Consultation Summary Feedback Report - ITM - Home · PDF file ·...

Marine Stewardship Council

Consultation Topic: In Transition to MSC Program

Summary of consultation feedback Public Consultation: 1 March to 30 April 2017

In Transition to MSC – Summary of consultation feedback 1

1

1. Introduction 2 3 In June 2016, the MSC’s Board of Trustees approved the development of, and consultation on, a new 4

program that will independently verify and recognise fisheries that are making demonstrable fishery 5 improvements towards achieving MSC Certification - the In Transition to MSC (ITM) Program. 6 7

The consultation paper set out initial proposals for the ITM Program and sought feedback on options relating 8 to the following components of the ITM Program: 9

1) Program requirements – initial proposals for entry requirements to participate in the ITM Program, 10

the timeframes within which fishery improvements should be completed; and penalties for non -11 performance. 12

2) Verification system - an initial set of options for the verification system which will provide independent 13

confirmation that fisheries meet Program requirements; and 14 3) Benefits - an initial proposal of the benefits for fisheries who meet ITM Program requirements. 15

16

2. Stakeholder Consultation 17 18 The MSC Executive held a 60-day public consultation on this topic from 1 March to 30 April 2017. In 19

addition, three webinars1 were conducted and presentations on the ITM Program public consultation were 20

made at three workshops2: 21

22

21 individuals or organisations submitted comments on the ITM Program during public consultation. 15 of 23

these were submitted through the online survey, 2 were written responses to the survey questions with 24

extensive comments, and 4 were separate written responses. 25

26

Responses were received from organisations and individuals from: the USA, the UK, Germany, France, 27

New Zealand, Panama, Switzerland and Indonesia. Responses were received from NGOs, 28

wholesaler/distributors, primary and secondary processors, importers, retailers, fishers, a certification body, 29

a standard setting body, the food service sector and fishing industry associations. 30

31

3. Summary of stakeholder feedback 32 33

17 respondents provided specific feedback to the 13 questions in the public consultation survey. 4 34

respondents provided written responses therefore their comments have been incorporated into the 35

question feedback table (Table 1) under the most relevant questions. Where comments did not pertain any 36

survey questions, they have been collated in an additional feedback table (Table 2). 37

38

This section provides a summary of the analysis of the results of the survey questions and a summary of 39

the additional comments received. The summary of comments is intended to provide a flavour of the 40

responses received rather than to portray all issues raised. The full set of feedback received is provided in 41

Section 6. 42

43

3.1. Survey results 44

45

Minimum performance entry requirements (Q1, Q2 & Q3) 46

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

http://www.msc.org/

https://improvements.msc.org/database/itm/consultations/first-consultation-itm-march2013april-2017

Public Consultation – 1 March to 30 April 2017


Respondents were asked to choose the option they thought the MSC should adopt with respect to a minimum 47 performance level as an entry requirement of the ITM Program. 82% of respondents chose the option to 48

exclude minimum performance criteria as part of ITM Program entry requirements. 49

50 Figure 1: Options for minimum performance criteria 51

52 Additional comments in relation to entry requirements include: 53

• MSC should consider the inclusion of social elements in entry requirements 54

• The use of minimum performance requirements should be tested before introducing them 55

• Important entry requirements are a pre-assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard and an 56 action plan that is capable of delivering the necessary improvement in specified timeframes for all 57 fisheries in the ITM Program. 58

• The focus should be on the primary requirement of being able to demonstrate a credible path. 59

• Entry requirements are not complimentary to existing initiatives 60

• Option a requires a timeframe requirement which should be considered as a performance entry 61

requirement 62 63 ITM Program timeframes (Q4) 64

Of those who provided input on timeframes (12 respondents) two thirds (67%) were not supportive of the 65 MSC’s proposal that the maximum timeframe for a fishery to participate in the ITM Program would be 5 66 years, with an extension to 7 years for small scale developing world fisheries. 67 68

The issues raised in relation to timeframes included: 69

• The same timeframe should apply to all fisheries in the ITM Program – some respondents suggested 70 this standard timeframe should be 5 years, other respondents suggested longer timeframes should 71

be applied. 72

• A two-year extension for small-scale developing world fisheries is not the appropriate mechanism 73 by which to address accessibility issues with regards to small-scale fisheries - 2 years is too short a 74

timeframe to be meaningful or make a difference 75

• The MSC should explore a different approach e.g. specification of timeframes based on pre -76 assessment results or species life characteristics. 77

• The MSC needs to define and clarify ‘small scale developing world fisheries’ 78

• Current models for basic and comprehensive FIPs do not have a maximum timeframe (see 79 Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions’ “Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement 80 Projects”). The suggestion of a 5-7-year inclusion is not complementary to this approach. 81

82

Penalties of non-performance (Q5 and Q6) 83

The MSC proposed that that if a fishery in the ITM Program falls behind its progress targets by more than 84

one year, its status as being ‘In Transition to MSC’, i.e. an ITM fishery, will be removed. A fishery could re-85

enter the ITM Program, but will only be eligible for a cumulative 5- or 7-year period in the ITM Program. 86

This proposal was supported by 88% of respondents. 87



88

This support was accompanied by requests for clarification on progress verification, ‘removal’ and ‘re-89

joining’ processes. There were also suggestions for the MSC to consider mechanisms that would identify if 90

a fishery is falling behind progress, why progress is not being made and to understand the external factors 91

influencing fishery improvements. It was noted that the process applied to the progress of certified fisheries 92

against conditions should be applied to the ITM Program. Alternative approaches to the ‘cumulative’ 93

timeframe were suggested, for example a minimum amount of time between a fishery being removed from 94

the ITM Program and being able to re-join. Concerns were raised about fisheries in the ITM program that 95

decided not to enter MSC full-assessment or that failed full-assessment and the implications of these 96

outcomes on the ITM Program and the MSC Certification program. 97

98

Frequency of independent verification of progress (Q7 & Q8) 99

Independent verification of progress every 2 years was the most preferred option with 65% of respondents 100

(11) ranking it as their 1st or 2nd choice (i.e. most preferred). The MSC’s proposal of independent 101

verification of progress by the end of Year 2 (in a 5-year ITM Program) was also supported with 59% of 102

respondents (10) ranking it as their 1st or 2nd choice. Annual independent verification of progress was the 103

least preferred option with 65% of respondents (11) ranking it as their 3rd or 4th choice. 104

105

106 Figure 2: Respondent preference for verification frequency options 107 *most preferred = combined 1st and 2nd rankings, **least preferred = combined 3 rd and 4th rankings 108

109 Additional comments on verification frequency included: 110

• Annual verification is beneficial in identifying progress and challenges in a timely manner, anything 111

other than annual review may identify issues too late and compromise the abil ity of the fishery to 112 meet timelines imposed. 113

• Annual independent verification of progress is costly for fisheries 114

• Verification frequency and timing should be informed by looking at data from past FIPs to identify 115

the stage at which FIP progress stalling occurs 116

• Align verification frequency with FisheryProgress.org process and requirements 117

• Verification should be sufficient to ensure progress is being made 118 119

Verification system options (Q9 & Q11) 120

Respondents were asked to rank the three options proposed for the verification system in their order of 121

preference. There was little difference between 1st choice rankings across the 3 options. The accredited 122

auditor and independent committee option received the highest number of 2nd choice rankings. The CAB 123

choice option received the most 3rd choice rankings. 124

125



126 Figure 3: Respondent preference for verification systems 127

128 Additional comments and suggestions on the verification system options included: 129

• The MSC should consider collaborating with FisheryProgress.org and their FIP review and 130 verification processes 131

• An Independent Committee made up of volunteer-based third party scientists and other independent 132 experts (much like a peer review system) is an ideal way to remove biases and vested interests in 133

the outcomes of the processes. 134

• Option 1 (CAB) provides consistency with current MSC processes 135

• Composition of the proposed Committees and the availability of its members is an issue e.g. 136

availability of 3rd party experts 137

• The Accredited Auditor seems to guarantee a more rigorous review process than that which could 138 be achieved with an “Approved” auditor 139

• Who will pay for the Independent Committee or Oversight Committee? 140

• The MSC Technical Consultant or CAB who prepares the FIP Action Plan could be the same as the 141 Consultant or CAB who then verifies the FIP - they will have a familiarity with fishery stakeholders 142 and be knowledgeable about the fishery. Then have the Committee review. 143

• If there is an existing, understood system it should be used to avoid creating new systems within 144 systems. Options 2 and 3 require the development of entirely new programs and significant 145 extensions of MSC’s competencies, and may create the potential for new problems of their own, and 146

conflicts of interest. 147 148

Recognition approach (Q10 & Q12) 149

Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the MSC’s proposed step-wise 150

approach to the recognition of fisheries participating in the ITM Program: confidential communication of 151

information about fisheries in the ITM Program for the purposes of funding/investment and meeting 152

requirements of other sustainability standards, with market-focused and public recognition being 153

conditional upon a fishery’s progress having been independently verified. Respondents also asked the 154

extent to which they agreed or disagreed with an alternative approach which would provide recognition 155

during the entire ITM process (i.e. unconditional recognition). 156

157

Confidential communication was supported by the majority of respondents (13). However, there was a 158

mixed and inconclusive response to both the conditional and unconditional recognition approaches. 9 of 159

the 17 respondents disagreed with a recognition mechanism that is conditional of progress verification, 160

whereas 6 respondents agreed with this option. 9 respondents agreed with an alternative approach of 161

recognition of fisheries in the ITM Program during the entire ITM process, whereas 5 respondents 162

disagreed with this approach. 163

164



165 Figure 4: Respondent preference for recognition options 166

167

Comments and suggestions relating to the recognition of fisheries in the ITM Program can be loosely 168 categorised into 2 opposing camps: 169

• Recognition, promotion or endorsement of fisheries in the ITM Program by MSC would undermine 170

the value of the MSC’s certification and ecolabelling program, and would undermine the position of 171

MSC certified fisheries in the market place. Therefore, the MSC should not give recognition 172

fisheries unless they are certified, i.e. recognition should not be a part of the ITM Program. 173

• Recognition should be given to fisheries in the ITM Program, and that this should be incorporated 174

into the FisheryProgress.org platform. 175

176

Alignment with FisheryProgress.org (Q13) 177

General support for the ITM Program to align with FisheryProgress.org came from 11 respondents. 178

However, 4 respondents were not supportive of the alignment proposed. Comments on the alignment with 179

FisheryProgress.org related to the alignment being necessary to avoid duplication of effort for FIPs and to 180

avoid confusion for both FIPs and the market. It was also noted that the MSC should not promote the 181

website, and that FisheryProgress.org did not provide the level of detail needed by FIPs. 182

183

3.2. Additional feedback 184

Additional issues raised by respondents related to: 185

• Exclusion of traceability and Chain of Custody mechanisms from the ITM Program 186

• The ITM Program would provide added rigour to progress verification but in doing so would add 187

cost which FIPs would struggle with. 188

• The ITM program as currently envisioned will only target fisheries that are already working with 189

NGOs on FIPs, therefore making incremental conservation gain. 190

• FIPs need technical and financial support 191

• FIP timeframes and progress can be compromised by matters beyond the stakeholder’s control (e.g. 192 funding shortages, government inertia and change, natural phenomena, stock externalities). The 193 ITM Program proposal does not include protocols for addressing these. 194

195 For all additional comments please see Table 2. 196 197

4. MSC Response 198 199 Thank you very much to all stakeholders who took the time to look at the consultation document and 200

provide such detailed feedback on the development of the In Transition to MSC Program. We appreciate 201

receiving your thoughts on the initial proposals. The MSC has noted all comments and will endeavour to 202

incorporate these, where possible and relevant, into the next phase of the ITM Program development. 203

204



5. Next Steps 205 206

All feedback received will be considered in the development of this work and presented to the MSC 207

Stakeholder Council steering committee, the Board of Trustees and the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) in 208

the coming months. These governance bodies will decide on the next steps of the ITM Program and further 209

consultation. 210

211

6. All consultation feedback 212

213 Table 1: Survey feedback 214

215

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 1.1.2 (stock rebuilding) and PI 3.2.3 (compliance and enforcement) meeting SG 60.

Feedback received

No. of respondents

% of respondents

Option a 14 82

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

Feedback received

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?



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 1.1.2 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?

Feedback received

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



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 Pre-

assessment 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: 7.1.1 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?

Feedback received

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 0-0.5-1). 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.



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



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

Feedback received

No. of respondents

% of respondents

Strongly agree 4 24

Agree 11 65

Neither agree or disagree 1 6

Disagree 1 6

Strongly disagree 0 0



Q6. Please add any other comments you have about the penalties of non-performance?

Feedback received

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-performance 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



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 verificat ion 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 non-

performing 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

Feedback received

No. of

respondents Preference 1st -4th

(Most preferred to least preferred)

1 2 3 4

End of Year 2 7 3 6 0

Annually 5 0 3 8

Every 2 years 4 7 6 0

Half way point 1 6 1 8

Q8. Please add any other comments you have on the frequency of progress verification

Feedback received



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 verificat ion 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 verificat ion 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?



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 verificat ion 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

Feedback received

No. of respondents Preference 1st -3rd

(Most preferred to least preferred)

1st 2nd 3rd

CAB 5 4 7

Accredited Auditor & Independent Committee 5 8 2

Approved Auditor & Oversight Committee 6 4 5

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 (www.msc.org), 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 (www.msc.org), once progress has been independently verified.

Feedback received

http://www.msc.org/



No. of respondents Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither agree or disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Confidential communication 4 9 1 2 1

Unconditional recognition 3 6 3 3 2

Recognition conditional on progress verification 3 3 2 5 4

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


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



Agree Neither agree or disagree Agree

Agree Agree Neither agree or disagree

Agree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree


Q11. Please provide additional feedback on the initial set of options for the verification system in the comment box below.

Feedback received

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 narrat ive 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.



The option of an Accredited Auditor as the first choice acknowledges the challenges of costs and this option would be cheaper than CA. Moreover, the Accredited Auditor seems to guarantee a more rigorous review process than that which could be achieved with an “Approved” auditor. That said we have concerns

with all options in relation to the phased approach presented in the consultation document under section 5.2. Specifically:

• FIP preparation should never be done by a “fishery stakeholder.” They do not have the expertise

needed to draft a rigorous and conforming FIP Action Plan that will ensure the fishery is on the right path to meet the MSC standard within the appropriate timeframe. Requiring a CAB or MSC technical consultant to do the preparation is not only more credible but will also likely save time and money in

the end, because work by a “stakeholder” would likely need to be re-done down the line.

• There is no explanation of who will pay for the Independent Commit tee or Oversight Committee? This may be a double-edged sword in that while costs of accredited and/or approved auditor may be less than the CAB, the added costs of engaging the Independent and/or Oversight committee could

neutralize or offset these savings

• If there is some intention of having these oversight/independent committees act in a voluntary capacity (i.e. peer review college approach) the that needs to be articulated.

In terms of improving efficiency and controlling costs we present the following options:

• Have the MSC Technical Consultant or CAB who prepares the FIP Action Plan be the same as the

Consultant or CAB who then verifies the FIP as they will have a familiarity with fishery stakeholders and be knowledgeable about the fishery. We would suggest allowing them to be the same and then having the Committee review. We are unclear about why this is presented as a conflict of interest?

• A hybrid approach to verification where, under an annual review system, approved auditors with an Oversight Committee (Option 3) undertake the reviews in odd years and accredited auditors undertake audits in the biennial years

Respondent r) FIPs posted and tracked on fisheryprogress.org are reviewed by a designated reviewer, and fisheryprogress.org has both a Technical Oversight Committee and an Advisory Committee who provide additional oversight. Requiring FIPs to undergo an inclusion decision by a separate CAB or

oversight committee seems redundant and overly burdensome. Additionally, requiring the services of a CAB or external auditor for verification adds significant expense, which would be a barrier to many fisheries becoming engaged in the improvement process.

Respondent s) Regarding audit entities, we believe that options 2 and 3 should be prioritized and requi re further information on the current scope of intervention of representatives of the Stakeholders' Council

and the Consultative Commission MSC technique to clarify whether to set up an independent or supervisory committee for decision-making.

Q12. With reference to Section 6 in the consultation document, please add any other comments you have

on benefits of the ITM Program for participating fisheries.

Feedback received

Respondent a) The MSC brand will be diluted in creating a sub standard but fisheries should be given

the chance. As the MSC is market led then there will need to be a new model/ethos otherwise MSC ITM will simply drive more fish from the developing world to the high value markets in the developed world

Respondent b) Public MSC recognition should be received immediately in the case of FIPs whose starting date predates the ITM program implementation, if they have already achieved demonstrable progress during their lifetime.

Respondent c) The recognition proposal should have more details in what is meant with "demonstrate progress", depending on the fishery, progress could mean big changes, or small steps that might lead to

a bigger progress in comparison to the starting point of that fishery. When dealing with SSF in developing countries, the ITM program should be flexible when recognizing progress, and use the initial baseline of a fishery to measure it.

Respondent e) "the ITM program reduces the value proposition to MSC client fisheries, of which we are a participant. We ask MSC to narrow the scope of the program and to provide additional clarity on the

purpose of use of any ITM prior to further consideration of the initiative. Prior to this consultation, we understood the intent of the ITM was to be a credible FIP program providing a pathway to eventual MSC recognition. Only once certified would the market advantages that go with certification accrue. There is



no role for “public recognition” by the MSC for an ITM. The MSC is a market -based scheme under which certified fisheries achieve the public recognition that can enable them to enjoy increased market access, possible higher prices and other benefits. If the objective of public recognition by the MSC can be achieved

without certification then the incentive to become fully certified is reduced, not increased. We strongly urge any final action on this initiative to not include a public recognition option and to provide

clarity to the limited purpose of an ITM. There is no place for a second tier of MSC-recognized and endorsed fisheries composed of unsustainably managed fisheries that has the potential to undermine the integrity of the MSCs standards and the position of MSC certified fisheries in the marketplace.

The objective of the ITM program needs to be limited, clear and consistent in concept and language to provide unambiguous guidance to clients, prospective clients, retailers and NGOs. The current proposal

does not provide that clarity. Rather, the mixed and confusing messages regarding the objectives of a proposed ITM program may mislead interested fisheries and facilitate an undesired expansion of the program’s mission. An example of the mixed messages put forward in the consultation document:

• At lines 293-295, the document acknowledges that ITM should not undermine the value of MSC certification. Likewise, at 315-317 it asserts that MSC can communicate confidentially with funders and financiers. However, aspects of the proposal would seem to counter these comments:

o At line 53, a key objective of ITM program is stated to be to provide a “clear and transparent way for the market to identify” ITMs.

o At line 283, there is reference to “assistance with supply chain organisation.”

o At line 322, it is noted that “market focused recognition would be achieved through listing on the MSC website.”

Pursuit of these elements in the proposal would directly undermine the value proposition for the certified

fisheries, including the one we participate in. We support the decision by the MSC Board of Trustees to not permit logo usage on ITM products.

However, this decision has limited impacts (only 15% of MSC certified products carry the MSC logo) and offers insufficient protection for client fisheries, particularly given the statements in the consultation that ITM fisheries will achieve market benefits through public recognition by the MSC.

We acknowledge there are significant barriers to MSC certification, particularly for developing country fisheries. However, reducing these for all is a separate issue to ITM.

An ITM fishery could expect to use its aspirational objective and potential for progress toward MSC certification to get access to substantial resources for improving the sustainability of their fishery. An ITM

should not also expect market support from the MSC." Respondent i) We strongly agree that an important role of the ITM Program is to provide benefits and

incentives for fisheries to make improvements towards sustainability and to give credibility to the FIP space. The proposed benefits listed in the consultation document is a good start; benefits should seek to support fisheries through financial and technical support, or through public recognition. We would

encourage the independent committee (if option #2 was chosen) to play a strong role in delivering technical support and helpful advice, not just as decision-makers. A criticism we frequently hear from those engaged in small scale fishery improvement projects (but not necessarily FIPs) is that it’s simply not

cost effective for these fisheries to pursue MSC certification due to their relative low value, limited capacity to make improvements, the low starting point for many of these fisheries, and the inadequate financial benefits gained from achieving MSC certification. In many of the smal l-scale fisheries where we are

engaged in improvement projects, we track improvements against the MSC standard using the Benchmarking Tool, but do not plan to enter MSC full assessment or pursue certification. In order to incentivize the ITM Program for more small-scale fisheries, we encourage MSC to consider this reality and find ways to reduce the financial burden on achieving and maintaining MSC certification status.

Respondent j) We support the idea of not only listing ITM fisheries in the MSC website after the first verification of progress; but also having these fisheries’ progress be public in the fisheryprogress.org

website. Respondent m) A listing on fisheryprogress.org is an acknowledgement of the progress itself, but without

including additional certification costs and field visits another great motivator for participating at ITM program, seems to me, is direct support. For example, with consultation or financial support. Are there



any considerations for this purpose? This could happen when the MSC releases financing applications for sub projects of FIP (fees for scientists, organisation of meetings etc.) in some kind of crowd founding platform where sustainable interested producers, retailers etc. could fund them

Respondent p) Section 6 is generally of great concern. The overall thrust of this section is contrary to assurances in Lines 65-67 and 86-88. The narrative appears to misconceive the core issue. The issue is

not how the MSC intends market and public facing materials be used, but how it can actually be used. Lines 283-284. The benefits of existing MSC certification in the supply chain should not be diluted in the manner suggested.

Line 285. Qualification for support for ITM programs is the signal benefit of ITM. This will be of particular benefit to developing world fisheries where access to additional private resources and government support is contingent on the funder being assured of the ‘impact’ of that funding. This should be more strongly

emphasised. Line 287. Public support is problematic. It is private support that is appropriate. See also lines 289-292. For reasons given in the accompanying letter, and above, we believe that aspects of this paper would

undermine incentives associated with MSC accreditation. Lines 299-305. We do not believe this should be a relevant consideration given it is not MSC’s accreditation programs that are being reviewed.

Lines 310-318. Generally supported. Lines 320-324. Again market focused incentives should not be provided and ‘public recognition’ is problematic. We are not assured by this that ‘public’ recognition could be managed to limit effect on MSC

incentives for certified fisheries. Respondent q) Other comments for consideration are:

• While it is understandable that the MSC only wants to provide market recognition to FIPs after progress has been verified (at the one or two-year mark, the reality is that many major buyers already include language around supporting FIPs in their sourcing commitments prior to that and

they are not likely going to change that in the near future (many US buyer partners re-signed 5-year MOUs just this past year). In addition, FIPs in the early stages need market support to maintain interest and momentum

• it is not clear that adding “In Transition to MSC” to a FIP profile on FisheryProgress.org would provide added benefit to any FIP. If the FIP is already publicly listed as comprehensive, that’s likely sufficient in the market. There will likely need to be stronger incentives to encourage fisheries to enter the ITM program, particularly if there is added cost for little benefit beyond what they would get

from doing a comprehensive FIP Respondent r) Fisheryprogress.org already has a process for listing, tracking, and reporting on a variety

of types of FIPs. MSC is proposing to create a sublist of specific FIPs that conform to MSC criteria, to be called out as such, linked to the MSC website. Differentiation on fisherprogress.org is neither complementary to existing collaborative efforts, nor would it provide clarity for FIP stakeholders and

industry who have requested conformity in FIP tracking and reporting. Further, tracking ITM “FIPs” on any platform other than fisheryprogress.org would be misaligned with existing FIP tracking processes. The aim with fisheryprogress.org is to ensure a collegiate, consistent message and platform for industry,

providing a onestop shop for FIPs. As it stands the ITM program will create confusion within the industry and devalue existing improvement efforts and tracking processes.

Respondent s) In terms of benefits, we feel it is very important to recognize and value the participants in the ITM program and the progress made. The publication of their name, a presentat ion of their project and some indicators of progress on the MSC site could give them a better visibility and especially with regard

to their clients. Respondent t) We originally understood the ITM was to be a credible FIP program that provided an

aspirational pathway to eventual MSC recognition. Only once certified would the market advantages that go with certification accrue. There is no role for ‘public recognition’ by the MSC for an ITM. MSC is a market‐based scheme under which certified fisheries achieve the public recognition that can enable them

to enjoy increased market access, possible higher prices and other benefits. If the objective of public recognition by MSC can be achieved without certification, then the incentive to become fully certified is

reduced, not increased. While the Board has supported consideration of a recognition option, we strongly urge final action to dismiss that option and provide clarity to the (necessarily limited) purpose of an ITM. There is no place for second tier of MSC‐recognized and endorsed fisheries composed of unsustainably



managed fisheries that has the potential to undermine the integrity of the MSC’s standards and the position of MSC certified fisheries in the marketplace.

Q13. With reference to Section 7 in the consultation document, should the ITM program be even more

closely aligned to FisheryProgress.org, so as to require that all fisheries applying for ITM status are also listed on FisheryProgress.org?

Feedback received

Respondent a) Again ensure that there is a clear identify to the program. A variety of

initiatives/websites/listings will increase confusion Respondent b) We do not see that as necessary

Respondent c) The ITM program should be closely aligned with FisheryProgress, all of the ITM fisheries should be listed in the FisheryProgress website. This will eliminate possible duplication of work, as well

as market confusion by having similar approaches in different websites. Respondent d) We strongly believe that an entry requirement for the ITM program should be listing on

FisheryProgress. FisheryProgress is built on the MSC indicators as the framework for progress reporting, and the website already supports FIPs along the pathway to MSC full assessment. Alignment would help the FIP concept take hold globally, and reduce any perception that FIPs are a US/European tool – a goal

that can only be achieved if we work together as a community. Clear alignment and harmonized messaging should also serve to reduce any potential confusion between the roles of FisheryProgress and ITM – and alleviate potential concerns about cost, duplicative reporting etc. MSC will benefit from all ITM

fisheries using a consistent reporting tool, reducing both time investment and cost for MSC. FisheryProgress will benefit by an increased number of FIPs reporting on the website, supporting and building the central repository for progress tracking, and help promote the uptake of the FIP model globally.

Respondent e) No.

Respondent f) Yes - this will help Fishery Progress to be the single go-to source for FIP information. Respondent g) not necessary if another tool is available. Also FP.org doesn't go into SI level which may

be desired by FIPs. Respondent h) I would not "require" it, perhaps only "recommend" it.

Respondent i) Yes, we think requiring progress through FisheryProgress.org is a great opportunity to increase transparency and accountability, as well as to harmonize progress reporting requirements, in an

effort to reduce duplicative or unnecessary processes. Respondent j) Given the similarities between fisheries entering FIPs and those entering the ITM program,

it would be reasonable to require that all fisheries applying for ITM status are also listed on FisheryProgress.org.

Respondent k) We note the proposals for annual reporting/progress reporting. Here, we support close alignment with FP including requiring all fisheries applying to ITM to also be listed on FP. This will allow for closer alignment on reporting and ensure efficiencies and reduce duplication.

Respondent l) Yes

Respondent m) Yes Respondent n) Yes

Respondent o) Yes

Respondent p) We query the strong alignment suggested. An ITM is also a FIP. If an ITM client wished to register as a FIP, they are free to do so and it would be their choice. As information is not managed by the MSC, identification as an ITM should not come from the MSC. It is not appropriate for the MSC to do



so, nor is it appropriate for the fishery to promote MSC connections on this website, but instead the credibility of its own program.

Respondent q) Yes. The FIP community and funders have spent a lot of time developing FisheryProgress.org and getting industry to use it. We strongly suggest that the MSC does not develop a duplicative site as this would likely i) create confusion in terms of public recognition and ii) add additional

reporting burdens to industry and FIP coordinators who would probably prefer to have their information on FisheryProgress.org. Having a dedicated MSC ITM website would seem to be creating a duplicative FIP website, given the development of the new ‘benchmark’; FisheryProgress.org website. It would seem to

make more sense for the ITM program to piggyback off this website, that is now becoming recognized as the primary website for FIPs globally. This could entail the MSC listing its ITM FIPs on its website with a link to FisheryProgress.org for detailed information.

216 Table 2: Additional feedback 217 218

Feedback received in writing

Feedback received

Respondent q)

As mentioned we expect full transparency from Fisheries in FIPs to enable meaningful management plan development and verification of the action plan milestones reached. Our understanding is that without transparency all management is mismanagement. Some pragmatism is needed in relation to timelines

for moving toward transparency and related traceability compliance, but we advocate for implementing feasible (e.g. cost-effective) and appropriate systems within agreed timeframes depending on fishery type and current performance levels (i.e. access to data, socialization and fisher acceptance). Examples

of what we consider as transparency measures include; VMS, AIS, SmartTrack, but at the discretion of the fishery. Other transparency practices involving on-board observers, and observance from shore of near-coast activities within visibility distances, should be adhered to.

The ITM program currently includes no mechanism for traceability from FIP to plate (and therefore reliable FIP sourcing claims) or ensuring that fisheries are also ready to meet the MSC Chain of Custody

standard once they move into full assessment. We have been pushing for traceability in FIPs so that business partners (and one could argue investors) have assurance they are actually sourcing from/supporting the FIP in question (because a number of our partners have sourcing policies that

include comprehensive FIPs). We are not trying to develop a complete traceability system, but something that will in the end then help the fishery meet the MSC’s CoC requirements, given that the end goal of many FIP fisheries is to earn MSC certification and sell certified product. During the FIP phase, many of

these fisheries do not have systems that could meet the CoC requirements. If this is not addressed at some point during the FIP a fishery will be in the position of being unable to sell certified product once they finally are certified.

Like the MSC, we want this program to be rigorous, but we are having a difficult time reconciling the level of rigor presented with the resulting added cost for fisheries that already have a very tough time covering

the costs of FIPs (especially developing world fisheries). Sustainable financing solutions and ideas such as a price cap on CABs will be key to making sure this program is successful in terms of getting large numbers of fisheries involved (and targeting the most challenging segment of the market – the small-

scale fisheries). On the topic of small-scale fisheries, we still feel that the ITM program as currently envisioned will only

reach the upper tier of fisheries that cannot yet meet the MSC standard. While the MSC standard applies to all fisheries globally, many fisheries around the world still feel that the MSC program is inaccessible for them or too difficult of a goal. We strongly feel that a system must be developed to engage more

fisheries in meeting the MSC standard, and are concerned that the ITM program will largely target fisheries that are already working with NGOs on FIPs, therefore making incremental conservation gain.

While not necessarily part of the ITM Program, we would like to see the MSC continue to support the work of the Certification and Ratings Group in the development of scoring guideposts from 0-60 as this is critical to engaging many fisheries around the world in the MSC program which have little to no

guidance or improvement benchmarking when found to be performing below SG60 on a given performance indicator. This will be particularly useful for small-scale fisheries in developing countries



Beyond support for 0-60 scoring guideposts, we would like to see the MSC ITM Program investigate whether fisheries that are further from the MSC standard could also benefit from the ITM program, for example by more formerly bringing these fisheries along the improvement pathway and into the ITM

program via basic FIPs. We encourage the MSC to not miss this opportunity

Respondent r) We have concerns about alignment of the ITM program with existing FIP guidelines and processes, and the potential impediments the ITM program might create in motivating sustainability gains for the lowest

performing fisheries that need it the most. Our comments and rationale regarding our lack of support for the current proposal are structured around the key headings below.

Scope of the ITM MSC recognizes that, working together, conservation groups and the seafood industry can be a powerful force for improving the sustainability of seafood and the health of ocean ecosystems, and fishery

improvement offers a unique and flexible way to facilitate this collaboration. The MSC Fisheries Standard is a tool for measuring the performance of fisheries and the progress they make over time. However, the FIP development process is somewhat different from a static certification assessment using an ISO

based certification model (i.e. MSC certification). For example, the co-development of a FIP and the delivery of improvements are different from the independent condition setting of an MSC assessment as a FIP process allows for more customization depending on priorities. The innovative and agile approach

of FIPs can address a wide range of needs and opportunities, having the potential to work beyond the scope of the MSC certification system to include other standards and areas of concern, such as labor, social, and carbon issues.

The current proposal is very limited in scope, and potentially limiting in nature, as it sets out a process for only examining and promoting one aspect of sustainability improvements, that is Comprehensive FIP

progress towards MSC full assessment. While we understand MSC’s motivation to support its business model, this narrow focus risks undervaluing other aspects of FIPs. Additionally, it risks undermining the current flexible approach needed to address some of our most challenging fisheries issues around the

globe for which a myriad of diverse approaches are necessary. Consistency with other initiatives

The ITM clearly articulates the aim to ensure alignment and complementarity with existing fishery improvement initiatives. However, there are a number of areas where a clear lack of consistency creates, at best, inefficiencies and, at worst, risks of undermining other fishery improvement efforts, as we further

outline below. Chain of Custody

MSC notes that FIPs will not be eligible for MSC Chain of Custody certification, in order to retain the associated benefits for fisheries that undergo full MSC certification. While we understand the motivation for MSC wanting to differentiate FIPs from its certified fisheries, traceability is a fundamental systems

level need for most fisheries, including those in the improvement process. Including provisions for making some form of CoC assessment available for FIPs would motivate traceability improvements and accelerate supply chain sustainability, a goal all organizations working in sustainable seafood should be

collectively promoting. Trust the improvement process

Fishery improvement project implementers are generally connected on the ground to fisheries that know the practitioner, and trust them and their advice. As a FIP implementer, we work very hard to engage fisheries in improvement and uses all tools available to get fisheries moving in the direction of

certification. MSC is a standard; and as such, MSC should trust that the implementation community is working with fisheries towards meeting the MSC standard. As we’ve described, FIPs do not fit into a box. As FIP implementers driving results on the ground so that fisheries can enter the MSC assessment

process, we need to be trusted to do our work without putting unrealistic constraints onto already challenged fisheries. There is an inherent risk with MSC’s proposed attempt to normalize the FIP space around its business model. These risks include impeding sustainability gains and creating barriers to

cultivating strong partnerships between MSC and FIP practitioners. Summary and conclusion

Overall, it is unclear to us what additional value the proposed ITM program will bring to the fishery improvement space. While we support frameworks which encourage fisheries to make continuous



improvement towards MSC certification, the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions’ Guidelines already serve that role. A diverse group of sustainable seafood organizations, the MSC included, spent an extensive amount of effort to develop and agree to those guidelines, which are quite aligned with the

MSC standard. We are concerned that creating a parallel but distinct ITM program will cause confusion amongst stakeholders and industry, without increasing opportunities for fisheries seeking actual sustainability improvements, especially those that are small scale and performing poorly.

Respondent s)

• The ITM program seems particularly interesting for us to accompany the fisheries in transition to the MSC

• The various proposals contained in the consultation document seem to us to be generally satisfactory.

Respondent t) We are a client for an MSC certified fishery. We represent the national seafood industry, including harvesters, processors and support sector businesses. We are dedicated to identifying common

problems to the national seafood industry and developing efficient, sustainable solution that provide benefits to the economy, environment and communities.

We are also a member of an association which represents some 100 fisheries in the MSC program and about two-thirds the tonnage in the MSC program.

We oppose ITM proposals that reduce the value proposition to client fisheries. The current consultation document covers a number of issues, but fails to meet these criteria. The association met in Brussels this week and the views expressed below were endorsed unanimously by the members at the annual

meeting. The objective of the ITM programs needs to be limited, clear, and consistent in concept and language

so as to provide unambiguous guidance to clients, prospective clients, retailers and NGOs. The current language in the consultation does not provide that clarity, indeed mixed and confusing messages in regard to the objectives of a proposed ITM program may misled interested fisheries and lay the

foundation for mission creep. For example, the Consultation document at lines 293‐295 acknowledges that ITM should not undermine the value of MSC certification and at 315‐317 the MSC can communicate

confidentially with funders and financiers. Yet, aspects of proposal directly contradict this position. At line 53, a key objective of ITM is stated to be to provide a “clear and transparent way for the market to identify”

ITMs. Further at line 283 there is reference to “assistance with supply chain organization”, at line 304 it is stated that “market based recognition can be provided” and at line 322 that “market focused recognition would be achieved through listing on the MSC website”.

Pursuit of these objectives would directly undermine the value proposition for the certified fisheries. We acknowledge the decision by the MSC Board of Trustees to not permit logo usage on ITM products or

permit traceability systems to be certified by the MSC Chain of Custody Program. This decision offers insufficient protection for client fisheries given statements in the Consultation draft that ITM fisheries will achieve market benefits through public recognition by the MSC.

The scale of the challenge to achieve certification is a significant issue for developed and developing country fisheries alike. We acknowledge there are significant barriers to certification; reducing these for

all is a separate issue to ITM. Barriers to certification are discussed regularly and at length, for example the speed and cost review. An ITM fishery could expect to use its aspirational objective and potential for progress towards MSC certification to get the substantial resources and agency support. An ITM should

not also expect market support from the MSC. In conclusion, we urge the MSC Board of Trustees to: reaffirm as part of its core mission clear market

benefits for certified fisheries; ensure its staff are fully aligned with this mission; and ensure that business development operations do not undermine the interests of client fisheries. These objectives are not just in our own interest—they are also in the interest of the MSC itself.

Respondent u) Background



We would like to make it clear that we strongly oppose MSC’s ITM initiative as it is currently proposed because it will serve only to undermine MSC’s internationally recognised ‘gold standard’ for sustainable fisheries management.

There are already numerous FIP programmes (including those within technical and financial assistance) available to help aspirant fisheries to develop and implement FIPs in the global market. Any action by MSC to create or to endorse any FIP only leads to MSC directly (or inadvertently) endorsing fisheries

which ARE NOT (by definition) sustainably managed (at least in terms of meeting the MSC FCR standards).

General comments We are of the belief that MSC’s active involvement in an ITM programme is neither in the best interests of existing client fisheries nor in the best interest of MSC as it will directly reduce the MSC’s ability to

maintain your unique brand appeal in our markets. We also remain concerned that there is a fundamental disconnect between the objective and rationale

for the ITM program. In our view, MSC’s limited resources would be better placed to actively defend and to enhance your brand in seafood markets. As more fisheries are assessed to be sustainable under MSC’s FCR, including ‘controversial’ fisheries, more pressure will be brought to bear on the ‘credibility’

of MSC and your sustainability standards. In our view, this will be the major (and increasing) threat to MSC’s credibility and ongoing survival over the next decade, not the lack of future client fisheries.

Dilution of the MSC brand The industry have invested millions into improving our fisheries to the level that enables them to meet the stringent MSC requirements and to be recognised in markets as being assessed as sustainable

against the world’s ‘gold standard’, as currently held by MSC. We wish to protect this investment and seeks MSC’s support to assist through acting to protect your brand and not to undermine it.

We currently have six fisheries in public FIPs (squid, oreo and orange roughy) as we enhance their performance towards meeting the MSC FCR.

Since we have entered into these FIPs, we have received a steady stream of enquiries from potential buyers, even though none of these have been assessed to meet the MSC standards nor have they been independently assessed to meet any internationally recognised standards of sustainability. These

enquiries come simply because we have publicly signalled our intent to become assessed by MSC as being sustainable at some time in the future.

Each of these fisheries may well be sustainably managed, and of course we argue that they are, but until they have been independently assessed to meet the MSC FCR then they do not merit the market credibility that MSC certification bestows.

But the market doesn’t distinguish. ‘MSC certified’, ‘Nearly MSC certified’, or ‘Aspiring to become MSC certified sometime in the future’ are all becoming merged into ‘near enough is good enough for us ’ in

seafood markets where the demand for premium-sourced sustainable seafood exceeds the supply. Some buyers are acting now on promises of future behaviours.

It is misguided for the MSC to develop a two-tier program that provides essentially the same benefits to client fisheries, who have completed a rigorous certification against a very high sustainability standard, as it does to FIPs that have yet to demonstrate conformance in any way and, by MSC’s own definition,

are ‘unsustainable’. A competitive market already exists for FIPs

We see no reason for the MSC to be fearful of a lack of global support for the development and implementation of independent FIPs with the end point aimed at MSC certification.

There already exists an effective (and perhaps saturated) market offering a wide range of FIP solutions, including active support (if that is what is required). Any fishery that aspires to achieve MSC certification through an FIP does not want for a lack of options.



MSC already has perfectly serviceable FIP benchmarking and tracking tools available online. If it is MSC’s intention to increase future coverage and revenues, it is not easy to see how the number of candidates will be improved by MSC’s proposed ITM initiative.

For example, the timeframes proposed are immaterial. Most fisheries that seek MSC certification and are likely to achieve certification within 5 years, will do so regardless of the acknowledgement provided

to them via an ITM program. [Fishery] would argue that the additional reporting and tracking requirements proposed by MSC would, in reality, be a deterrent for public notification of their intended certification.

MSC’s business model Conflict of interest For MSC there is a very particular, clear, specific and inherent conflict of interest should you choose to

enter the FIP market. This conflict of interest will serve to dilute your independence as the ‘gold standard” holder, dilute the

value of MSC’s brand to certified fisheries, and act to encourage markets to accept MSC-backed or endorsed FIPs become the default standard (i.e. ‘near enough is good enough’), even though these fisheries are yet to meet the agreed MSC sustainability requirements.

Lack of resourcing FIPs are largely a measure of investment in intent to improve fisheries management practices. MSC is

a standard setting organisation. It is neither a fisheries management nor a fisheries improvement agency and does not have the required resources and expertise to become so. MSC should not enter a market it is not technically equipped to participate in.

Our desire is to continue to support improvements to the MSC programme. However, it is our view that MSC must retain focus on its core mission to provide market benefits for fisheries achieving certification

and protecting the interests of client fisheries who have built the programme to its current level. Failure to do so will undermine the MSC in its entirety and the businesses of its client fisheries.

219

Consultation Summary Feedback Report - ITM - Home · PDF file ·...

Documents

Transcript of Consultation Summary Feedback Report - ITM - Home · PDF file ·...