Photo © Rainforest Alliance Strengthening Verification in Sustainability Standards: the Development of the ISEAL Assurance Code Patrick Mallet ISEAL Credibility Director Paddy Doherty ISEAL Code Development Manager

Components of Assurance All-encompassing term, as defined by ISEAL to include: Auditing – Competencies, training, evaluation Certification – 1 st party – 2 nd party – 3 rd party Accreditation AuditingCertificationAccreditation

Three core functions – Setting the standard – Assessing compliance with the standard – Measuring the impacts of compliance Proxy for direct relationship between producer and consumer What does credible assurance look like? Role of Assurance in a Standards System

Prioritizing Issues for an Assurance Code Strong ISEAL member support drives development Scoping exercise as consultation opportunity – Online critical issues survey – 86 participants – Semi-structure interviews – 36 key stakeholders – Producer group interviews – 11 clients – Background research – report from Richard Bradley Scope agreed by Stakeholder Council Steering Committee will oversee the Code development Technical Committee will help to draft the Code

Doesn’t ISO already provide enough guidance? ISO Standards (65, 17021, 17011) form a strong foundation – Systems-based – Supporting impartial, independent and consistent results Assurance of sustainability standards requires more – Competence, transparency, accountability, accessibility ISO acknowledges Scheme-specific guidance is necessary (17067) – Auditor competencies, audit process, decision-making Assurance Code as scheme-specific guidance for social and environmental standards systems – Potentially includes interpretation of ISO standards

Photo © Marine Stewardship Council “Certification should be a model for development, rather than a hurdle to overcome” “[I] Would like to see common agreement on certain practices in assurance – not so much ‘best practice’ but rather common denominators – do not try to be the ‘most credible’” Guiding comments

Principles of Credible Assurance

1. Auditor Competence “Training of auditors is our biggest issue – but developing training modules and delivering them does not automatically produce good auditors – some are good and some aren’t; why?” “Consistent auditing is a challenge” “Do not make auditors need ISO 19011” “I think having... auditors take the training for another auditing program is waste of time and money (a waste of time/$ for us)”

‘Other’ comments Focus on key issues- experience of auditor Comparable audit report format (year after year AND between producers) No mention in this list of oversight issues, governance, or indeed accreditation focus - or of scheme document requirements Accessibility of the audit process for stakeholder input Managing time during the audit process - in many cases certified operations intentionally or unintentionally not providing the information/documents on time

Photo © Fairtrade International Common requirements for training, qualification, monitoring Common training platform Central (common) registration/accreditation programme for auditors Certification of auditors Guidance notes to ISO Options for addressing auditor competence

2. Cost and accessibility The cost of certification is “...way too much for the benefits received” “Comment regards ISO65 would be cost vs benefit” “Some innovative thinking and guidance on assurance processes for producers who are a long way from certification is urgently required” “Costs vary over different fishery – challenges around cost for smaller fisheries” “Is the current assurance system relevant for small schemes?”

Options for addressing cost and accessibility Use of risk assessment to reduce audit frequency Finding other benefits from assurance (capacity building, data gathering) Providing options for the right level of assurance based on risk and stakeholder demand Increasing transparency while reducing audit requirements Guidance to ISO (for capacity building, access for small CBs)

3. Governance and Internal Management “Sampling rules would be useful. A problem in our programme is the common rating from audit is quite subjective – how can we reduce the subjectivity?” “There are different kinds of CB decisions; major minor infractions; Code could provide guidance in this area” “Assurance code could specify who is responsible for auditor training” “Transparency as a key element for trust-building cannot be overrated”

Options for addressing governance and internal management Guidance to ISO standards (eg: 17065, 17011, 17021) Clarification of roles: who is responsible for which activity Audit implementation: – Good practice in audit performance and reporting – Common methodology for risk-assessment & sampling Requirements for transparency : – Certification decision – Decision-making – Assurance system governance

4. Standard quality/clarity “Poor standards are an issue – standards development has been reactive. Too much prescription in some standards = auditors not using common-sense” “Unclear standards can be a problem” “Guidance on consistent interpretation of a standard (needed)”

Photo © Forest Stewardship Council Good practice in crafting standards that provide for consistent interpretation Requirements for auditors to ensure consistent application of the standard (including guidance) Options for addressing standard quality

Photo © 4C Association Claims and labelling Chain of custody Efficiency (certification and accreditation body internal management) Auditing in conflict and disaster zones 5. Other issues brought up in the consultation

Assurance Code Development Multi-stakeholder consultation 9 member Steering Committee 9 member Technical Committee First draft for consultation in September At least 2 rounds of public consultation Expected completion June 2012

Photo © Rainforest Alliance Thank you. To find out more visit: Patrick Mallet ISEAL Credibility Director Paddy Doherty ISEAL Code Development Manager