It’s crucial that MSC adopts best practices for transparent consultation during this review. Stakeholders must understand who is invited to engage and why, how best to engage, how input is used, and how and why decisions are made at each step of the way. We are rating MSC against our best practice recommendations that draw from the leading literature on consultation as well as our members’ many years of experience engaging with the MSC programme.
November 2020
This rating covers the 2020 public consultation phase on the FSR, which included a public online kick-off conference, several consultation workshops on selected topics for which stakeholders could register, and public online surveys.
Meets Expectations Improving Below Expectations NOTE: Click on each “finger icon” for more information.
- Outline each process as early as possible with clear timelines and show how related processes are linked
- It is unclear how expert workshops in 2019 linked into 2020 workshops.
- Workshops in 2020 were postponed multiple times. While originally planned for May, they did not happen until mid to late June.
- Outcomes for certain workshops were anticipated to be made public by the end of August, but were not published until the end of October.
- The entire Fisheries Standard Review (FSR) has now been prolonged by another 6 months – there is still a lack of clarity on how this will impact the next stages of the process.
- Demonstrate a strategy of stakeholder selection
- The decision making processes deciding who could participate in workshops were unclear.
- Registration of interest was open to all and initially stakeholders were told that only some would be selected to actively participate in workshops; some participants were later told they could attend as speakers, others only as observers, still others heard nothing.
- Ultimately all who registered were able to attend and contribute (possibly leading to the “record numbers” of participants).
- Give stakeholders multiple entry points for engagement
- Some workshops were available in multiple time slots, but not all, and it was unclear why.
- Written submissions were possible for both workshop participants and those unable to attend, as well, some topics were also available as online surveys allowing multiple options for engagement.
- Allow all stakeholders to assist with designing the process
- Stakeholders were not involved in the final selection and prioritisation of topics for workshops.
- Lack of involvement of stakeholders in workshop design and agenda-setting meant there were inconsistencies and some workshops were not fit for purpose, e.g. Endangered, Threatened, Protected (ETP) species and ghost gear were combined into one workshop leaving insufficient time to engage in the depth needed, while shark finning had a full workshop and was also discussed as a subtopic of other workshops.
- Be clear about the goals of the process from the start
- The overarching topics for review in this phase were provided, and it was clear that this phase would be to explore what was not working in these areas and review options for changes or additions to the standard.
- The agendas and details for review within each topic were only made available to participants about a week prior to each workshop.
- In many cases the areas for review and the options presented for changes and/or additions to the standard were very narrow. It is unclear if/how stakeholder suggestions for alternatives will be taken into account in next phases.
- Demonstrate the current stage of the process of consultation, and the decision that led to it
- It was clear that this was the first public consultation phase of the FSR, informed by a research phase that included consultant reports and expert workshops in 2019.
- However, there was a lack of continuity and connection between the expert workshops in 2019 and public consultation workshops in 2020, with only some key points brought into 2020 workshop background documents, and it was difficult to tell how proposals presented in expert workshops informed 2020 workshop proposals.
- It is unclear how input provided to date will be used by the TAB in their proposal to the Board on next steps
- Allow full access to all the information provided during the process
- In addition to workshop background information, some additional research reports or summaries were available on specific topics e.g. a draft consultant report MSC commissioned on the status of ‘fins naturally attached’ regulations for sharks.
- It is unclear if all commissioned research reports have been made public.
- Only a very brief overview of the full report from the 2019 ETP workshop was provided to the ETP/Ghost Gear 2020 workshop.
- Workshop reports are now available and include workshop background information, participant data for workshops and written submissions, and full workshop transcripts.
- Allow stakeholders to share information and address gaps by being open about who will be, or was, involved in the process
- Many stakeholders who had registered for the workshops did not know whether they had been admitted or not, until a few days before the event and participant lists were not provided prior to this making it difficult to connect and share information.
- Participant data were eventually provided with the report summaries, although not consistently (workshops attendees unnamed, those making written submissions named).
- Lack of clarity remains on who will be involved in discussions before the next phase of consultation i.e. bilateral meetings with industry or other stakeholders, or participation by invited experts in Technical Advisory Board and Stakeholder Advisory Council meetings.
- Share the decision-making framework and rationale for each step of the process:
• Who is involved in decision-making, at which level, and who leads the process?
• What criteria are used to make decisions and how are they ranked?
• What decision rules are used to finalize the decision?- The decision making process at the level of detail included in this indicator for next steps remains unclear.
- Information is public indicating the Board will decide, in December 2020, which proposals will go forward to the next public consultation in spring 2021, however, is unclear who will influence these proposals such as through targeted meetings with industry groups or specific organizations in addition to Technical Advisory Board and Stakeholder Advisory Council meetings prior to the Board meeting.
- This is of particular concern as this time period in the last Standard review was flagged by many stakeholders as highly influential to outcomes, but very opaque.
- Regularly review the stakeholder engagement process
- There is no publicly available report on any assessment that may have been made of the previous FSR process or recommendations for improvements that may stem from this.
- MSC conducted online surveys for feedback on how each 2020 workshop was run, and have taken the initiative to reach out to some stakeholders for additional input.
