Fisheries Program Revisions: Fisheries Certification Process

The harmonisation process is used by assessors to ensure overlapping fisheries (those targeting the same stocks, impacting the same species under Principle 2, or under the same management jurisdiction) receive consistent scores and conditions of certification. This requires the different assessors who carried out each assessment to work together and agree to harmonised scores for each overlapping fishery.

Proposed changes

Revisions have been developed to clarify how assessors should apply the harmonisation process, reduce complexity, and develop a more robust method for resolving disagreements on scoring.

The process has been clarified to explicitly define which aspects of the standard require harmonisation:

• Principle 1: harmonisation must be applied to most scoring issues, with defined exceptions. 
• Principle 2: harmonisation must be used to ensure species and habitats are categorised consistently. It must also be used to ensure consistency when assessing impacts on non-target fish and invertebrate stocks, and whether the fishery is hindering recovery of endangered species. The revisions also clarify when scores produced using the Risk-Based Framework must be harmonised. 
• Principle 3: it is now explicit which aspects must be harmonised. This includes
  the requirement for determining whether the legal or customary framework in which the fishery operates is compatible with effective fisheries management. It also includes the requirement for determining whether mechanisms for monitoring, control and surveillance are in place and ensure compliance with management measures.  
  

A new approach to resolving harmonisation disagreements has also been proposed. If assessors cannot agree on harmonised scores, three independent reviewers will be appointed by the MSC’s Peer Review College to adjudicate the disagreement and make a final decision.

This would replace the current approach, where the lowest score is used if assessors can’t reach agreement.

Improvements have also been made to the process to ensure clearer communication of timing and outcomes, while aiming to avoid additional burden and stakeholder fatigue.

Rationale

The proposals simplify the harmonisation process and make it easier and clearer to apply. This will ensure overlapping fisheries are assessed with greater consistency.

The new mechanism for reaching agreements on scores will also support a more efficient process, with an additional level of oversight provided by independent reviewers from the MSC Peer Review College.

The proposals aim to improve transparency by making the identification of overlapping Units of Assessment, the timing of harmonisation and the resulting decisions clearer to stakeholders, while avoiding unnecessary additional assessment work.

Overall, the revised approach is intended to achieve meaningful consistency between overlapping fisheries without requiring harmonisation where differences between fisheries can be demonstrated.

The revisions intend to make the harmonisation process easier to apply and to ensure more consistent outcomes.

Proposed change

Revisions have been made to streamline the reassessment process. An Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) will no longer be required at reassessment. Instead, assessors will be required to carry out a reassessment plan/change analysis detailing what has changed since the previous assessment.

Revisions have also been made to provide more structure to the reassessment timeline. This includes the addition of a fifth surveillance audit for fisheries that have open conditions after the fourth surveillance audit (which is currently the last opportunity for fisheries to demonstrate progress against conditions). This audit would be separate from the reassessment process and would not need to be completed within the reassessment deadline.

Rationale

The proposal to replace the ACDR with a reassessment plan intends to make the process more efficient by not duplicating information that already exists in other assessment reports, with a focus on what has changed and key areas for consideration during the reassessment.

The addition of the fifth surveillance audit aims to provide a clear process to ensure the ongoing surveillance of conditions with five-year deadlines, longer deadlines or conditions raised mid-certificate. This intends to better support fisheries in developing their plans to resolve conditions and provides additional opportunities for this progress to be verified.

Proposed change

Revisions have been made to how assessment teams set conditions of certification, establish deadlines for those conditions, and monitor progress.

This includes defining the circumstances in which assessors can set extended deadlines for resolving conditions. It has also been made explicit that an extension can only be given when the condition is first set. If an extended deadline is set, the decision and justification must be subject to review by independent experts who are part of the MSC’s Peer Review College.

Revisions have also been proposed that give fisheries more ownership over the actions and outputs needed to resolve their conditions. CABs will still be responsible for setting the verification deadlines and measuring progress annually.

Rationale

The changes proposed aim to improve transparency in the condition setting process and improve fisheries’ accountability for closing their conditions.

Defining the circumstances in which extended deadlines can be set will make assessments more consistent and provide greater transparency. The requirement for an extension to be subject to peer review also adds an additional level of oversight, ensuring the process remains credible.

Proposed change

The process for scoring fisheries against the requirements of the Fisheries Standard has been reorganised and simplified. This will make the scoring process easier to understand and to apply consistently.

Scores will continue to be determined in five-point increments, but assessors must now use a new scoring table to calculate the overall score for each performance indicator. Explicit definitions for scoring elements and where they apply have also been added to the Standard.

The new process replaces the more complex two-step approach to scoring that was previously used. This process will also apply when the Risk-Based Framework is used. 

Rationale

The previous scoring process was considered unclear, and concerns were raised that it was being applied inconsistently. There was also a separate process for scoring data-limited fisheries using the Risk-based Framework. The new, simplified process provides a clearer set of instructions which apply across all scheme documents. This intends to provide a more consistent and transparent approach across all fishery assessments. 

Proposed change

Revisions have been made to further strengthen the integrity of MSC certified supply chains. This includes clarifying where responsibility transfers from fishery certification to Chain of Custody certification. The start of the chain of custody is now defined as the point at which catch is landed. However, assessors can still require the chain of custody to begin earlier if necessary.

A new template will also be introduced (the Fishery Certificate Template) to provide a consistent way for assessors to record traceability data. 

Rationale

Clarifying the point of handover between the certified fishery and first stage in the chain of custody provides supply chain auditors with complete visibility over which products are eligible to enter the supply chain. This clarification, alongside the addition of the Fishery Certificate Template, will also ensure a standardised, transparent approach, and lead to more consistent outcomes.

Proposed change

Revisions will be made to clarify how assessors should consider inseparable catch (previously referred to as inseparable or practicably inseparable catch) and its entry into certified supply chains. Inseparable catch occurs when closely related species that look the same and are impossible to separate are caught.

The revisions include providing explicit eligibility criteria for those species which can enter a certified supply chain.

Inseparable catch that has been determined eligible must now be considered in the traceability section of the assessment report and the new Fishery Certificate Statement. New requirements also stipulate that assessors must continue to check eligibility at reassessment.

Rationale

The revisions intend to clarify that assessing inseparable species under Principle 1 is the default route for ensuring their eligibility to enter the supply chain as certified product.

Clarifying the circumstances in which species that have not been assessed under Principle 1 can be defined as inseparable and setting explicit eligibility criteria will provide greater transparency and control over which species enter certified supply chains.

The declaration of inseparable catch in the Fisheries Certificate Statement will also provide greater transparency, ensuring certified supply chain businesses have access to clear and consistent information.