrate a credible path. Respondent q) An MSC indicator based FIP pre-assessment and an Action Plan capable of delivering the necessary improvements in the defined timeframe are critical but with these in place, the preference is to keep any requirements that would limit entry into the ITM program to a minimum. We recommend that pre-assessment audits need to be carried out and FIP Action Plans completed by competent assessors or assessment teams, in additional to CABs. Having these implementation documents In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 7

8 completed by someone formally trained to apply the MSC standard will help an Action Plan includes all activities needed to meet the MSC standard. For those non-cab assessors, we propose that MSC lay out clear core competencies (e.g. years of experience, educational background, MSC training, FIP Preassessment training etc.) that must be met by individuals and teams as a whole to avoid the risk of fai lure of fishery to fulfil ITM objectives. The definition of competent, this will need to be fluid to recognize the body of ongoing capacity-building and training activities designed to accredit regional auditors, although this may be less an issue for the ITM program than other NGO-led initiatives. While the FIP consultant is best placed to lead the development of the Action Plan and to some extent operate independently, best-practice would be the draft Action Plan to be guided by input from key stakeholders (ideally through FIP stakeholder meetings comprised of fishing industry, buyers, government and civil society) and finalized in close consultation with these FIP stakeholders to make sure it is approved. A lack of stakeholder engagement during the drafting of the FIP Action Plan, and the resulting lack of buy-in, will likely lead to implementation problems down the line. As such, we strongly encourage the MSC include a requirement that the preparation of the FIP Action Plan will be done in consultat ion with key FIP stakeholders as outlined above. Industry govt & civil society Transparency is regarded by us as a key element of improvement programs. Please see below under Q13 for additional comment on transparency. Respondent r) Existing practice in FIPs is for a scoping study or a pre-assessment; the ITM suggestion of a mandatory pre-assessment is inconsistent with existing FIP practices and will increase the costs and accessibility of FIPs. Further, it s worth noting that a pre-assessment is optional in an MSC certification (FCM 2.0: The pre-assessment is optional) ; holding a FIP to a higher 1 standard than MSC s scheme requirements seems incongruous with the spirit of FIPs. The current models for basic and comprehensive FIPs do not require a minimum performance level for entry. This is because FIPs are a tool designed to be used with all fisheries, including those with the lowest sustainability performance. The ITM suggestion of inclusion/exclusion is not complementary to existing initiatives, and even 4.1 Option a No minimum performance criteria, which requires a minimum timeframe requirement, should be considered a performance requirement for entry. Q4. Do you have any comments on the ITM Program timeframes proposed in Section 4.2 of the consultation document? Respondent a) 5 years or 7, developing or developed, large or small scale. Each case will needed to be considered on its merits. Defining criteria is too constraining Respondent b) We do not agree with this timeframe. There are good FIPs, like Ecuador mahi, that are taking already 10 years without getting a certifiable status yet. In our opinion it should be required a minimum annual advance against the MSC BMT to stay at the program, together with a scoring system for the MSC BMT of lower scale (not just ). If a limit is established, it should be allowed to renew the period IF real progressive advances along the first period are demonstrated. We also do not agree about cumulative timeframe, but we think that just one re-entering should be allowed. Respondent c) There needs to be a clear definition of Small Scale Fisheries. Respondent d) We suggest extending the maximum timeframe to 7 years for all fisheries, and potentially longer for small scale fisheries in the developing world. In principle, we agree with encouraging/incentivizing FIPs to make progress efficiently but also understand the reality that fisheries face in making change on the water. Respondent f) Agreed, but 'small scale developing fisheries' need to be clearly defined and communicated. Respondent g) I don't think there should be an extension for DW fisheries. Also, think the timeline should include something about life-history of species and time it might take to rebuild (2 generation times). Perhaps 7 years for all fisheries (2 to prepare and get ready etc.) should be allowed. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 8

9 Respondent h) I would not allow more time for fisheries in developing countries. It just complicates things, and if 5 years is not feasible then 2 additional years will not make much of a difference. I think the proposed differentiation between developed and developing countries is too small to be meaningful. Respondent i) We think that the differentiation between developed and developing countries (timeframe of 5 vs 7 years) is too small to be really meaningful, so we suggest a standard timeframe for all fisheries. Respondent j) 5 years (7 years for small scale developing world fisheries) seems reasonable Respondent k) We support the MSC proposal for two different timelines for fisheries in developed (5 years) and developing countries (7 years), wishing to access the MSC program Respondent n) What is the definition for 'small scale fisheries'? A timeframe of 7 years is very long and should only be provided with a clear definition of 'small scale fisheries'. Respondent p) We reject a lower standard (7 years to MSC) applying to developing world fisheries. The same objective standard should apply. Assistance should come in the form of assisting these fisheries to meet MSC requirements in 5 years, not lowering the entry standard to an ITM. A lower standard: Undermines the basic principles of certification, by accepting a lower standard for the same purpose based on client national identity not the quality and credibility of their program. If you are unlikely to make it in 5 years demonstrating a credible path in 7 years is unlikely to be much of an advantage. This different entry standard may create unrealistic expectations in clients of how low a bar the ITM is and also affect its credibility to third parties. Respondent q) We see an opportunity for the MSC to recruit an increased number of fisheries into the ITM program, with the caveat that they must be able to demonstrate they can reach certification-level performance within agreed timeframes. Given the significant number of industrial fisheries already in FIPs, the added value of the ITM program will be limited if it does not to try to reach the small-scale fisheries that currently view MSC certification as costly, difficult or unattainable. While on the one hand, its sensible that the MSC be selective as to the fisheries that can enter the ITM program, it s possible that imposing too short a time frame will likely result in only a small perc entage of additional fisheries becoming interested and engaging with the ITM program. In general we support the current proposed timeframe of 5 years, including for small-scale fisheries. One option for consideration, especially for poorer performing and small-scale fisheries, could be to include a pre-fip implementation period (e.g. 2 years) after which the FIP can be evaluated for entry into the ITM program. While we understand the rationale for longer timeframes for small-scale fisheries, our preference would be to see small-scale fisheries categorized according to; their impact, likelihood of improvement and state of governance and enforcement If there are to be different requirements for industrial and small scale/developing world fisheries, the MSC needs to clearly define small scale and developing world and with that a specific, less complex and cost effective but precautionary approach. An extended timeframe scheme may not necessarily be the best approach for SSFs. Timeframes largely depend on the baseline pre-assessment and how much work needs to be done and to that end, we propose development of clear guidelines for defining the length of the FIP based on the number of Performance Indicators that need to be addressed and their initial scoring level. While this would likely be more complicated to develop and track, it would reduce risk and raise expectations for the ITM program and fisheries respectively. It needs to be acknowledged that FIP timeframes can be compromised by matters beyond the stakeholder s control (e.g. funding shortages, government inertia and change, natural phenomena, stock externalities). The current ITM program does not include protocols for addressing these. While there are currently few examples of how requests for time extensions have been handled, the suggestion is for the ITM program to include a process whereby FIPs can apply for extensions by providing performance history and justification for the request for extended timelines. The extension request would need to be approved or denied by the oversight committee (see Question #9) with the decision to be published on the MSC website and FisheryProgress.org. While we understand the objectives of MSC are to have as many fisheries as possible enter full - assessment and become certified, we do not support the requirements for the fishery to enter MSC full In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 9

10 assessment during the last year of the FIP. There may some question as to whether this would be legally enforceable, but our view is that it is that the MSC's responsibility is to ensure its certification program is attractive enough for fisheries to want to pursue certification after completing a FIP. From our perspective, we do like to see fisheries aim for certification but we understand that it s up to the fishery to make that market decision. Any decision not to enter MSC full-assessment at the end of a FIP should of course preclude any further recognition. If MSC continues down this track we recommend modifying existing language to require fisheries to enter full-assessment within a specified time after completion of the FIP as requiring FIPs to enter full-assessment prior to FIP completion, in their final year, reduces their much-needed time. Moreover, considerable preparation is required by fisheries prior to a full-assessment. Respondent r) Most current models for basic and comprehensive FIPs do not have a maximum timeframe (see Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement Projects ). The suggestion of a 5-7-year inclusion is not complementary to this approach. In addition, it is worth noting that an MSC certified fishery can have over 5 years to fulfil conditions (E.g. in exceptional circumstance of or the case of stock recovery) and often in practice can take much longer than 5 years; holding a FIP to the same or higher standard as an MSC fishery seems incongruous with the spirit of FIPs. The idea also seems counter to MSC s stated goal of using the ITM to support improved access and participation for small scale developing world fisheries. In order to be MSC certified a conditional pass is required. However this consultation suggests the aim of a FIP is an unconditional pass when there are no entry requirements. The rationale is this is precautionary and will equate to a conditional pass in the MSC system. Such an assumption remains untested, no examples are provided, and it is our experience that precaution is built into the scoring of FIPs at the outset, not at the end point. This aspect, coupled with the 5 year timeline, is not complementary to existing initiatives. Q5. With reference to Section 4.3 of the consultation paper, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the removal of fisheries that fall behind on transition targets from the ITM Program No. of respondents % of respondents Strongly agree 4 24 Agree Neither agree or disagree 1 6 Disagree 1 6 Strongly disagree 0 0 In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 10

11 Q6. Please add any other comments you have about the penalties of non-performance? Respondent a) This has to be 'in transition' rather than a place to loiter Respondent b) Many of PIs improvements do not depend directly on the good will of the future clients but on difficult political situations. A verification about the cause should be driven before any decision of removal, which must not be automatic if progress falls behind the expected at the action plan. The general requirement should be a minimum progress against a more refined MSC BMT (for example, 0.1/year). Respondent c) Including a mechanism to identify if a fishery is falling behind its progress targets could be good to avoid any fishery being removed. By addressing the problems before they become too big, the fisheries might be more engaged in continuing with the program. Respondent d) If a fishery falls behind on its targets, and returns to the ITM program with a significantly changed scope (for FisheryProgress.org, this includes things like expanded geographic scope, major changes to participants, etc), MSC might consider allowing the FIP to re-start at year 0, or some other timing concession. Respondent g) Certified fisheries that are not on track with condition progress are not suspended - the same should apply to ITM fisheries as long as they can still complete action plan with 5/ 7 years. Respondent h) Perhaps add a minimum period after which a fishery (ie unit of certification) that failed on its ITM can re-enter again. For example, unit of certification A dropped out of the ITM process in 2018 with 2 years remaining: By which time can it enter again for ITM? My suggestion would be 5 years after the end date of the first 5- (or 7-) year ITM period. Respondent i) We agree that some type of progress report is necessary to penalize non-performa nce and incentivize participating fisheries to meet targets, but we believe this should be done in the most cost effective and the least burdensome manner possible. We wonder if there can be mechanisms built into the Fishery Improvement Action Plans and/or fisheryprogress.org that would demonstrate progress and allow the MSC Review Committee to review performance, without requiring additional reports to be created. Respondent j) We agree with penalties to non-conformance described in the consultation document Respondent k) With reference to line 145, specifically to improvement targets, we would like clarification on when and how these targets will be set? We recommend that the MSC should consider a period of 2-3 months before dropping the fisheries from the program Respondent m) MSC suggests that a fishery which is not able to reach their progress targets within a year lose their status in 'MSC preparation program'. Note: Before a fishery lose their status all progresses, activities and optionally external factors should be checked. They could be responsible for the delay: if a fishery, for example meet greater challenges than anticipated, the fishery should be supported not penalised. Respondent n) The results of the audit should be published as summary and optionally equipped with a traffic light system for a faster detection of results. Respondent p) We oppose any public recognition/market benefits of being MSC ITM this is extremely important to maintain the value of MSC for certified clients. This raises questions over the concept of penalties of non-performance, which is a critical issue. What happens if a fishery does not enter full MSC assessment in 5 years can they reapply or are they barred forever? What will happen to ITM fisheries removed from the programme? As fisheries can suspend membership of the ITM programme and re-join at a later date, then the overall timeframe is potentially endless. Also, the wording MSC reserves the right to suspend sounds very vague. Respondent q) If the MSC ITM program is, as stated, requiring its FIPs to be publicly reported on the FisheryProgress.org website then for purposes of consistency, it must align with the timelines for removal of non-performing FIPs that is currently being advocated by FisheryProgress.org. We acknowledge that In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 11

12 the ITM proposal is currently aligned with FisheryProgress.org with respect to the clock not being reset once a fishery re-enters the program after a penalty. The ITM program needs to be more explicit about what falling behind on progress targets means. Does this mean, behind on one PI? At least two PIs? Or more PIs? Clarification and definition is also required on accepted number of non-conformities in one year or multiple years and an agreed process of remediation to avoid suspension/expulsion from the ITM program. For example, there could be a warning system initiated when a fishery doesn't meet its progress targets which initiates a process or agreed revision of targets (through the independent verification process) and where if new targets are not met then suspension or expulsion results. A critical shortcoming of the existing FIP space is continued market recognition of non-performing FIPs and inadequate responses by buyers and stakeholders in bringing those FIPs to account and penalizing them for non-performance. There should however be merit-based systems in place that allow for nonperforming and delisted FIPs to re-enter the program. Respondent r) Penalties for non-performance are undefined in the Conservation Alliance guidelines and while WWF FIP guidelines allow a year's grace to get back on track (mirroring the MSC condition setting process). The penalties described in the ITM do not match either Conservation Alliance guidelines or WWF guidelines, creating additional and unnecessary complexity in the improvement process. Q7. With reference to Section 5.1 in the consultation document, please indicate your preference for the frequency of verification of progress within the ITM Program (Most preferred 1st, least preferred 4th) The MSC's proposal of progress verification by the end of Year 2, and entry into full assessment in Year 5 (with modifications set out in the consultation paper for developing world small scale fisheries) Annually Every 2 years Year 2 and Year 4 (and Year 6 for developing world small scale fisheries) Once at the half way point in the In-transition timeframe No. of respondents Preference 1st -4th (Most preferred to least preferred) End of Year Annually Every 2 years Half way point Q8. Please add any other comments you have on the frequency of progress verification In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 12

13 Respondent b) Annually would be too expensive. The poll obligates to put an order but we don t want it at all Respondent c) Having annual verification could increase the costs too much, making it difficult for SSF in developing countries to participate. Also, for SSF in developing countries, if the approach adopted is to carry out verification every 2 years, they should be in year 3 and 7 instead of 2 and 5 Respondent d) We suggest that the verification process harmonize with the FisheryProgress audit schedule (page 9 of this document) in order to minimize burden on FIP implementers and increas e our organizational efficiency: Every three years from the date the profile is posted on FisheryProgress.org, comprehensive FIPs are required to have an independent in-person audit of action results and performance against the MSC standard by someone who is both experienced with the MSC standard. Respondent h) No further comments Respondent i) We agree that an independent and cost effective verification system is a key component of a credible and rigorous ITM Program. As previously noted, we believe this process should be done as cost effective as possible and should be informed by lessons learned from past fisheries pursuing MSC certification. To that end, we believe the verification frequency and timing should be informed by looking at data from past FIPs, including how frequent FIPs stall in the pursuance of MSC certification caused by failing to meet objectives set in their Fishery Improvement Action Plan, and during what stage stalling occurs. Respondent j) Every three years, comprehensive FIPs must arrange for an independent in-person audit of activity results and performance against the MSC standard by someone that is both experienced with the MSC standard (e.g., a registered MSC technical consultant or accredited conformity assessment body or has other demonstrated qualifications approved by the reviewer) and independent from the organization implementing the FIP. While having the first progress verification be on the third year of the ITM program may be somewhat late in the process, it would be desirable to have the result of the progress verification required by fisheryprogress.org be accepted as part of the progress verification in the ITM program, as a way to avoid duplicated verification efforts. To achieve this, the verification of progress frequency in the ITM program may need to be flexible (e.g. be able to delay the first progress verification from year #2 to year #3) to accommodate results from the verification of progress conducted as part of FIP requirements. Note that if verification of progress in the ITM was to be conducted annually, the alignment with FIPs would be easier to implement. However, this approach would hardly be acceptable form a cost-effective point of view. Respondent p) Annually sounds too onerous, but verification should be sufficient to ensure progress is being made. Year 4 allows for changes to be made before the 5-year deadline. Respondent q) Because FIPs are receiving preferential sourcing and because of the fairly restrictive timelines being imposed, it is essential that the ITM program along those stakeholders sourcing from the FIP are fully aware of what progress is being made, or not. Anything other than annual reviews, may identify problems too late and compromise the capability of the fishery to meet the timelines imposed (i.e. 5 or 7 years). For this reason, our FIPs have always aimed for annual in-person reviews by a FIP consultant trained to apply the MSC standard While we see annual verification as beneficial in identifying progress and challenges or roadblocks in a timely manner, in informing the need for progress revisions and updates in a prudent manner and keeping the FIP participants motivated, it has proven to be a challenging ambition given stakeholder and consultant schedules and the cost of engaging western FIP consultants. One option for facilitating the more frequent annual audits would be to provide some flexibility in audits being undertaken within a given timeframe after the end of each year (e.g. within 3 months of each FIP anniversary). Without this review and verification buffer, then we may be open to biennial independent or external reviews, but we would call for more rigorous desktop assessment of documentation, including virtual meetings with FIP stakeholders in odd years Also, what happens if a fishery is late in submitting a two-yearly review? Who will monitor this and will there be penalties for non-compliance? In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 13

14 Respondent r) Conservation Alliance guidelines state that comprehensive FIPs must undergo an audit every three years while the ITM suggests an audit be conducted every 2 or 2.5/3.5 years. The verification frequencies described in the ITM do not match either Conservation Alliance guidelines or WWF guidelines, creating additional and unnecessary complexity in the improvement process. Q9. With reference to Section 4.2 in the consultation document, please rank the proposed options for the verification system in order of preference (most preferred 1st, least preferred 3rd). Option 1: Existing Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) system Option 2: Accredited Auditor and Independent Committee system Option 3: Approved Auditor and Oversight Committee system No. of respondents Preference 1st -3rd (Most preferred to least preferred) 1st 2nd 3rd CAB Accredited Auditor & Independent Committee Approved Auditor & Oversight Committee Q10. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the proposed recognition mechanism. Please refer to Section 6 and Figure 2 in the consultation document. The MSC should provide confidential information about a fishery's participation in the ITM Program to registered parties for the purposes of funding and investment. The MSC should provide recognition of a fishery's participation in the ITM Program through listing on a dedicated webpage within the MSC website ( during the entire 'In transition' process. The MSC should only provide public and market focused recognition of a fishery's participation in the ITM Program, through listing on a dedicated webpage within the MSC website ( once progress has been independently verified. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 14

15 No. of respondents Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Confidential communication Unconditional recognition Recognition conditional on progress verification Confidential communication Unconditional recognition Recognition conditional on progress verification Strongly disagree Agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly agree Neither agree or disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree Neither agree or disagree Strongly agree In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 15

16 Agree Neither agree or disagree Agree Agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Agree Agree Disagree Q11. Please provide additional feedback on the initial set of options for the verification system in the comment box below. Respondent a) Deregulating the certification of matters MSC is not without risk and benefits. Inconsistences already exist and these have reputational risks. MSC should be carefully consider the model adopted. Respondent d) FisheryProgress would welcome the opportunity to explore collaboration with MSC on the ITM verification system. Comprehensive FIPs on FisheryProgress are required to have an independent in-person audit every three years, and we have also already convened a Technical Oversight Committee that supports our FIP review process. We would look forward to brainstorming further about how we can work together to build on our existing processes to review and verify FIP progress, both for FisheryProgress and the ITM program. Fisheries in the ITM program could be recognized on FisheryProgress through a badge or logo and could be a filter in the FIP search function. We think this would bring credibility and consistency to both programs, and reduce time/cost for FIP implementers. Respondent g) CoC needs to be allowed to make this work in terms of market buy-in for ITM. Respondent i) As previously noted, we agree that an independent and cost effective verification system is a key component of a credible and rigorous ITM Program, and that oversight mechanisms are needed to ensure that the competence and consistent performance of verification providers is periodically reviewed in order to check and ensure the quality and rigor of the verification system. We see Option 2 as a good choice to minimize impartiality and operating costs. An Independent Committee made up of volunteer-based third party scientists and other independent experts (much like a peer review system) is an ideal way to remove biases and vested interests in the outcomes of the processes. Furthermore, the involvement of independent experts may have other benefits, including spreading familiarity of the MSC standard within industry, academia, and marine conservation communities, and inviting suggestions for improvement to MSC processes. Respondent j) Option 3 entails the creation of both a Selection Panel and an Oversight committee. While it may seem less costly than option 1, how feasible is it to have TAB or MSC stakeholder Committee members be part of the Oversight committee? It may considerably increase their workload. We chose Option 1 as our preferred option given its consistency with the current MSC certification process. Option 2 may also be reasonable, as only one CAB is involved in the process and there is no need for a Selection panel. However, the composition of the Independent Committee and the availability of its members keeps being an issue, as is the composition of the Oversight Committee from Option 3. Respondent p) In considering these objectives there is statement at line 215 that Option 1 has the highest operating costs. This is not demonstrated, and on the face of the document contradicted by the narrative surrounding the other options. Options 2 and 3 require the development of entirely new programs and significant extensions of MSC s competencies. Furthermore, we believe Options 2 and 3 may create the potential for new problems of their own, and conflicts of interest and/or points of controversy. For example, under Option 3 there might be perceived pressure on a CAB where a fishery graduates from ITM with a clean report but then needs to be assessed by a CAB. Also, in essence, keep it simple if there is an existing, understood, system - then use it, and avoid creating new systems within systems. This is a key element of simplification and should be central to all MSC developments. Respondent q) In relation to Q9 above, would it be appropriate to make a note that most strongly preferred is Option 2 after which some preferred Option 1 as second choice and some wanting Option 3 as the second choice. In Transition to MSC Summary of consultation feedback 16