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.
January 2022
This rating covers the 2021 public consultation phase on the FSR, which included – invite-only workshops and several rounds of public surveys on individual review topics including; Identifying further solutions to ensure MSC certified fisheries are not involved in shark finning, Supporting the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing, Clarifying best practice for reducing impacts on endangered, threatened and protected species, Reviewing Principle 1 with a focus on harvest strategies, Timelines for transitioning to a new Standard, Ensuring effective fisheries management systems are in place, Fisheries Certification Process Review.
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
- The invite-only workshops were not made public until afterwards, with the release of summary reports on the workshops. The summary reports do not provide any links to the next steps or decisions derived from these workshops.
- The framework for public and open engagement has been unclear, specifically what opportunities for engagement would be presented and when, as well as the process for making input publicly available and the next steps for decisions.
- Demonstrate a strategy of stakeholder selection
- The decision making processes for deciding who could participate in the invite-only workshops were unclear. It is unclear why invite-only workshops were chosen as the engagement plan, leaving some stakeholders that have been heavily involved in certain topics feeling disengaged.
- Surveys were accessible to all stakeholders.
- Give stakeholders multiple entry points for engagement
- Stakeholders were given several opportunities for engagement through public consultation surveys on various review topics.
- Allow all stakeholders to assist with designing the process
- Stakeholders were not involved in the final selection and prioritisation of topics for consultations, and many topics were not opened for stakeholder consultation. The reason for this remains unknown.
- Be clear about the goals of the process from the start
- Understanding what the goals are at each step of the process continues to be difficult due to a lack of a clearly stated framework for each workstream.
- In many cases, the areas for review and the options presented for changes and/or additions to the standard were very narrow and incomplete. It is unclear if/how stakeholder suggestions for alternatives will be taken into account in the final draft.
- Demonstrate the current stage of the process of consultation, and the decision that led to it
- It is unclear how input provided to date will be used by the staff, TAB, and STAC in shaping proposals for the Board on the final draft standard.
- No updated conclusions or proposals have been published based on the outcome of this recent round of consultations and prior to the internal discussions on how to proceed in 2022.
- We will not see any further information until the release of the proposed standard on 1 February 2022 for consultation until 4 April (60 days).
- It is unclear how input provided to date will be used by the staff, TAB, and STAC in shaping proposals for the Board on the final draft standard.
- Allow full access to all the information provided during the process
- It is unclear if all commissioned research reports have been made public.
- Workshop reports from 2020 are now available and include workshop background information, participant data for workshops and written submissions, and full workshop transcripts.
- Reports from consultation topics and surveys in 2021 were not shared directly with participants and are difficult to find. In the consultation summary reports, overall insights to a range of opinions and options are not readily accessible as they are provided only as raw transcripts.
- Impact assessment reports were provided, but for some topics only, with analysis of stakeholder input, MSC considerations, and rationale on proposed options for change. These have been an important source of information.
- Allow stakeholders to share information and address gaps by being open about who will be, or was, involved in the process
- Lack of clarity remains on who will be involved in discussions on the final draft standard i.e. participation by invited experts in upcoming 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 the next steps remains unclear.
- Information is public indicating the Board will decide, in January 2022, which changes will be included in the final draft standard proposal, but who will influence this decision and the rationale behind these decisions remain unclear.
- 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.
- In early 2021 there seemed to be some improvement of the information provided to stakeholders, however, now that we are nearing the end of the process it remains clear that the decision-making process is not transparent and stakeholders are not aware of the rationale behind many decisions.
- Based on the available information, it appears that no observers were allowed to attend the TAB meeting despite the published terms of reference indicating otherwise and having received several applications from stakeholders to attend as observers.
- Regularly review the stakeholder engagement process
- MSC released a stakeholder engagement survey in November 2021 regarding the FSR processes this year, but it is unclear whether the outcome of the survey will have any influence on the remaining FSR process.
