Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
With the agreement of APA, the certification body consulted with stakeholders
at numerous steps in the assessment process, well beyond the consultation require-
ments set out in the MSC's certification methodology. These additional, voluntary
steps to consult the NGO community added considerable time to the process and,
very likely, affected the outcome of the certification. For example, the certifier -
with the concurrence of APA - sought input from NGO stakeholders about the
recruitment of the three-person team of outside experts who would work directly
with the independent certifier to evaluate the fishery. The NGOs submitted lists
of potential candidates, and in reviewing other proposed candidates, objected to
prospective assessment team members from US universities in Alaska and the Pa-
cific Northwest, and other possible team members who had a long-term involvement
consulting with fishery management authorities on issues relating to Alaska pollock
management. The process was delayed as NGO stakeholders sought extensions of
deadlines to comment on prospective assessment team members. When this initial
stage of the process was finally completed, the certifier had agreed to draw assess-
ment team members from outside the region. The MSC methodology recommended
that the certifier consult with stakeholders about the composition of the assessment
team, but there was no obligation to accept the objections of the stakeholders if the
certifier considered that the required qualifications were met within the team.
By choosing the expert assessors from outside the region, the certifier and APA
anticipated this would promote goodwill of the NGOs towards the assessment pro-
cess and an acceptance of the results whatever they might be, but this did not even-
tuate. Excluding experts for the assessment team from within the region probably
resulted in increased costs and delays, as additional time was required to educate
panel members unfamiliar with the fishery. More importantly, the decision to re-
cruit team members without experience in the pollock management system probably
compromised the quality of the team's analysis. This is because the assessment be-
came a 'snapshot in time' - evaluating the performance of the management authority
rather than an assessment based on long-term experience and familiarity with the
managers' record and the fishery's performance. Moreover, there was no evidence
that the early concessions to stakeholder involved fostered goodwill among NGO
stakeholders. Instead, environmental stakeholders sought extensions of deadlines
at virtually every stage of the process and appealed against the final certification
determination of the assessment team.
The certification body, working with the three-member assessment panel, devel-
oped a comprehensive set of performance indicators (PIs) to evaluate the fishery.
Working from the more general MSC Principles and Criteria
the certification body
drafted 76 PIs. By contrast, the New Zealand hoki groundfish fishery assessment,
which commenced in mid-2000 and was completed in early 2001 just as the Alaska
pollock assessment process was beginning, was based on only 31 PIs. One con-
sequence of the rigorous Alaska pollock assessment process was that by 2005,
when the New Zealand hoki fishery entered its 5-year reassessment, the fishery was
scored against 61 PIs and the reassessment process lasted 18 months - roughly a
,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search