Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Fisheries Certification Process

Version 3.0, 26 October 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council’s MSC Fisheries Certification Process and its content is copyright of
the “Marine Stewardship Council” – © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2022. All rights reserved.
The official language of this standard is English. The definitive version is maintained on the MSC
website (msc.org). Any discrepancy between copies, versions, or translations shall be resolved byreference to the definitive English version.
The MSC prohibits any modification of part or all of the contents in any form.

Marine Stewardship Council
Marine House
1 Snow Hill
London EC1A 2DH
United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900
Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901
Email: standards@msc.org

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Responsibility for these requirements
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is responsible for these requirements.
Readers should verify that they are using the latest copy of this and other documents. Updated
documents, together with a master list of all available MSC documents, can be found on the MSC
website (msc.org).

Versions published
Version no.

Date

Description of amendment

1.0

15 August 2011

1.1

24 October 2011

1.2

10 January 2012

1.3

14 January 2013

2.0

1 October 20142.1

31 August 2018

2.2

25 March 2020

2.3

26 October 2022

3.0

26 October 2022

First version issued for application by Conformity Assessment
Bodies (CABs).
Version issued incorporating revised Group Chain of Custody(CoC) requirements and correcting typos, page numbering,
wrong and missing referencing, and unreadable flowcharts.
Version issued incorporating Technical Advisory Board 20
agreed changes regarding reassessment, Objection
Procedure, modifications to the default assessment tree toassess bivalves, implementation timeframes, and Aquaculture
Stewardship Council (ASC) requirements.
Minor edits, comprised correction of wrong and missing
referencing, typos, and unreadable figures.
Version issued incorporating Technical Advisory Board 21 andBoard of Trustees agreed changes.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.
Version issued incorporating changes to the standard as aresult of the MSC Fisheries Standard review and changes to
CAB procedures as a result of the speed and cost review.
Version issued incorporating changes to the assessment
process regarding streamlining, harmonisation, and labour
policy development topics.
Version issued incorporating changes to the confirmation ofscope process, defining the Unit of Assessment and Unit ofCertification, conditions, and the expedited audit process.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.
Version issued incorporating changes to harmonisation,
stakeholder input, and traceability.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.
Version issued incorporating changes to process related to therelease of v3.0 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, removal of the
Risk-Based Framework, harmonisation, stakeholder input, andtraceability.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

The Marine Stewardship Council
VisionOur vision is of the world’s oceans teeming with life, and seafood supplies safeguarded for this andfuture generations.

MissionOur mission is to use our ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of theworld’s oceans by recognising and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices
people make when buying seafood, and working with our partners to transform the seafood market toa sustainable basis.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

General introduction
Fisheries certification
With international consultation with stakeholders, the MSC has developed standards for sustainablefishing and seafood traceability. These standards ensure that MSC labelled seafood comes from, andcan be traced back to, a sustainable fishery.
MSC standards and requirements meet global best practice guidelines for certification and labelling
programs.
The MSC Fisheries Standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim thatits fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source.
Throughout the world, fisheries are using good management practices to safeguard jobs, secure fishstocks for the future, and help protect the marine environment. The science-based MSC
environmental standard for sustainable fishing offers fisheries a way to confirm sustainability, using acredible, independent, third-party assessment process. Certification means sustainable fisheries canbe recognised and rewarded in the marketplace and gives an assurance to consumers that theirseafood comes from a well-managed and sustainable source.
The MSC Fisheries Standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements
provided in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1.
The MSC Fisheries Standard comprises the following core Principles:
Principle 1: Sustainable target fish stocks
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the
exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in amanner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
Principle 2: Environmental impact of fishing
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function, anddiversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends. The ecosystem includes habitat andassociated dependent and ecologically related species.
Principle 3: Effective management
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national, andinternational laws and standards, and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that
require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Implementation timeframes ◙Effective date of the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Publication date: 26 October 2022
Effective date: 1 May 2023
CABs shall conduct any assessment process (initial assessment, surveillance audit, scope extension,
expedited audit, or reassessment) against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 (and subsequentversions) that is announced on or after 1 May 2023 in conformity with the Fisheries Certification
Process (FCP) v3.0.
Any CAB may use the FCP v3.0 as of the publication date if they are ready to do so and templates
and training are ready.

Review
The MSC welcomes comments on the FCP. Comments will be considered as part of the next review
process. Reviews will take place at least every 5 years. Please submit comments tostandards@msc.org.
More information about the MSC policy development process and MSC Standard Setting Procedurecan be found on the MSC website (msc.org).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page vi© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Introduction to this document
The FCP v3.0 and the annexes define the process requirements for CABs to assess fisheries against
the MSC Fisheries Standard.
The FCP consists of the assessment process (Sections 1–7) and process annexes (PA-PE).

Fisheries Certification Process
The purposes of the FCP are:•To establish a defined process that enables all CABs to operate in a consistent and controlledmanner.

•To provide transparency to maintain credibility with stakeholders.

The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process
Guidance is provided in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process (GFCP) to help
CABs interpret the FCP.
The headings and numbering in the GFCP, when included, match those in the FCP exactly, withnumbers prefaced with the letter “G” to indicate guidance.
The MSC recommends that CABs read the FCP in conjunction with the GFCP. Text in the FCP is notrepeated in the GFCP.
Where guidance is provided that generally relates to the subject of a section, or relates to the content
of a specific clause, this icon ◙ appears at the end of the section title or clause in the FCP. These
icons provide hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the GFCP.
In the GFCP, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink back to the corresponding section or clause in the FCP.

The MSC Interpretations Log
The MSC occasionally provides additional guidance to CABs and assessment teams via
interpretations that are posted on a public Interpretations Log. Interpretations are provided in
response to questions about requirements in the FCP, the Fisheries Standard, and the General
Certification Requirements (GCR). Interpretations help clarify the MSC’s intent and provide additional
information and guidance to explain how a requirement should be interpreted and applied. They are
not new requirements.
The MSC recommends that CABs and assessment teams check the Interpretations Log on a regularbasis and follow relevant interpretations.

Auditability of the Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process and interpretations
The guidance in the GFCP and interpretations is not directly auditable.

Derogations
Derogations are temporary normative measures that allow for an MSC requirement to be applieddifferently or disregarded. Derogations are provided in response to editorial errors, force majeure,
where intent is no longer fit for purpose and threatens MSC credibility, or as a provision to test a
policy change or modify the implementation timeframe when publishing a revised version of thenormative document. Derogations are posted on a public log. The MSC requires CABs to follow
relevant derogations.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page vii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table of Contents
The MSC Fisheries Certification Process ................................................................. 10
1

Scope ............................................................................................................ 10

2

Normative documents .................................................................................... 10

3

Terms and definitions .................................................................................... 11

4

General requirements .................................................................................... 11
4.1

Submission of reports, data, and requests to the MSC ................................................ 11

4.2

Consultation requirements ◙ ......................................................................................... 11

4.3

Use of confidential information in fisheries assessments ............................................. 11

4.4

Access to information .................................................................................................... 12

4.5

Confidentiality agreements ............................................................................................ 12

5

Structural requirements ................................................................................. 12

6

Resource requirements ................................................................................. 12

7

Process requirements .................................................................................... 12
7.1

Pre-assessment ............................................................................................................ 12

7.2

Client application for full assessment ............................................................................ 13

7.3

Client Document Checklist ◙ ......................................................................................... 13

7.4

Confirmation that the UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard ◙ .............. 14

7.5

Scope of assessment: defining the UoA and UoC ◙ ..................................................... 15

7.6Team selection .............................................................................................................. 17

7.7

Preparing for the Announcement Comment Draft Report ............................................. 17

7.8

Announcement Comment Draft Report ◙...................................................................... 19

7.9

Decision to proceed to announcement by client ........................................................... 20

7.10

Announcement of fishery assessment ◙ ................................................................... 20

7.11

Assessment timelines ............................................................................................... 22

7.12

Peer Review College ◙ ............................................................................................. 22

7.13

Stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report ............................ 23

7.14

Site visits, stakeholder input, and information collection .......................................... 23

7.15

Scoring the UoA ◙ ..................................................................................................... 23

7.16

Setting conditions ◙ ................................................................................................... 26

7.17
Determination of the traceability systems and point(s) at which fish and fish products
enter further certified chains of custody ◙ ................................................................................ 27
7.18

Determination of eligibility date ◙ .............................................................................. 29

7.19

Client and Peer Review Draft Report ◙ ..................................................................... 29

7.20

Public Comment Draft Report ................................................................................... 30

7.21

Determination ◙ ......................................................................................................... 33

7.22

Final Draft Report ...................................................................................................... 33

7.23

MSC Disputes Process ............................................................................................. 34

7.24

Public Certification Report ......................................................................................... 34

7.25

Certification decision and certificate issue ◙ ............................................................. 35

7.26

UoA(s) that fail or withdraw from assessment .......................................................... 35

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page viii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.27

Extension of scope of fishery certificate (scope extensions) ◙ ................................. 36

7.28

Merging fishery certificates ....................................................................................... 38

7.29

Surveillance ◙ ............................................................................................................ 38

7.30

Expedited audits ........................................................................................................ 44

7.31

Reassessment........................................................................................................... 45

7.32
Assessing UoCs that expire after the transition deadline against the MSC Fisheries
Standard v3.0 ◙ ........................................................................................................................ 47
7.33

Management system requirements for CABs ........................................................... 48

Annex PA: ................. Requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks –normative ....................................................................................................... 49
PA1

Requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks ................................. 49

Annex PB: .....................Harmonisation of overlapping Units of Assessment – normative...................................................................................................................... 51
PB1

Harmonised Units of Assessment – normative ◙ .......................................................... 51

Annex PC: ........................ Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer
qualifications and competencies – normative ................................................ 55
PC1
Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer qualifications andcompetencies ........................................................................................................................... 55

Annex PD:.................................................................................... Scope extensions – normative...................................................................................................................... 61
PD1

Scope extensions – normative .................................................................................. 61

Annex PE: ........................................................................ Transition assessments – normative...................................................................................................................... 63
PE1

Transition assessments – normative............................................................................. 63

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ix© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

The MSC Fisheries Certification Process
1

Scope

The MSC Fisheries Certification Process (FCP) is for Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) use whenassessing fisheries against the MSC Fisheries Standard.

2

Normative documents

The documents listed below contain provisions that, through reference in this text, become part of the
FCP.
For documents listed, the latest effective version of the document applies.
The documents are as follows:a. MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template.
b. MSC Scope Declaration Template.
c.

MSC Fishery Announcement Template.

d. MSC Client Document Checklist.
e. MSC Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (including versions for enhanced bivalves andsalmon).
f.

MSC Reporting Template (including versions for enhanced bivalves and salmon).

g. MSC Template for Initial Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments
h. MSC Template for Peer Review Follow Up at PCDR Stagei.

MSC Surveillance Announcement Template.

j.

MSC Surveillance Reporting Template.

k.

MSC Surveillance Review of Information Template.

l.

MSC Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template.

m. MSC Database User Manual for CABs.
n. MSC Variation Request Form – Fisheries.
o. MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments.
p. MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Surveillance Audits.
q. MSC At Sea Labour Eligibility Requirements Reporting Templater.

MSC IPI Announcement Template.

s.

MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox.

In addition, the normative documents listed in the normative documents section of the MSC General
Certification Requirements also apply to implementation of the FCP.
All MSC forms and templates can be found on the MSC website (msc.org).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

3

Terms and definitions

All definitions are in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary.
Terms or phrases used in the FCP that have multiple definitions are defined within the text wheresuch terms or phrases appear.
The term “assessment” is used for the initial assessment and 5-yearly reassessments. The term
“audit” is used for annual surveillance audits and expedited audits.

4

General requirements

4.1

Submission of reports, data, and requests to the MSC

4.1.1

The CAB shall upload to the MSC database all reports, data, and requests that are
required as per the FCP and the GCR.

4.2

Consultation requirements ◙4.2.1

The CAB shall hold stakeholder consultations so that the CAB becomes aware ofconcerns of stakeholders.
4.2.1.1

Before the announcement of each assessment or audit, the CAB shall identify andcompile a list of stakeholders. ◙4.2.2

The CAB shall send a consultation announcement to relevant stakeholders including a
hyperlink to the relevant MSC stakeholder input template (‘MSC Template for Stakeholder
Input into Fishery Assessments’ or ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Surveillance
Audits’) no later than 4 days after the start of each consultation period. ◙4.2.3

The CAB shall only accept written submissions from stakeholders on the Announcement
Comment Draft Report and Public Comment Draft Report if submitted using the ‘MSC
Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, or if raised at the assessment
site visit, either in person or remotely. ◙4.2.4

The CAB shall only accept written submissions from stakeholders during surveillance
audits if submitted using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Surveillance
Audits’, or if raised during a surveillance on-site or off-site audit, either in person or
remotely. ◙4.2.4.1

An exception to 4.2.4 is permitted for information collected as per 7.29.15.e.

4.2.5

The CAB shall inform stakeholders that they may raise issues with the assessment teamin confidence for the assessment team to consider at the site visit, but that any confidential
information cannot be used in scoring unless in compliance with confidentiality
requirements, see Section 4.3.

4.2.6

Within 10 days of receipt of stakeholder input, the CAB shall inform the sender of how andwhen the CAB will address their comments.

4.2.7

Except where otherwise required, the CAB shall specify, in the consultation
announcements, a deadline for the receipt of stakeholder input of 17:00 UTC on the last
day of the consultation period.

4.2.8

The CAB shall consider a stakeholder as registered only if they provide written input on
the Announcement Comment Draft Report (Section 7.13) or attend the site visit, in personor remotely (Section 7.14). ◙4.3

Use of confidential information in fisheries assessments

4.3.1

The CAB shall encourage stakeholders not to withhold information, including theirconcerns and knowledge about the fishery in question.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

4.3.2

The CAB shall inform stakeholders that, unless covered by 4.3.3 below, any informationthat they cannot share with all stakeholders shall not be:
Referenced in the assessment.
Used in determining the assessment outcome.

4.3.3

The CAB shall ensure that information kept confidential is restricted to:a. Financial transactions about certification.
b. The financial affairs of individual companies or information that may lead to thisinformation being made public.
c.

Information that is the subject of relevant national privacy or data protection legislationin the client’s country.

4.4

Access to information

4.4.1

The CAB shall ensure that key information necessary to properly review the logic used by
the assessment team is available to stakeholders. ◙4.4.1.1

If key information referenced in a public assessment report is unpublished or notavailable online, the CAB shall make this information available to stakeholders. ◙4.4.1.2

The CAB shall ensure that the information is available throughout the subsequent
stages of the assessment process.

4.5

Confidentiality agreements

4.5.1

The owner of information specified under 4.3.3 may require stakeholders to signconfidentiality agreements before granting access to it. In these cases, the CAB shall:a. Require those requesting access to information to do so in writing.
b. Confirm signed confidentiality agreements are in place before permitting access to theconfidential information.

4.5.2

The CAB may use the information specified under 4.3.3 in its assessment even if some or
all stakeholders refuse to sign a confidentiality agreement.

5

Structural requirements

There are no requirements additional to ISO 17065 and the GCR.

6

Resource requirements

There are no requirements additional to ISO 17065 and the GCR.

7

Process requirements

7.1

Pre-assessment

7.1.1

The client may select a CAB to conduct an optional pre-assessment.

7.1.2

The CAB shall have objectives for the pre-assessment that include:a. Enabling CAB planning for a full assessment.
b. Informing the client of the likelihood of achieving certification.
c.

Enabling client planning for the full assessment.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.1.3

The CAB shall appoint an individual or team qualified in conformity with the requirementsof Table PC2 and any 1 of the qualifications and competencies listed in Rows 1–5 of Table
PC3 to conduct the pre-assessment evaluation.

7.1.4

The CAB shall ensure that any guidance given to clients during pre-assessment is inconformity with ISO 17065.

7.1.5

The CAB shall include the following activities as part of the pre-assessment:
a. An in-person or remote meeting with the client.
b. Decisions on potential field site visits, if required.
c.

An assessment of the extent to which the UoA is consistent with the MSC Fisheries
Standard (Sections SA, SB, SC, SD, and SE).

d. An evaluation of the UoA’s readiness for assessment.
e. A review of the availability of data.
i.
f.

The CAB shall use MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Section 5.2 to determine
whether a tool for data-deficient fisheries will be used.

Defining the options for the scope of the full assessment consistent with Section 7.4
and Section 7.5.

g. Describing potential obstacles or problems that may be a barrier to certification.
7.1.6

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template’ that is effective at thetime of preparation.
7.1.6.1

7.1.7

The CAB shall inform the client that some sections of the ‘MSC Pre-Assessment
Reporting Template’ are mandatory and some are optional.

The CAB shall inform the client of: ◙a. The requirements for proceeding to a full assessment.
b. Communications that may need to take place with management agencies,
conservation groups, post-harvest sectors, and relevant commercial and noncommercial fishing groups to explain the MSC assessment process and theimplications (including costs and benefits) of certification.
c.

The types and extent of data and information that the client will need to makeavailable for a full assessment.

d. The location, timing, and form of any announcements to be made during full
assessment.
e. The optional MSC training information on the assessment process for clients.
7.1.8

The CAB shall treat the existence, process, and outcomes of the pre-assessment asconfidential to the client, the CAB, and the MSC, unless otherwise directed by the client tomake the pre-assessment more widely available. ◙7.2

Client application for full assessment

7.2.1

The CAB shall refer to ISO 17065 and the GCR for application review requirements.

7.3

Client Document Checklist ◙7.3.1

Before defining the Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC), the CAB
shall require the client to submit a completed ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.4

Confirmation that the UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries
Standard ◙7.4.1

Prior to announcing a fishery assessment, the CAB shall confirm that the UoA meets thescope requirements in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1.
7.4.1.1

The CAB shall require the client to complete and submit a Scope Declaration
using the ‘MSC Scope Declaration Template’.
a. The CAB shall verify that the client has provided a full and relevant responseto each section of the ‘MSC Scope Declaration Template’.
b. The CAB shall verify that the Scope Declaration covers all vessels included
within the UoA.

7.4.1.2

The CAB shall verify that the Scope Declaration states that the UoA meets eachof the scope requirements set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1.

7.4.1.3

The CAB shall verify the information examined by the client or client group to
support their conclusion that the UoA meets each of the scope requirements set
out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1.

7.4.2

If the scope requirements are not met, the CAB shall not proceed with the fisheryassessment.

7.4.3

The CAB shall upload the Scope Declaration, once completed by the client or client group,to the MSC Database at the same time as the Announcement Comment Draft Report.

7.4.4

If, during the assessment, the UoA no longer conforms to the scope requirements, the
CAB shall not proceed with the fishery assessment.
7.4.4.1

7.4.5

7.4.6

The CAB shall verify continued conformity to the scope requirements at each surveillance
audit.
7.4.5.1

The CAB shall require the client to review and, if there are any changes, updatethe ‘MSC Scope Declaration Template’ at each surveillance audit.

7.4.5.2

If the UoC no longer meets the scope requirements in the MSC Fisheries
Standard Section 1, the CAB shall suspend the certificate as per the suspension
or withdrawal of certification requirements of the GCR, unless the MSC Fisheries
Standard 1.1.5.1 or 1.1.6.1 are met.

If, at any time outside of a scheduled surveillance audit, the CAB obtains or receives
credible information that a UoC does not meet the scope requirements in MSC Fisheries
Standard Section 1, the CAB shall conduct an expedited audit (Section 7.30).
7.4.6.1

7.4.7

The CAB shall publish a stakeholder announcement to inform stakeholders thatthe assessment has stopped.

The CAB shall apply 7.4.5.2.

If the client or client group excludes a vessel under MSC Fisheries Standard 1.1.5.1 or
1.1.6.1 outside of the processes in 7.4.4 and 7.4.5, the CAB shall conduct an expedited
audit (Section 7.30). ◙7.4.7.1

The CAB may conduct the expedited audit with 1 assessment team member whomeets the following:a. The personnel requirements of the GCR.
b. The fishery team leader qualification and competency criteria in Table PC1.
c.

Is competent to review the relevant information.

7.4.7.2

The CAB shall verify that the vessel is excluded.

7.4.7.3

The CAB shall update relevant certification documents.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.5

Scope of assessment: defining the UoA and UoC ◙7.5.1

The CAB shall use all available information in the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’ andpre-assessment reports about the fishery to determine the UoA and the UoC.

7.5.2

The CAB shall determine the proposed UoA (i.e. what is to be assessed) to include: ◙a. The target stock(s).
b. The fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel type(s). ◙
c.

7.5.3

The fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing thatstock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the proposed UoC.

The CAB shall determine the proposed UoC (i.e. what is to be covered by the certificate)
to include: ◙a. The target stock(s).
b. The fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel type(s). ◙c.

The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing thatstock including entities initially intended to be covered by the certificate.

7.5.4

The CAB shall not define the UoA and UoC by a subset of activities undertaken with thestock(s) and gear(s) combination. ◙7.5.5

The CAB shall not define the UoA and UoC based on the species caught as determined at
the time of fishing, where the objective is simply to exclude certain hauls from theassessment. ◙7.5.6

The CAB shall define the geographical area in which the UoA and UoC operate. ◙7.5.7

The CAB shall determine the proposed Principle 1 and Principle 2 species using the MSC
Fisheries Standard Figure SA3. ◙Changes to UoAs/UoCs and withdrawal of UoAs and proposed UoCs during theassessment
7.5.8

The CAB shall not change a UoA and proposed UoC during the assessment unless the
UoA is announced provisionally in the initial announcement and confirmed later inconformity with 7.15.3. ◙7.5.9

If the fishery client decides to withdraw a UoA and proposed UoC during the assessment,
the CAB shall: ◙a. Publish an announcement informing stakeholders that the UoA and proposed UoC
have been withdrawn from assessment.
b. Update the MSC database to remove the UoA and proposed UoC from assessment.
c.
7.5.9.1

Include the changes in the next assessment report.
If there is more than one UoA and proposed UoC the CAB shall:a. Review and update the key traceability factors and associated risks (7.5.10).
b. Confirm that traceability risks are managed and mitigated (Section 7.17).

Traceability factors
7.5.10

The CAB shall conduct an initial review of key traceability factors and document whether
any of the following risks are applicable: ◙a. The possibility of non-certified gears being used within the UoC.
b. The possibility of vessels from the UoC fishing outside the UoC or in different
geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips).
c.

The possibility of vessels from outside the UoC or client group fishing the same stock.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

d. Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC and fish from outside theUoC.
7.5.10.1

The CAB shall inform the client of its obligations to meet traceability requirements
before it sells fish or fish products from the UoC as MSC certified or underassessment, including that: ◙a. Systems are in place to ensure that fish and fish products from the UoC are
traceable back to the UoC.
b. Systems are in place to ensure that fish and fish products from the UoC are
segregated from fish or fish products not included in the UoC.

Other eligible fishers and entities and certificate sharing
7.5.11The CAB shall determine whether there are other eligible fishers or other entities that may
share the certificate as client group members. ◙7.5.11.1

Fishers or other entities that are not identified as part of the UoA or as part of theclient group membership shall not be eligible to gain access to the certification
later, unless they conform to the requirements of Section 7.27.

7.5.11.2

If there are other eligible fishers or other entities that may share the certificate asclient group members within the UoA, the CAB shall require the client to:a. In the ‘MSC Fishery Announcement Template’, prepare a statement for the
CAB to upload to the MSC database for publication on the MSC website of
the client’s understanding and willingness for reasonable certificate-sharing
arrangements.
b. Inform other eligible fishers and/or other entities of the public statement and of
the opportunity to share the certificate, during relevant interactions with theeligible fishers and other entities as is practicable.

Inseparable or practicably inseparable catches
7.5.12The CAB shall determine whether there are catches of non-target (Principle 2) stock(s)that are inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) from target (Principle 1) stock(s). ◙7.5.12.1

The CAB shall only recognise stock(s) as being an IPI stock where theinseparability arises because either:a. The non-target catch is practicably indistinguishable during normal fishing
operations (i.e. the catch is from a stock of the same species or a closely
related species), orb. When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to thepractical operation of the UoA that would require significant modification toexisting harvesting and processing methods.
And:c.

The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) does notexceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s)for the UoA.

d. The IPI stock(s) are not endangered, threatened or protected, or out-of-scope(ETP/OOS) species.
e. The IPI stock(s) are not certified separately.
7.5.13

If the CAB identifies IPI stock(s) as per 7.5.12.1, the CAB shall:a. Apply Annex PA.
b. Upload an announcement to the MSC database for publication on the MSC website,using the ‘MSC IPI Announcement Template’, to inform stakeholders and the MSC of
the identification of IPI stock(s).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.5.14In the ‘MSC IPI Announcement Template’, the CAB shall follow either 7.5.14.1 or 7.5.14.2
below.
7.5.14.1

The CAB shall confirm that fish or fish products considered as coming from IPI
stock(s) may enter into chains of custody subject to Annex PA.
a. The CAB shall include a detailed and substantiated justification for how thecatches under consideration fulfil the requirements of 7.5.12.1 above.

7.5.14.2

The CAB shall confirm that fish or fish products considered as coming from IPI
stock(s) may enter chains of custody, with an exemption to the additional
assessment requirements for IPI stock(s) given in PA1.4.2.
a. The CAB shall include a detailed and substantiated justification showing that:i.

The catches under consideration fulfil the requirements of 7.5.12.1
above.

ii.

The catch proportion of IPI stock(s) calculated in 7.5.12.1.c is less than orequal to 2%, and the total catch of IPI stock(s) by the UoA does not havea significant impact on the IPI stock(s) as a whole.

iii. The CAB shall assess significant impact on the basis of the status of the
IPI stock(s), and the risk that the IPI catch poses to the health of the IPI
stock(s).
7.5.15The CAB shall upload the IPI announcement as early as practicable in the assessment
process, and no later than the date of issue of the Client and Peer Review Draft Report tothe client and to the Peer Review College.

7.6

Team selection

7.6.1

The CAB shall form an assessment team (hereafter “team”) for a fishery assessment,
comprising a team leader and a minimum of 1 additional team member, that meets thequalifications and competency requirements specified in Table PC1, Table PC2, andTable PC3 and in line with the personnel requirements in the GCR.

7.6.2

If events outside the CAB’s control mean that team membership needs to change during
an assessment, the CAB shall announce the new team members to stakeholders.

7.7

Preparing for the Announcement Comment Draft Report

UoA with enhanced stock
7.7.1

If the UoA contains an enhanced fishery that is not covered in the MSC Fisheries
Standard Section SB or Section SC: ◙7.7.1.1

The CAB shall review and, if necessary, modify the default assessment tree,
taking into account the Performance Indicators (PIs) required to assess theenhancements to achieve, at a minimum, the same level of sustainability
performance as the default assessment tree.

7.7.1.2

The CAB shall assess:a. Enhancement activities against the impacts on the natural reproductive
component of the associated wild stock.
b. The extent of translocation against: ◙c.

i.

The effect on the natural genetic characteristics of the stock.

ii.

The environmental impacts of translocation.

Environmental modification activities under the Principle 2 assessment for
their impacts on other species and the surrounding environment, including:Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

i.

Feed augmentation. If feeding or disease prevention are used in hatch
and catch (HAC) systems, or where other interventions are used in catchand grow (CAG) systems, the team shall confirm that these activities do
not have serious negative impacts on other species and the surrounding
environment. ◙ii.

The use of medicines or other chemical compounds.

iii. Fertilisation to enhance natural food availability.
iv. Removal of predators or competitors.
d. The impacts of habitat modification under the habitats and ecosystems
components in Principle 2, including: ◙i.

Whether serious or irreversible harm may be caused to the natural
ecosystem’s structure and function, including the natural food chains ofpredator and/or prey species.

ii.

The types and extent of habitat modifications and the possibility of thesecausing serious or irreversible harm.

7.7.1.3

The CAB shall consult with other CABs developing modified assessment trees for
similar fisheries.

7.7.1.4

If the CAB’s proposed modifications to the default assessment tree for anenhanced fishery are later found by the MSC to produce a determination and/or
conditions that do not conform to MSC requirements:
a. The CAB shall review and, if necessary, revise its assessment and scoring toconform to the default assessment tree.
b. The timing of the review and revisions shall be at the MSC’s discretion andmay include a requirement for an expedited audit.
c.

7.7.1.5

The process shall be sufficient to ensure the continued validity of thedetermination, in conformity with the FCP.

If the CAB decides that the default assessment tree requires modification, the
CAB shall follow 7.10.5.

Harmonisation of overlapping UoAs
7.7.2

The CAB shall determine whether any proposed UoAs overlap with any certified or inassessment fisheries.
7.7.2.1

If any proposed UoAs overlap, the CAB shall follow the steps for harmonisation in
Annex PB.

Use of the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox
7.7.3

The CAB shall use the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine whether a tool isapplicable to the fishery assessment.
7.7.3.1

If a non-CAB entity has applied the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox prior to the
CAB, the team shall:a. Confirm that the UoA defined by the non-CAB entity is equivalent to the UoA
defined by the CAB as per 7.5.2.
b. Review the non-CAB entity’s application of the MSC Fisheries Standard
Toolbox.
c.

7.7.3.2

Verify that the outputs are within the period of validity as per the MSC
Fisheries Standard Toolbox.

The team shall apply a tool as per the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox if theteam determines that:a. The non-CAB entity did not apply a tool when they should have or vice versa.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

b. The non-CAB entity applied the appropriate tool for the situation but applied it
incorrectly.
c.

The outputs are outside their period of validity as per the MSC Fisheries
Standard Toolbox.

7.8

Announcement Comment Draft Report ◙7.8.1

The team shall prepare and complete an Announcement Comment Draft Report using, but
not limited to, the information provided in the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’. ◙7.8.1.1

7.8.2

The team may use any outputs of the optional pre-assessment stage and previous
Fisheries Improvement Projects, if completed.

The team shall include the following in the Announcement Comment Draft Report:
a. Confirmation that the UoA is in scope (MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1)
b. Confirmation of the assessment tree used to assess the UoA.
c.

The proposed UoA(s).

d. The proposed UoC(s).
e. The proposed Principle 1 and Principle 2 scoring elements.
f.

A list of any overlapping UoAs.

g. Draft scoring ranges (<60, 60–79, ≥80) for each PI.
i.

Where there are overlapping UoAs, the team shall base draft scoring ranges on
existing harmonised scores as per PB1.3.1. ◙ii.

If limited information is available to score a draft scoring range for the relevant PI,
the team shall assign a draft scoring range no higher than 60–79.
A. The team shall highlight the information gap (7.8.2.j).

iii. If no information is available to score a draft scoring range for the relevant PI, theteam shall assign a draft scoring range of < 60.
A. The team shall state in the draft rationale that there is no information.
B. The team shall highlight the information gap (7.8.2.j).
iv. If the team has determined that a risk-based framework (RBF) methodology will
be used, but has not yet been applied, the team shall assign a draft scoring range
for the relevant PI of < 60.
A. The team shall state in the draft rationale that the RBF will be conductedduring the assessment and that there is no information at this time.
B. The team shall highlight the information gap (7.8.2.j) including the informationneeded to conduct the RBF.
h. A draft rationale for each PI and Scoring Issue (SI).
i.

A reference list.

j.

An indication of the availability of information used to score each PI, highlighting
potential information gaps.

k.

An initial review of traceability risks identified in the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’.

l.

The proposed point of change of ownership of product to any party not covered by thefishery certificate.

m. The proposed point from which subsequent Chain of Custody (CoC) certification isrequired.
n. A plan to review traceability systems at the site visit.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

o. If the UoA is an enhanced fishery and is found to be within scope, an assessment ofeach enhancement activity conducted by the UoA and a documented justification forthe determination that the UoA is within scope.
p. Identification and justification of any IPI stock(s).
q. Summary of key issues for further investigation.
r.
7.8.3

A plan for RBF activities that the team will conduct at the site visit (as per the MSC
Fisheries Standard Toolbox).

The team shall use the default assessment tree as set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard
Section SA in all assessments, with the following exceptions.
7.8.3.1

For enhanced bivalve fisheries, the team shall score the UoA according to therequirements set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section SB.

7.8.3.2

For salmon fisheries, the team shall score the UoA according to the requirements
set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section SC.

7.8.3.3

For introduced species based fisheries, the team shall score the UoA according to
the requirements set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section SD.

7.8.3.4

For Principle 1 stocks managed by Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations (RFMOs), the team shall score the UoA according to therequirements set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section SE.

7.8.3.5

If the UoA is an enhanced fishery for a species other than bivalves or salmon, the
CAB shall apply 7.7.1.

7.8.3.6

If the CAB judges that the default assessment trees referenced in 7.8.3.1–5 areinappropriate for the UoA and require modification, the CAB shall follow 7.10.5.

7.8.4

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create the Announcement Comment
Draft Report.

7.9

Decision to proceed to announcement by client

7.9.1

The CAB shall provide the Announcement Comment Draft Report to the client.

7.9.2

The CAB shall ensure that any information given to the client during the Announcement
Comment Draft Report stage is in conformity with ISO 17065.

7.9.3

If the client has a concern that insufficient information is available to support the team’s
decisions or that a decision has been made in error, the CAB shall give the client an
opportunity to question the team and have an issue re-examined.
7.9.3.1

The CAB shall require the client to provide objective evidence in support of any
additional claims or any claimed errors of fact.

7.9.3.2

If the CAB accepts client requests for changes in the report, the CAB shall provide
justifications for these changes.

7.9.3.3

The CAB shall provide responses to client comments.

7.9.4

The CAB shall inform the client that it is the client’s decision to either proceed toannouncement of assessment or delay announcement of assessment.

7.9.5

The CAB may make changes to the Announcement Comment Draft Report, based on
information provided by the client, at any time before the announcement of the fisheryassessment.

7.10

Announcement of fishery assessment ◙7.10.1The CAB shall formally announce the fishery assessment by completing and uploading the‘MSC Fishery Announcement Template’ and Announcement Comment Draft Report to the
MSC database for publication on the MSC website.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.10.1.1
7.10.2The CAB shall follow the timeline for stakeholder input as detailed in 7.13.1.

The CAB shall include the following information in the ‘MSC Fishery Announcement
Template’:a. Confirmation that the fishery is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
b. The statement on certificate sharing described in 7.5.11.2.a, if applicable.
c.

Summaries of CVs of the team and team leader, including an explanation of how theymeet the personnel requirements in the GCR and the qualifications and competencies
in Annex PC, as well as confirmation that the team has no conflicts of interest in
relation to the UoA under assessment.

d. The assessment tree being used to score the UoA.
e. Details of the site visit, including:i.

Dates of the site visit.
A. The CAB shall ensure the site visit commences after the deadline forstakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report, as per
Section 7.13.

ii.
f.

Location of the site visit.

An invitation for stakeholder participation in the assessment process.
i.

The CAB shall ensure that stakeholders identified in the Pre-Assessment Report
and/or Announcement Comment Draft Report are invited to participate in theassessment process.

g. Details of the opportunities and input methods for stakeholders to participate during
the assessment process.
i.

The CAB shall make it clear that all members of the team are available to meetwith stakeholders in person or remotely.

h. The deadline for stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report, asper Section 7.13.
i.

The hyperlink to the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’.

j.

Details of overlapping UoAs, if applicable.

7.10.3

If the CAB proposes to use the RBF, the CAB shall follow the MSC Fisheries Standard
Toolbox A2.1 and A2.2.

7.10.4At the same time as uploading the documents required in 7.10.1 to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website, the CAB shall upload the following documents to the
MSC database:a. A copy of the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’.
b. A copy of any Pre-Assessment Report(s) the CAB has written for the UoA. ◙i.
c.

If the CAB is aware of any other pre-assessment report(s) written by other parties,
the CAB shall inform the MSC of the report’s author.

A copy of the Scope Declaration, see 7.4.3.

Modified assessment trees
7.10.5

If the CAB decides that any of the assessment trees need modification, the CAB shall:a. Before preparing the Announcement Comment Draft Report, apply for and obtain from
the MSC a variation to 7.8.3.
b. At the time of formally announcing the fishery assessment, inform stakeholders in the‘MSC Fishery Announcement Template’ about the draft assessment tree and thereasons for modifications.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0c.

Announce the site visit, as per 7.10.2.e.

d. Upload the draft assessment tree to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website.
e. Allow stakeholder input on the draft modified assessment tree and weighting during
the same stakeholder input period for the Announcement Comment Draft Report.
f.

Consider all stakeholder input, recording why comments have been accepted or
rejected.

g. Review the decision to modify the assessment tree, considering stakeholder input.
h. Upload the final assessment tree to be used to the MSC database for publication on
the MSC website, within 10 days of the consultation period closing.
i.
7.10.5.1

Include the changes to the assessment tree in the subsequent fishery assessment
reports.
The CAB shall draft PIs in a way that facilitates appropriate drafting of conditions
as per 7.16.2. ◙7.11

Assessment timelines

7.11.1The CAB’s indicative assessment timeline, uploaded to the MSC database with the fisheryassessment announcement, shall form the basis for tracking the assessment process bystakeholders.
7.11.1.1

If the CAB determines that the publication date of the next public report will be 30
or more days before or after the date stated in the indicative timeline, the CAB
shall upload a revised timeline to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website.

7.12

Peer Review College ◙7.12.1

Upon announcement of the fishery assessment, the CAB shall send the Peer Review
College a notification that the announcement of the fishery assessment and theassessment timeline have been published on the MSC website.

7.12.27.12.1.1

The CAB shall confirm the anticipated date that the Client and Peer Review Draft
Report will become available.

7.12.1.2

The CAB shall inform the Peer Review College if changes are made to theassessment timeline that will affect the peer review process.

The CAB shall obtain from the Peer Review College:a. The names of the peer reviewers who have been proposed to conduct the peer review
and details of their qualifications and competencies.
b. Confirmation that the peer reviewers meet the required competencies.
c.

7.12.3

Confirmation of the availability of the peer reviewers within the timeline nominated by
the CAB.

Following the site visit, the CAB shall either:a. Provide the Peer Review College with the contact details of all the stakeholders toenable the College to conduct the stakeholder consultation on potential conflicts ofinterest of the peer reviewers proposed, or
b. Request stakeholders to inform the Peer Review College regarding any potential
conflicts of interest of the peer reviewers proposed, using the consultation form
provided by the Peer Review College. ◙7.12.4The CAB shall obtain from the Peer Review College confirmation that the peer reviewers
have no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under assessment.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.12.5

The Peer Review College’s decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final. ◙7.12.6The CAB shall include the information in 7.12.2.a and 7.12.2.b in the Public Comment
Draft Report and subsequent reports.

7.13

Stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report

7.13.1The CAB shall publish the Announcement Comment Draft Report for stakeholder input.
7.13.1.1

If an initial assessment, the CAB shall allow 60 days for stakeholder input.

7.13.1.2

If a reassessment, the CAB shall allow 30 days for stakeholder input.

7.13.2The CAB shall provide the hyperlink to the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into
Fishery Assessments’.

7.13.3

The CAB shall inform stakeholders that they are required to provide objective evidence
and references in support of any claims or any claimed errors of fact.

7.13.4

Before the site visit commences, the CAB shall upload all written submissions fromstakeholders received from the stakeholder consultation on the Announcement Comment
Draft Report to the MSC database for publication on the MSC website. ◙7.13.4.1

The CAB shall inform stakeholders that 7.13.4 has been completed.

7.14

Site visits, stakeholder input, and information collection

7.14.1

The team shall conduct the site visit as planned. ◙7.14.1.1

7.14.2

The full team shall attend all meetings at the site visit.

The team shall:a. Conduct interviews to make sure that the team is aware of any concerns orinformation that participants may have.
b. Allow private interviews with the team for participants on request.
c.

Use any information provided in private in conformity with confidentiality requirements,
see Section 4.3.

7.15

Scoring the UoA ◙7.15.1After the team has compiled and analysed all relevant information (including technical,
written and anecdotal sources), the team shall score the UoA(s) against the Performance
Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the final tree. ◙7.15.1.1

The team shall only use information that was available (in accordance with
Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5) on or before the last day of the site visit.
a. If the CAB and any participant at the site visit agree in writing that information
will be made available after the site visit, the CAB shall accept this information
up to 30 days after the last day of the site visit.

7.15.2The team shall: ◙a. Discuss evidence together.
b. Weigh up the balance of evidence.
c.

7.15.3Use its judgement to agree a final score following the processes below.

Following the site visit, the team may change the target stock(s) listed for assessment
under Principle 1.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.15.47.15.3.1

The team shall assess any stock or species initially proposed for assessment
under Principle 1, that will no longer be assessed under Principle 1, against therelevant Principle 2 PIs.

7.15.3.2

The team shall not assess any stock or species not originally proposed forassessment under Principle 1.

The team shall apply the requirements in the SGs as follows:a. In order to achieve an 80 score, all the SG60s and all the SG80s shall be met.
b. In order to achieve a 100 score, all the SG60s, all the SG80s, and all the SG100s
shall be met.
7.15.4.1

7.15.5The team shall justify each SI by including supporting rationale.

The team should assign scores for individual PIs in increments of 5 points.
7.15.5.1

If scores are assigned in divisions of less than 5 points, the team shall provide
justification for this in the report. ◙7.15.5.2

The team shall apply an exception if the score is automated from the RBF
worksheet.
a. The team shall include the worksheet score without rounding up or down.

7.15.6

The team shall report scores for each of the 3 Principles to the nearest 1 decimal place.

7.15.7

The team shall score individual PIs.
7.15.7.1

The team shall not award certification for any UoA for which 1 or more required
PIs is not scored.

7.15.7.2

The team shall assess the PI against each of the SIs at the SG60 level.
a. If any of the SG60 SIs are not met, the team shall fail the UoA, and no further
scoring is required for the PI.
i.

7.15.7.3

The team shall not assign a numeric score of less than 60 for a PI, andinstead record in narrative form its rationale for determining that the PI
scores less than 60.

If all the SG60 SIs are met, the team shall assign at least a 60 score, and theteam shall assess each of the SIs at the SG80 level. ◙a. If any of the SG80 SIs are not met, the team shall assign an intermediate
score (65, 70, or 75) reflecting overall performance against the different SG80
SIs:i.

The team shall assign 65 when performance against the SIs is slightly
above SG60 (a few SIs are fully met, but most are not fully met).

ii.

The team shall assign 70 where performance against the SIs is mid-way
between SG60 and SG80 (some SIs are fully met, and some are not fully
met).

iii. The team shall assign 75 when performance against the SIs is almost at
SG80 (most SIs are fully met, but a few are not fully met).
b. If 1 or more of the SG80 SIs is not met, the team shall set 1 or moreconditions.
7.15.7.4

If all the SG80 SIs are met, the team shall assign at least an 80 score, and theteam shall assess each of the SIs at the SG100 level.
a. If any of the SG100 SIs are not met, the team shall assign an intermediate
score (85, 90, or 95) reflecting overall performance against the different
SG100 SIs.
i.

The team shall assign 85 when performance against the SIs is slightly
above SG80 (a few SIs are fully met, but most are not fully met).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

ii.

The team shall assign 90 where performance against the SIs is mid-way
between SG80 and SG100 (some SIs are fully met, and some are notfully met).

iii. The team shall assign 95 when performance against the SIs is almost at
SG100 (most SIs are fully met, but a few are not fully met).
7.15.7.5

If all the SG100 SIs are met, the team shall assign a 100 score.

The team shall use the default weighting in the ‘MSC Fishery Assessment Scoring
Worksheet’ when scoring the default assessment tree. ◙7.15.87.15.8.1

Where necessary, the team shall make changes to the default weighting if they
propose modifications to the default assessment tree.
a. The team shall ensure that weighting in each level of the final tree (i.e.
Principle, component or PI) adds up to a total of 1.
b. The team shall give equal weighting to each PI within a component of thetree, and to each component within a Principle of the tree.

7.15.9The team shall use the revised weighting in the ‘MSC Fishery Assessment Scoring
Worksheet’ when scoring salmon fisheries (MSC Fisheries Standard Section SC). ◙7.15.10

To contribute to the scoring of any PI, the team shall verify that each SI is fully andunambiguously met.

7.15.10.1

The team shall present a rationale to support the team’s conclusion. ◙7.15.10.2

The team shall make direct reference to every SI in the rationale and confirm
whether or not the SI is fully met at each SG level.

7.15.10.3

An exception to 7.15.10.2 is permitted for those PIs that include only a single SI ateach SG level.
a. For these PIs, the team may partially score the issue to obtain intermediate
scores.
b. The team shall provide a rationale, clearly explaining which aspects of the SI
are met.

7.15.11

If multiple scoring elements are included in Principle 1 or Principle 2 PIs, the team shallscore the PI as follows:a. All scoring elements shall meet the SG60 level in order for the UoA to be certified.
b. If any single scoring element fails to meet SG80, the overall score for that PI shall beless than 80 so that a condition is raised, regardless of whether any other scoring
elements have met SG80 or higher.
c.

The overall score given shall reflect the number of scoring elements that meet eachSG, rather than being derived directly as a numerical average of the individual scoresfor all scoring elements. ◙d. The score shall be determined for each scoring element by applying the process in
7.15.7 to each scoring element.
e. The team shall use Table 1 to determine the overall score for the PI from the scores of
the individual scoring elements.
f.

If some scoring elements have been scored using the RBF, the converted MSC scoreshall be treated as an individual scoring element score when combining elementscores in Table 1.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table 1: Combining element scores
Score

Combination of individual scoring elements<60

The team shall not assign a score to any scoring element within a PI that fails to reachSG60. The team shall record their rationale in narrative form for the PI rather thanassigning actual scores of less than 60.

60

All elements meet SG60 and only SG60.

65

All elements meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but
most do not meet SG80.

70

All elements meet SG60; some achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, butsome do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there.

75

All elements meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a
few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action.

80

All elements meet SG80.

85

All elements meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet
SG100.

90

All elements meet SG80; some achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not.

95

All elements meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few failto achieve SG100.

100

All elements meet SG100.

7.15.12

The team shall modify scores where appropriate:a. Downwards by the scores falling between 2 SGs obtained by the individual elementsthat fail to meet an upper SG level.
b. Upwards by the scores falling between 2 SGs obtained by the individual elements thatexceed an upper SG level.
c.

Upwards change should never rise as high as 80 if the team judges that a condition isrequired.

7.15.13

The CAB shall not certify the UoA if the weighted average score for all PIs under eachPrinciple is less than 80 for any of the 3 Principles.

7.15.14

The CAB shall not certify the UoA if any individual SI is not met at the SG60 level,
contributing to a score of less than 60 on any PI.

7.16

Setting conditions ◙7.16.1The CAB shall set 1 or more auditable and verifiable conditions for continuing certification
if the UoA achieves a score of less than 80 but equal to or greater than 60 for any
individual PI.
7.16.1.1

The CAB shall ensure that every PI that receives a score of less than 80 has its
own distinct condition associated with it.

7.16.2The CAB shall draft conditions to follow the narrative or metric form of the PI SGs andaccompanying requirements used in the assessment tree. ◙7.16.3

The CAB shall draft conditions to result in improved performance to at least the 80 levelwithin a period set by the CAB but no longer than the term of the certification.

7.16.4The CAB shall specify a deadline for each condition.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.16.5The CAB shall draft conditions to specify milestones that detail:a. The measurable improvements and outcomes, using quantitative metrics, expectedeach year.
b. The specific timeframes over which the milestones and the whole condition must bemet.
c.

7.16.6The outcome and score that shall be achieved at any interim milestones.

If, when drafting a condition, the CAB determines that achieving a performance level of 80
may take longer than the period of certification even with perfect implementation (referred
to as "exceptional circumstances"), the CAB may draft conditions to result in improved
performance to at least the 80 level within a longer, specified time frame set by the CAB. ◙7.16.6.1

In “exceptional circumstances”, the CAB shall specify conditions that outline:a. The significant and measurable improvements, in terms of milestones oroutcomes, that must be achieved and the score that must be reached atinterim milestones and at reassessment.
b. What constitutes a successful overall outcome to achieve the 80 performancelevel over a longer, specified period.

7.16.6.2

The CAB shall include justification for “exceptional circumstances” in the summaryof conditions in the Client and Peer Review Draft Report and all subsequent
reports.

7.16.7The CAB shall create a summary of conditions stating the action(s) to be taken within a
specified timeframe.

7.16.8

If the client and the CAB are unable to agree on conditions and milestones, the CAB shallnot certify the UoA.

7.16.9The CAB shall include conditions and milestones in the Client and Peer Review Draft
Report and all subsequent reports.

7.16.10

If a condition or milestone relates to reducing uncertainty or improving processes, the CAB
shall include in its reports a narrative about the ultimate ecological or management
outcome that the condition aims to achieve over the longer term.

7.16.11

If there are IPI stocks within the scope of certification, the team shall follow Annex PA1.3.

7.17

Determination of the traceability systems and point(s) at whichfish and fish products enter further certified chains of custody ◙7.17.1The CAB shall determine whether the fishery client has sufficient systems of tracking andtracing to ensure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fisheryclient originate from the individual UoC. ◙7.17.1.1

The CAB shall confirm that systems allow the fishery client to trace any fish or fish
products sold as MSC certified back to the individual UoC.

7.17.1.2

The CAB shall confirm that the fishery client maintains appropriate records todemonstrate the traceability of certified fish or fish products back to the individual
UoC. ◙

7.17.1.3

If fish and fish products are transhipped on the high seas, the CAB shall only
determine that systems are sufficient if: ◙a. The systems are verified independently from the certificate holder.
b. The systems cover fishing and receiving vessels involved in transhipment.
c.

7.17.1.4

The systems apply to all the transhipment events.

The CAB shall determine any risks for the integrity of certified products based on
the risk factors listed in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’, and how the risks aremanaged and mitigated. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.17.2

Where there are IPI stock(s) within the scope of certification, the CAB shall follow 7.5.13–
7.5.15.

7.17.3

If the CAB makes a positive determination under 7.17.1, fish and fish products from the
UoC may enter into certified chains of custody and be eligible to be sold as MSC certified
or carry the MSC ecolabel.

7.17.4The CAB shall determine the scope of the fishery certificate, including the parties andcategories of parties eligible to use the certificate and the point(s) at which CoC is needed,
as follows:a. CoC certification shall always be required following first change of ownership to any
party not covered by the fishery certificate.
b. CoC certification may be required at an earlier stage than change of ownership to any
party not covered by the fishery certificate, if the team determines that the systems
within the fishery are not sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified assuch by the fishery originate from the UoC.

7.17.5

If the CAB makes a negative determination under 7.17.1, fish and fish products from the
UoC shall not be eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.
7.17.5.1

7.17.6This determination shall remain in force until the CAB revises the determination ina subsequent assessment.

The CAB shall document in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’: ◙a. The movement of fish and fish products between harvest and landing.
b. If CoC starts after landing, the movement of fish and fish products between landing
and the point from which subsequent CoC certification is required.
c.

For all critical tracking events covered by the fishery certificate, the process ofsegregation of fish and fish products at the level of UoC and the associateddocumentation and/or data confirming the UoC origin. ◙d. Where there are IPI stock(s) within the scope of certification, the CAB shall report on
the verification of traceability systems.
e. Each risk identified in 7.17.1.4, and details of the mitigation or management of therisk. ◙f.

The determination under 7.17.1, and, if negative, the stipulation under 7.17.5.

g. The point of change of ownership of product to any party not covered by the fisherycertificate.
h. The point from which subsequent CoC certification is required.
i.

How fish or fish products can be identified or can be confirmed as certified at the pointthat it enters certified chains of custody.

j.

Any specific eligibility criteria for product to be sold as certified, or where to find thisinformation.

k.

Which points of landing, auctions or other transfer may be used for the sale of fishfrom the certified fishery into further chains of custody.

l.

A list of entities, or categories of entities, eligible to access the certificate and sell
product as certified.

m. The entities, or categories of entities, at the point of landing and/or sale, that are
required to have separate CoC certification.
7.17.6.1

7.17.7The CAB shall ensure that the traceability section in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’ assessment report is completed or reviewed by an auditor who
conforms to the personnel requirements in the MSC Chain of Custody Certification
Requirements and the GCR. ◙The CAB shall inform the fishery client that if they sell or label non-eligible (nonconforming) product as MSC certified, they are required to: ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

a. Inform any affected customers and the CAB of the issue within 4 days of detection.
b. Immediately cease to sell any non-conforming products in stock as MSC certified until
their certified status has been verified by the CAB.
c.

Cooperate with the CAB to determine the cause of the issue and to implement any
corrective actions required.

7.18

Determination of eligibility date ◙7.18.1The CAB shall nominate the “eligibility date”, from which product harvested from a UoA
under assessment may be eligible to be identified as under-assessment product.
The “eligibility” date shall be any nominated date on or between the publication
date of the 1st Public Comment Draft Report and the certification date. ◙7.18.1.1
7.18.2

If the “eligibility date” is set before the certification date, the CAB shall inform the fisheryclient that any fish harvested after the “eligibility date” and sold or stored as underassessment fish shall be handled in conformity with the following requirements:a. All under-assessment product shall be clearly identified and segregated from certified
and non-certified products.
b. The client shall maintain full traceability records for all under-assessment product,
demonstrating traceability back to the UoC and including the date of harvest.
c.

Under-assessment products shall not be sold as certified or labelled with the MSC
ecolabel, logo, or trademarks until certification and product eligibility are confirmed.

7.19

Client and Peer Review Draft Report ◙7.19.1Once conditions, milestones, and the point at which fish may enter further chains ofcustody have been determined, the CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create
the Client and Peer Review Draft Report.

7.19.2The CAB shall issue the Client and Peer Review Draft Report to the client and to the Peer
Review College at the same time.

Peer review
7.19.3

The CAB shall arrange a review of the Client and Peer Review Draft Report, as detailed in
Section 7.12 by peer reviewers from the Peer Review College.

7.19.4The CAB shall allow the selected peer reviewers to review the Client and Peer Review
Draft Report.

7.19.5

Upon receipt of the peer reviewers’ written comments, the team shall:a. Address all the issues raised, changing any part of the scoring, conditions, and reportas the team sees necessary. ◙i.

The team shall provide clear explanations, with evidence, in the CAB response
column of the ‘ MSC Template for Initial Peer Review of MSC Fishery
Assessments’ to support the team’s conclusion on whether they accept or reject
each of the issues raised by the peer reviewer.

b. Incorporate peer reviewer comments, team responses to those comments, and any
appropriate changes into the Client and Peer Review Draft Report to create the Public
Comment Draft Report.
c.

Amend any conditions as required, and ensure the fishery client amends the Client
Action Plan as required.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Client review
7.19.6The CAB should allow 60 days after receipt of the Client and Peer Review Draft Report forthe client to: ◙a. Provide information on items that would lead to a “material difference”, as defined in
7.20.6.c, in the outcome of the assessment.
b. Develop a Client Action Plan.
i.

The use of the ‘MSC Client Action Plan Template’ is optional.

The CAB shall verify that the client has prepared a Client Action Plan that includes: ◙7.19.7a. A description of the actions that will be implemented by the client, and other entities(where relevant) to achieve milestones and conditions.
b. Roles and responsibilities for actions.
c.
7.19.8The outputs that will be provided to the assessment team to demonstrate thatmilestones are achieved and progress towards meeting conditions is being made.

The CAB shall not accept a Client Action Plan if the client is relying upon the involvement,
funding and/or resources of other entities, such as fisheries management or research
agencies, authorities, or regulating bodies that might have authority, power, or control overmanagement arrangements, research budgets, and/or priorities, without:a. Verifying with those same entities whether the closure of conditions is likely to require
any or all of the following:i.

Investment of time or money by these entities.

ii.

Changes to management arrangements or regulations.

iii. Re-arrangement of research priorities by these entities.
b. Being satisfied that the closure of conditions is both achievable by the client andrealistic in the period specified.
7.19.9If the CAB cannot find evidence to show that funding and/or resources are, or will be, inplace to address conditions, the UoA shall not be certified.

7.19.10The CAB shall document and retain any comments made by the client on the Client andPeer Review Draft Report and responses from the team.

7.19.10.1

The CAB shall make these comments and responses available to any party uponrequest.

7.19.11

If conditions are added as a result of the peer review, the CAB should allow an additional
30 days for the client to update the Client Action Plan.

7.20

Public Comment Draft Report

7.20.1The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create the Public Comment Draft
Report.

7.20.2

When creating the Public Comment Draft Report, the team shall only make changes toscoring (Section 7.15) if:
a. Justified by registered stakeholder, MSC, client, or peer reviewer comments received
during consultation opportunities, orb. Justified by findings issued by the MSC’s accreditation body, orc.
7.20.2.1

Harmonisation as per Annex PB has resulted in score changes.
The information used to justify scoring changes was publicly available on or
before the last day of the site visit.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

a. If the CAB and any participant at the site visit agree in writing that information
will be made available after the site visit, the CAB shall accept this information
up to 30 days after the last day of the site visit.
7.20.3

The Public Comment Draft Report shall include:a. Confirmation that the UoA is in scope (MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1).
b. Confirmation of the assessment tree used to assess the UoA.
c.

The UoA(s).

d. The proposed UoC(s).
e. The Principle 1 and Principle 2 scoring elements.
f.

The scores and weightings for each PI.

g. A rationale for each PI and SI.
h. A reference list.
i.

The draft determination on whether or not the UoA(s) will be recommended for
certification.

j.

A review of traceability factors as defined in 7.5.10.

k.

The eligibility date.

l.

The surveillance schedule.

m. Any conditions.
n. The Client Action Plan.
o. Peer review comments and team responses.
p. If the UoA is an enhanced fishery and is found to be within scope, an assessment ofeach enhancement activity conducted by the UoA and a documented justification forthe determination that the UoA is within scope.
q. Identification and justification for IPI stock(s).
r.
7.20.4

A review of RBF outcomes, if completed.

The CAB shall include in the References section of the report any references used tosupport statements in the evaluation tables of the reports.
The CAB shall include an in-text reference to the relevant source. ◙7.20.4.1
7.20.5The CAB shall include responses from the team as per 7.20.6.d in each ‘MSC Templatefor Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ uploaded as per 7.20.7.

7.20.6The CAB shall include the following in a separate section or appendix to the Public
Comment Draft Report:
a. Any written submissions from registered stakeholders received during consultation
opportunities on:i.

The Announcement Comment Draft Report.

ii.

The proposal for the modification of the default tree and/or use of the RBF (MSC
Fisheries Standard Toolbox).

b. All written submissions received during site visits.
c.

A summary of verbal submissions received during site visits that are likely to cause a“material difference” to the outcome of the assessment, including those withinformation that could influence:i.

A PI score falling below 60.

ii.

A PI score falling between 60 and 80.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

iii. A Principle score falling below an aggregate 80 score as a result of the changes tothe score for 1 or more PIs.
iv. A change in scope (as per MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1, 7.5.2, or 7.5.3).
d. Responses from the team to submissions described in 7.20.6.a, b, and c, including:

7.20.7i.

Any changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions that have been made.

ii.

Where changes are suggested but no change is made, a substantiatedjustification.

The CAB shall upload the following to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website:a. Any ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ submitted by astakeholder as per 7.20.6.a or 7.20.6.b.
b. Any ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ with a summaryof verbal submissions received during site visits as per 7.20.6.c.

7.20.8The CAB shall upload the Public Comment Draft Report to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website.
7.20.8.1

The CAB shall also upload:a. An announcement with the Public Comment Draft Report including a hyperlink
to the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’.
b. A statement that the CAB will only consider stakeholder input on the Public
Comment Draft Report from registered stakeholders (4.2.8).
c.

7.20.8.2

7.20.9The timeline for stakeholder input.

The CAB shall inform registered stakeholders (4.2.8) that their previous input(7.20.6.a, 7.20.6.b or 7.20.6.c) and the response from the team is published on
the MSC website and available for review.

The CAB shall make the Public Comment Draft Report available for input from registeredstakeholders (4.2.8) for at least 30 days.
7.20.9.1

The CAB shall only consider stakeholder input on the Public Comment Draft
Report from registered stakeholders.

7.20.9.2

If the CAB receives input from stakeholders who are not registered, the CAB shall:a. Note the stakeholder input for review at the next surveillance audit.
b. Inform the stakeholder that their input will be reviewed at the next surveillance
audit.

7.20.9.3

The CAB shall inform registered stakeholders that they are required to provide
objective evidence in support of any claims or any claimed errors of fact.

Peer reviewer comments and MSC technical oversight
7.20.10The CAB shall provide the Public Comment Draft Report to the peer reviewers for followup review of the assessment team’s responses to the peer reviewers’ initial comments.

7.20.10.1

7.20.11

The CAB shall provide the Public Comment Draft Report to peer reviewers at thesame time that it is provided to registered stakeholders for input, for at least 30
days.

The CAB shall provide the Public Comment Draft Report to the MSC to conduct technicaloversight.

7.20.11.1

The CAB shall provide the report to the MSC at the same time that it is provided toregistered stakeholders for input, for at least 30 days.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.21

Determination ◙7.21.1

The team shall consider the suggested changes and comments made to the Public
Comment Draft Report under Section 7.20.
7.21.1.1

7.21.2The team shall confirm or amend the draft determination.

When creating the Final Draft Report, the team shall only make changes to scoring if:
a. Justified by registered stakeholder, MSC, client, or peer reviewer comments received
during consultation opportunities, orb. Justified by findings issued by the MSC’s accreditation body, orc.

Harmonisation as per Annex PB has resulted in score changes.

7.21.2.1

The information considered to justify scoring changes must have been publicly
available on or before the last day of the site visit.
a. If the CAB and any participant at the site visit have agreed in writing that
information will be made available after the site visit, the CAB shall accept thisinformation up to 30 days after the last day of the site visit.

7.21.3

The team shall record the final determination in the Final Draft Report.

7.21.4

If changes to scoring have resulted in conditions being added or removed, the CAB should
give the client at least 20 days to make any amendments to the Client Action Plan.
7.21.4.1

Once complete, the CAB shall add the amended Client Action Plan to the Final
Draft Report.

7.22

Final Draft Report

7.22.1

If the period from the full assessment announcement to the publication of the Final Draft
Report by the MSC is more than 18 months, the CAB shall withdraw the UoA from the
MSC assessment process.

7.22.2The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create the Final Draft Report.

7.22.3

The CAB shall include the following in a separate section or appendix to the Final Draft
Report: ◙a. Any written submissions from registered stakeholders received during the consultation
opportunity on:i.

The Announcement Comment Draft Report.

ii.

The Public Comment Draft Report.

b. All written submissions received during site visits.
c.

A summary of verbal submissions received during site visits likely to cause a “material
difference” to the outcome of the assessment, including those with information that
could influence:i.

A PI score falling below 60.

ii.

A PI score falling between 60 and 80.

iii. A Principle score falling below an aggregate 80 score as a result of changes to thescore for 1 or more PIs.
iv. A change in scope (as per MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1, 7.5.2 or 7.5.3).
d. If applicable, peer review follow-up and MSC technical oversight submissions.
e. Responses from the team to the submissions in 7.22.3.a–d, including:i.

Any changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions that have been made.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

ii.
7.22.4The CAB shall upload the Final Draft Report to the MSC database for publication on the
MSC website.
7.22.4.1

7.22.5

Where changes are suggested but no change is made, a substantiatedjustification.

The CAB shall upload an announcement with the Final Draft Report, including
information about the process and a timeline for registered stakeholder input, asper the MSC Disputes Process.

The CAB shall upload the following to the MSC database:a. Any ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ submitted by astakeholder during the assessment containing stakeholder input and the CAB
responses as per 7.22.3.a, b, c, and e.
b. Any ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ with a summaryof verbal submissions containing stakeholder input and the CAB responses as per
7.22.3.c and e.

7.23

MSC Disputes Process

7.23.1

Before publishing the Public Certification Report, the CAB shall follow the process andtimeline set out in the MSC Disputes Process.

7.24

Public Certification Report

7.24.1At the end of the full assessment process, the CAB shall finalise a Public Certification
Report in accordance with this section that incorporates the Final Draft Report and, if
relevant, results arising from the MSC Disputes Process.

7.24.2

If the MSC Disputes Process is not triggered, the CAB should publish the PublicCertification Report within 60 days of the closing date of the objection period.

7.24.3

If the MSC Disputes Process is triggered, the CAB should publish the Public Certification
Report within 60 days of completion of the Disputes Process, depending on the outcomeof the dispute.

7.24.4The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create the Public Certification Report.

7.24.5The CAB shall upload the Public Certification Report to the MSC database for publicationon the MSC website, identifying a determination to certify or fail the UoA.
7.24.5.1

The CAB shall upload to the MSC database, for publication on the MSC website,an announcement with the Public Certification Report including the determination
to certify or fail the UoA.

7.24.6The CAB shall determine which entities should or should not be allowed to use the fisherycertificate.

7.24.7The CAB shall only permit fish caught by those fishers that are identified by reference to or
on a valid fishery certificate to be eligible to enter certified chains of custody andsubsequently bear the MSC ecolabel.
7.24.7.1

The CAB shall upload a Fishery Certificate Statement to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website defining: ◙a. Which entities are currently eligible to access the certificate.
i.

If a group of vessels or individual fishing operators (i.e. not an entire
fishing fleet) is used to define the UoA or UoC, the CAB shall require theclient to provide a list of the vessels, or a hyperlink to a publicly available
list of vessels, for the CAB to upload to the MSC database for publicationon the MSC website.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

b. Which other eligible fishers, if identified in the UoA, may be able to access thecertificate through the mechanism of certificate sharing.
c.

Which points of landing, auctions, or other transfer may be used for the saleof fish and fish products from the UoC into further chains of custody.

d. The point from which subsequent CoC certification is required.
e. Any specific eligibility criteria for product to be sold as certified, or where tofind this information. ◙7.24.7.2

If there are any changes related to information on the Fishery Certificate
Statement, the CAB shall update the Fishery Certificate Statement by uploading a
new version with changes to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website within 14 days of the change, except for the list of vessels detailed in
7.24.7.1.a.i.

7.24.8The CAB shall update information under 7.24.7.1.a at every surveillance audit.

7.25

Certification decision and certificate issue ◙7.25.1

If the CAB makes a decision to award certification, the CAB shall determine that the dateof certification is the date the Public Certification Report is published on the MSC websiteor, for reassessments, the 5th anniversary date of the existing certificate, whichever islater.

7.25.2For each UoA, the CAB shall add catch data into the MSC database for the most recent
fishing year for which data is available.
7.25.2.1

7.25.3

The CAB shall complete this within 10 days from the date the Public Certification
Report has been published on the MSC website.

The CAB shall upload a copy of the issued fishery certificate(s) to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website.
7.25.3.1

The CAB shall ensure that the date of certification on each fishery certificate
matches the date in 7.25.1.

7.25.3.2

The CAB shall submit a copy of the issued certificate(s) up to 10 days after thedate of certification.

7.25.4

If changes to the information contained on a fishery certificate are made, the CAB shallensure the updated copy of the fishery certificate is uploaded to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website within 10 days of the changes occurring.

7.26

UoA(s) that fail or withdraw from assessment

UoA(s) that withdraw from assessment
7.26.1

If at any time the fishery client makes the decision not to proceed with the assessment, the
CAB shall withdraw the UoA(s) from assessment and:a. Publish an announcement informing stakeholders that the UoA(s) have been
withdrawn from assessment.
b. Update the MSC database to withdraw the UoA(s) from assessment.

7.26.2The CAB shall follow 7.5.9.1 if the fishery client decides to withdraw 1 or more UoAs andproposed UoCs from the fishery assessment whilst continuing the assessment for theremaining UoAs and proposed UoCs.

UoA(s) that fail assessment

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.26.3

If the CAB makes a decision not to award certification and fail the UoA(s), the CAB shallupload the Public Certification Report to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website.

7.26.4The CAB shall include the following in the Public Certification Report of the failed UoA(s):a. Draft non-binding conditions for any PIs that score more than 60 but less than 80.
b. Specification that the conditions outlined are non-binding and serve to provide anindication of the actions that may have been required had the UoA(s) been certified.
7.26.4.1

7.26.5The CAB may draft and include non-binding conditions in the Client and Peer
Review Draft Report and subsequent assessment reports. ◙The CAB shall not include the following in the Public Certification Report of the failed
UoA(s):
a. Mandatory conditions or defined actions that would need to be conducted before the
UoA(s) could be reconsidered for certification in the future.
b. An agreement from the client to address conditions as per 7.19.7.

7.26.6The CAB shall follow 7.5.9.1 if 1 or more UoAs and proposed UoCs fails the assessment
and the fishery client decides to continue the assessment for the remaining UoAs andproposed UoCs.

UoA(s) that re-enter assessment
7.26.7

If a withdrawn or failed UoA re-enters full assessment, the CAB shall follow the mostrecent versions of the MSC Fisheries Program Documents in full. ◙7.26.8In assessment reports for withdrawn or failed UoA(s) that have re-entered assessment,
the CAB shall:a. Specify that the UoA(s) have re-entered assessment.
b. Summarise the details of the previous assessment, including:c.

i.

The results of the previous assessment.

ii.

The date of the previous determination not to certify.

Identify those PIs for which scoring and/or the rationale for scoring has changed fromthe previous assessment.

7.27

Extension of scope of fishery certificate (scope extensions) ◙7.27.1The CAB may extend the scope of an existing fishery certificate to include another UoA
within its scope, providing:a. The Principle 1 target stock of the proposed UoA was previously assessed underPrinciple 1 or Principle 2 of the existing UoC(s).
b. The existing UoC(s) and the proposed UoA have some assessment components thatare the same. ◙c.

The existing UoC(s) and the proposed UoA operate in either an overlapping or
adjacent fishing area.

7.27.2The CAB shall only accept a request for a scope extension from a holder of a valid MSC
fishery certificate.

7.27.3

The CAB shall use the version of the assessment tree that was used for the assessmentof the existing UoC(s) for the scope extension assessment of the proposed UoA.

7.27.4The CAB shall assign a person who meets the fishery team member qualification andcompetency criteria as set out in Table PC2.

7.27.5The assigned individual shall:a. Identify the assessment components and scoring elements in the proposed UoA.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

b. Conduct a gap analysis to confirm which assessment components and scoring
elements are the same in the proposed UoA and the existing UoC(s). ◙7.27.6

If some assessment tree components are not the same as assessment components in theexisting UoC(s), the CAB shall conduct a scope extension assessment according to Annex
PD.

7.27.7

If all the assessment components and scoring elements of the proposed UoA are thesame as for the existing UoC(s), the CAB shall determine whether the proposed UoA is an“other eligible fisher” (7.5.11). ◙7.27.7.1

The CAB shall confirm that:a. The client is willing to extend the existing certificate.
b. All assessment components and scoring elements are the same as for the
existing UoC(s).
c.

The impacts of the potential new “other eligible fisher(s)” were considered in
the assessment of the existing UoCs.

d. That extending the scope of the certificate does not have implications for thescoring of any PIs.
7.27.7.2

The CAB shall include justifications for 7.27.7.1.a–d in the gap analysis.

If the CAB concludes that the proposed UoA is an “other eligible fisher”, the CAB may
extend the fishery certificate.

7.27.87.27.8.1

The CAB shall:a. Review and update the key traceability factors and associated risks (7.5.10).
b. Confirm that traceability risks are managed and mitigated (Section 7.17).
c.

Include 7.27.8.1.a–b in the gap analysis.

d. Upload an announcement to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website informing stakeholders that new “other eligible fishers” have been
added.
e. Upload the gap analysis to the MSC database for publication on the MSC
website.
f.

Update the Fishery Certificate Statement (see 7.24.7.2).

g. Update the fishery certificate (see 7.25.4 and fishery certification
requirements in the GCR).
h. Upload the Fishery Certificate Statement and fishery certificate to the MSC
database for publication on the MSC website.
7.27.9If the CAB cannot confirm 7.27.7.1.b–d, the CAB shall conduct a scope extension
assessment according to Annex PD.

7.27.10

If the scope extension assessment results in certification, the CAB shall make the durationof the certificate for the scope extension only as long as the existing fishery certificate.

7.27.11

The CAB shall draft conditions, as per Section 7.16 , to result in improved performance toat least the 80 level within a period set by the CAB but no longer than 5 years from thedate of certification of the new UoA.

7.27.12The CAB shall conduct the reassessment of both the new UoA and the originally certified
UoA at the same time using the version of the MSC Fisheries Standard that is effective.

CAB assistance with certificate sharing
7.27.13

If the certificate has other eligible fishers and/or a certificate sharing mechanism, the CAB
shall, within 30 days of receiving a request to share the certificate, facilitate the client’s
and other eligible fishers’ engagement in good faith efforts to enter into a certificate
sharing agreement.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.27.14

If an on-land (non-fishing) entity wishes to join the client group, the CAB shall consider thefactors in Section 7.17 to determine whether CoC certification is required.

7.28

Merging fishery certificates

7.28.1The CAB may merge 2 or more existing fishery certificates provided that:a. The CAB issued the fishery certificates that will be merged.
i.

If 1 or more of the fishery certificates were issued by different CABs, the CABs
shall transfer certificates as per the transfer of certificate between CABs
requirements in the GCR.

b. The same version of the MSC Fisheries Standard was used for all assessments.
c.

The request is made by holder(s) of valid MSC fishery certificates.

d. All fishery clients and client group members have agreed to merge their fisherycertificates.
7.28.2

To merge 2 or more fishery certificates, the CAB shall:a. Confirm that any changes to key traceability factors and associated risks are
identified, mitigated, and managed (see 7.5.10 and Section 7.17).
b. Confirm existing condition deadlines and milestone timeframes.
i.
c.

The CAB shall not change existing condition deadlines and milestone timeframes.

Update 1 of the existing fishery certificates to include all UoCs and relevant
information (see the fishery certification requirements in the GCR).
i.

The CAB shall set the expiry date as the expiry date of the fishery certificate withthe shortest duration remaining. ◙ii.

The CAB shall withdraw the other fishery certificate(s).

d. Upload a copy of the issued fishery certificate(s) to the MSC database for publicationon the MSC website.
e. Update the Fishery Certificate Statement (7.24.7.2).
f.

Upload the Fishery Certificate Statement to the MSC database for publication on the
MSC website.

g. Publish a stakeholder announcement for each fishery to inform stakeholders that thefishery certificates have been merged.
i.

7.29

The CAB shall include 7.28.2.a–b in the stakeholder announcement.

Surveillance ◙Surveillance level
7.29.1

During each initial assessment, surveillance, and reassessment, the team shall determine
the level at which subsequent surveillance of the UoA shall be conducted.

7.29.2

Surveillance audits shall take place according to the default surveillance level described inTable 2, unless the team decides on a reduced surveillance schedule, see 7.29.4–7.29.7.
◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table 2: Surveillance levels
Surveillance level

Surveillance requirements

Level 6
Default surveillance

4 on-site surveillance audits

Level 5

3 on-site surveillance audits
1 off-site surveillance audit

Level 42 on-site surveillance audits
2 off-site surveillance audits

Level 3

1 on-site surveillance audit
3 off-site surveillance audits

Level 2

1 on-site surveillance audit
2 off-site surveillance audits
1 review of information

Level 1Minimum surveillance

1 on-site surveillance audit
1 off-site surveillance audit
2 reviews of information

7.29.3

The following types of surveillance audit are available:
a. On-site audit. The audit involves face-to-face engagement with the client, conducting
stakeholder interviews and a review of changes in management and science in the
UoA.
b. Off-site audit. The audit involves engagement with the client, conducting stakeholderinterviews and a review of changes in management and science in the UoA, and isundertaken by the team members from a remote location.
c.

7.29.4

Review of information. The audit involves seeking the views of the client andidentifying whether there are any issues requiring further investigation. The audit isundertaken from a remote location. The CAB publishes a statement of the review of
information.

The CAB shall determine whether the UoA is eligible for a reduction of surveillance levels
dependent upon:a. The number of conditions outstanding.
b. The ability of the CAB to remotely verify information. ◙c.
7.29.4.1

The progress against the conditions.
The CAB shall determine the surveillance level for the UoA based on theconfidence of the CAB in its ability to remotely verify information and progress
towards meeting conditions.
a. The CAB shall only choose surveillance level 1 if, following an assessment or
surveillance audit, the UoA has no outstanding conditions.

7.29.5

If a reduced surveillance level is adopted, the CAB shall provide a justification for how the
UoA meets the criteria in 7.29.4.

7.29.6The CAB shall determine whether the fishery certificate is eligible for a reduction in thenumber of team members dependent upon:a. The certification period.
b. The number of conditions.
c.

The ability of the CAB to remotely verify information and progress against theconditions. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.29.6.1

In the initial certification period, the number of team members for surveillance
activities shall be at least 2.
a. The on-site audit may be undertaken by a minimum of 1 team member who is
supported by the rest of the team remotely.

7.29.6.2

In the 2nd and subsequent certification periods, a reduced team of 1 teammember may be used if the UoA has conditions associated with only 1 Principle,
or no conditions.

7.29.6.3

If a fishery certificate is not eligible for a reduced team in the 2nd or subsequentcertification periods, the on-site audit may be conducted by a minimum of 1 teammember who is supported by the rest of the team remotely.

7.29.7

If a reduced team is used, the team shall provide a justification for how the criteria in
7.29.6 are met.

Surveillance audit timing
7.29.8The CAB shall conduct surveillance audits within 30 days prior to the anniversary date of
the certificate unless the following applies.
7.29.8.1

The CAB may conduct surveillance audits up to 6 months earlier or later than theanniversary date, where this deviation is appropriate given the circumstances of
the UoA. ◙a. The CAB shall provide a justification for deviating from the anniversary dateas part of the surveillance schedule.
b. If deviations from the surveillance schedule are more than 30 days, the CAB
shall inform stakeholders.

7.29.9The CAB shall conduct 4 surveillance audits before the 5th anniversary of the existingcertificate.

Surveillance schedule
7.29.10The CAB shall agree a surveillance schedule for the duration of the certificate with theclient, based on 7.29.1–7.29.9.

7.29.11

The CAB shall publish the surveillance schedule in the Public Comment Draft Report.

7.29.11.1

7.29.12The CAB may amend the surveillance schedule prior to a surveillance audit.

7.29.12.1

7.29.13

The CAB shall review the proposed surveillance schedule for the Final Draft
Report and Public Certification Report to take account of any changes to theassessment.

If changes are made, the CAB shall note where amendments to the surveillanceschedule have been made, along with justification for the change, in the ‘MSC
Surveillance Announcement Template’.

The CAB may amend the surveillance schedule following a surveillance audit.

7.29.13.1

If changes are made, the CAB shall note where amendments to the surveillanceschedule have been made, along with justification for the change, in theSurveillance Report.

Preparing the surveillance audit
7.29.14

The CAB shall plan each surveillance audit as follows.

7.29.14.1

During the initial surveillance cycle, the CAB shall appoint a team of 2 or moreteam members to conduct the surveillance audit.
a. The team shall comprise a team leader and a minimum of 1 additional teammember who together meet at least 3 of the Fishery Team qualifications andcompetency requirements, see Table PC3.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.29.14.2

During the 2nd or subsequent surveillance cycles, the CAB shall appoint 1 ormore team members to conduct the surveillance audit following the requirements
set out in 7.29.6.2.
a. If 2 or more team members are appointed as the team, the requirements set
out in 7.29.14.1.a shall apply.
b. If 1 team member is appointed, the team member shall meet the team leader
requirements specified in Table PC1 and at least 1 of the fishery team
qualification and competency criteria from Table PC3 relevant to theoutstanding conditions in the UoA.

7.29.14.3

The CAB shall ensure that the team has local knowledge of the UoA.

7.29.14.4

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Surveillance Announcement Template’ to informstakeholders and the MSC of:a. Time, dates, and location of the surveillance activities.
b. What will be assessed/reviewed during the audit.
c.

The relevant skills and expertise of team members carrying out thesurveillance audit.

d. Details of the opportunities and input methods for stakeholders to participate
during the surveillance audit.
i.

The CAB shall make it clear that all members of the team are available tomeet with stakeholders in person or remotely.

7.29.14.5

The CAB shall include a hyperlink to the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into
Surveillance Audits’ in the Surveillance Announcement Template.

7.29.14.6

The CAB shall upload the Surveillance Announcement to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website at least 30 days before the surveillance audit
activities are carried out.

7.29.14.7

The CAB shall allow at least 30 days for stakeholder input into the surveillance
audit.
a. If the CAB and any participant in the surveillance audit agree in writing that
information will be made available after the surveillance audit activities, the
CAB shall accept this information up to 15 days after the last day of thesurveillance audit activities.

Surveillance audit activities
7.29.15

During each on-site and off-site surveillance audit, the CAB shall:a. Actively seek the views of the client on:i.

Any changes to the information provided in the Scope Declaration as per 7.4.5.1.

ii.

Changes to the UoA and its management.

iii. Performance in relation to any relevant conditions of certification.
iv. Any developments or changes within the UoA that affect traceability and the ability
to segregate MSC from non-MSC products. ◙v.

Any other significant changes in the UoA.

b. Hold interviews and actively seek the views of stakeholders and surveillance audit
participants to ensure that the team is aware of any stakeholder concerns.
i.

c.

If stakeholders do not wish to be interviewed, the team shall inform them that they
may submit written information to the team using the ‘MSC Template for
Stakeholder Input into Surveillance Audits’.

Apply the provisions set out in Sections 4.3–4.5 regarding access to information.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

d. If a group of vessels or individual fishing operators (i.e. not an entire fishing fleet) isused to define the UoA or UoC, require the client to provide an updated list of thevessels, or a hyperlink to a publicly available list of vessels.
i.

The CAB shall upload the updated vessel list or hyperlink to the MSC database tobe published on the MSC website.

e. Review and include in the Surveillance Report:i.

Any potential or actual changes in management systems.

ii.

Any changes or additions/deletions to regulations.

iii. Any personnel changes in science, management, or industry and their impact on
the management of the UoA.
iv. Any potential changes to scientific information, including stock assessments.
v.

Any changes affecting traceability.

vi. Any changes affecting harmonisation of overlapping fisheries, see PB1.3.1.
vii. Any changes in scope (as per MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1, 7.5.2, or 7.5.3).
7.29.15.1

Where the information for PI scores has changed, the CAB shall:a. Report and record what information has changed.
b. Rescore the PI following scoring processes as per Section 7.15.
i.

7.29.16

If the new score is less than 80, the CAB shall define conditions andrequire the client to develop a Client Action Plan for the new conditions.

At each on-site or off-site surveillance audit, the team shall evaluate progress against
conditions.

7.29.16.1

The team shall evaluate conformity with, and progress and performance against,
conditions.
a. The CAB shall document conformity with, and progress and performanceagainst, certification conditions using the narrative or metric form of theoriginal condition.
b. The CAB shall document whether progress is “on target”, “ahead of target” or“behind target”, as well as its justification for such a judgement. ◙i.

7.29.16.2

If progress against the measurable outcomes, expected results, or(interim) milestones that were specified when setting the condition is
judged to be “behind target”, the CAB may specify remedial action, andany revised milestones, that are required to bring progress “back on
target” within 12 months to achieve the original condition by the original
deadline. ◙If the CAB determines that progress against a condition is not “back on target”
within 12 months of falling “behind target”, the CAB shall: ◙a. Consider progress as inadequate.
b. Apply the suspension or withdrawal of certification requirements of the GCR.
c.

7.29.16.3

Inform the fishery client that they cannot enter the same UoC(s), or any entity
in the UoC(s), into full assessment under either the same or an alternative
name unless the cause for suspension has been addressed. ◙To verify that conditions have been met and outcomes have been achieved, the
CAB shall:a. Examine relevant objective evidence.
b. Rescore all relevant PISGs relating to that condition.
c.

Only close the condition if the score is raised above 80.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

d. Document the justification for the rescoring and closing out of the condition in
the Surveillance Report.
7.29.16.4

If a condition is not closed by its deadline, the CAB shall:a. Consider progress as inadequate.
b. Apply the suspension or withdrawal of certification requirements of the GCR.
c.

7.29.17

During each review of information surveillance audit, the CAB shall perform the activities
specified in 7.29.15.a.

7.29.17.1

7.29.18

Inform the fishery client that they cannot enter the same UoC(s), or any entity
in the UoC(s), into full assessment under either the same or an alternative
name unless the cause for suspension has been addressed. ◙If the CAB becomes aware of changes to the circumstances of the UoA, and/or of
new information, that may cause a “material difference” as defined in 7.20.6.c
during a review of information audit, the CAB shall conduct an off-site audit
according to 7.29.15.

During an off-site audit or a review of information, if the CAB determines that the
information required to conduct the required surveillance audit activities (7.29.15 and7.29.16) has not been provided or is unavailable, the CAB shall conduct an on-site audit.

7.29.18.1

The CAB shall re-announce the surveillance audit as per 7.29.14.4–7.

Reporting
7.29.19

The CAB shall prepare a Surveillance Report using the relevant MSC template:a. For on-site and off-site surveillance audits, the CAB shall use the ‘MSC Surveillance
Reporting Template’.
b. For review of information surveillance audits, the CAB shall use the ‘MSC Surveillance
Review of Information Template’.

7.29.20

The CAB shall send the Surveillance Report to the client along with any requests orconditions that may arise from surveillance activities.

7.29.20.1

7.29.21

If new conditions are identified, the CAB should allow a period of up to 30 days
after receipt of the Surveillance Report for the client to prepare a Client Action
Plan.

The CAB shall include the following in a separate section or appendix to the Surveillance
Report:a. All written submissions and a summary of verbal submissions made by stakeholders
during the annual surveillance audit process.
b. Responses from the team to the submissions in 7.29.21.a, including:i.

What (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made.

ii.

Where changes are suggested but no change is made, a substantiatedjustification.

7.29.22At the time of submission of each Surveillance Report, the CAB shall add catch data into
the MSC database, for each UoC, for the most recent fishing year for which data isavailable.

7.29.23

Within 60 days of completing the audit, the CAB shall upload the Surveillance Report to
the MSC database for publication on the MSC website. ◙7.29.23.1

If the client has revised the Client Action Plan following surveillance, the CAB
shall, within 90 days of completing the audit, upload the Surveillance Report to the
MSC database for publication on the MSC website.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Additional audit considerations
7.29.24

If there are IPI stock(s) within the scope of certification, the team shall follow Annex PA
during each surveillance audit.

7.30

Expedited audits

7.30.1The CAB shall conduct an expedited audit if the CAB becomes aware of changes to thecircumstances of the UoA and/or of new information that may cause: ◙a. A PI score to fall below 60.
b. A Principle score to fall below an aggregate 80 score as a result of changes to thescore for 1 or more PIs.
c.

7.30.2A change in scope (as per MSC Fisheries Standard Section 1, 7.5.2 or 7.5.3).

The CAB shall assign a person who meets the fishery team leader qualification andcompetency criteria as set out in the GCR and Table PC1, and is competent to review therelevant information.
7.30.2.1

The CAB shall send the assigned person the relevant information for review.

7.30.2.2

The assigned person shall determine whether an expedited audit needs to be
conducted.

7.30.3

An expedited audit can be an off-site audit or on-site audit, based on what the CAB
determines necessary.

7.30.4The CAB shall announce an expedited audit, if triggered, within 30 days of becoming
aware of the relevant information.
7.30.4.1

The CAB shall appoint a team of 2 or more team members to conduct the
expedited audit.
a. The team shall comprise a team leader and a minimum of 1 additional teammember who together meet the Fishery Team qualifications and competency
requirements relevant to what will be assessed.

7.30.4.2

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Surveillance Announcement Template’ to informstakeholders and the MSC of:a. Time, dates, and location of the expedited audit activities.
b. What will be assessed/reviewed during the expedited audit.
c.

7.30.4.3

The relevant skills and expertise of team members carrying out the expedited
audit.

The CAB shall upload the Surveillance Announcement to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website.

7.30.5The CAB shall review the relevant information by completing the activities as defined in
7.29.15 except for 7.29.15.a.iii.

7.30.6The CAB shall prepare an expedited audit report using the ‘MSC Surveillance Reporting
Template’.

7.30.7The CAB shall send the expedited audit report to the client along with any new conditions.

7.30.8Within 60 days of announcing the expedited audit, the CAB shall upload the expedited
audit report to the MSC database for publication on the MSC website.

7.30.9The CAB may include the expedited audit in a surveillance audit providing that:a. The surveillance audit is announced within 30 days of the CAB becoming aware of therelevant information.
b. The CAB follows Section 7.29.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Expedited audits during a full assessment or scope extension
7.30.10

If the CAB becomes aware of changes to the circumstances of the UoA and/or of new
information after the site visit, except for information subject to 7.15.1.1.a, the CAB shallfollow 7.30.1–8 during the initial assessment. ◙7.30.10.1
7.30.11

The CAB shall not use the results of the expedited audit in the determination or
certification decision for the UoA(s).

For an expedited audit conducted during an initial assessment or scope extension, if the
60-day reporting deadline (7.30.8) is prior to the publication of the Public Certification
Report, the CAB shall upload the expedited audit report to the MSC database forpublication on the MSC website on the same date as the Public Certification Report.

7.30.11.1

If the expedited audit results in a score of less than 60 for any PI or a weighted
average score of less than 80 for any Principle, the CAB shall apply thesuspension or withdrawal of certification requirements of the GCR with thefollowing modifications:a. The CAB shall set the effective date for the fishery certificate suspension as
the date of certification, disregarding the 30-day notice period.
b. The CAB shall announce the suspension by completing and uploading the‘MSC Notice of Suspension Template’ to the scheme database, to be
published on the MSC website on the date of certification.
c.

7.30.12

If the eligibility date was set before the date of certification, the CAB shallinform the client and stakeholders in the notice of suspension that theeligibility date has been changed to the certification date.

If the CAB becomes aware of changes to the circumstances of the UoA and/or new
information during a reassessment, the CAB shall follow 7.30.1–8 for both the existingcertificate and the reassessment. ◙7.30.12.1

For an expedited audit conducted during a reassessment, if the 60-day reporting
deadline (7.30.8) is prior to the publication of the Public Certification Report, theCAB may upload 1 expedited audit report that includes the results for both theexisting certificate and the reassessment.

7.30.12.2

If the expedited audit results in a score of less than 60 for any PI or a weighted
average score of less than 80 for any Principle, the CAB shall:a. For the existing certificate, apply the suspension or withdrawal of certification
requirements of the GCR.
b. For the reassessment, apply the suspension or withdrawal of certification
requirements of the GCR with the following modifications:i.

The CAB shall set the effective date for the fishery certificate suspension
as the date of certification, disregarding the 30-day notice period.

ii.

The CAB shall announce the suspension by completing and uploadingthe ‘MSC Notice of Suspension Template’ to the MSC database, to be
published on the MSC website on the date of certification.

iii. If the eligibility date was set before the date of certification, the CAB shallinform the client and stakeholders in the notice of suspension that theeligibility date has been changed to the certification date.

7.31

Reassessment

7.31.1The CAB shall announce the reassessment of a certified UoA no later than 90 days after
the 4th anniversary of the existing certificate.
7.31.1.1

The CAB shall be responsible for the exact timing and planning of thereassessment, in consultation with the client.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.31.2The CAB may change the scope of a fishery assessment to include or remove other
UoA(s) as part of the reassessment.

Full reassessment activities
7.31.3

When reassessing a certified UoA, the CAB shall apply all the steps of the FCP version
effective at the time of the announcement of the reassessment.

7.31.4

If a modified assessment tree was used during the initial assessment, the CAB shallconsult on reapplication of this modified assessment tree if no appropriate new default
assessment tree has been released by the MSC.

7.31.5The CAB shall review all surveillance reports and outcomes and evaluate progress against
certification conditions.
7.31.5.1

Unless “exceptional circumstances” as set out in 7.16.6 or 7.31.5.4 apply, the UoA
shall have met all conditions and milestones.

7.31.5.2

The CAB shall clearly identify all open conditions in the reassessment
Announcement Comment Draft Report. ◙a. The CAB shall clearly identify whether an open condition is being carried over
into the next certificate. ◙b. The CAB shall clearly identify whether an open condition will be closed during
the reassessment.
i.

7.31.5.3

The CAB shall outline how and when the condition will be closed during
the reassessment.

If there are any open conditions, the team shall apply 7.29.16.1, to determine theadequacy of progress against those conditions and milestones.
a. If the CAB concludes that the client has made inadequate progress (7.29.16.2
and 7.29.16.4), the CAB shall withdraw the UoA from reassessment.

7.31.5.4

If an open condition is written against a PI in the assessment tree that differs fromthat in the reassessment tree, the CAB shall determine whether the condition as
originally drafted is appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome for the PI, or theequivalent PI, in the reassessment tree.
a. If the condition is appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome in thereassessment tree, the CAB shall evaluate progress against the conditions
according to 7.31.5.3.
b. If the condition is not appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome in thereassessment tree, the CAB shall determine what action is needed to deliver
the outcome required at SG80 level and evaluate whether this outcome has
been achieved.

7.31.5.5i.

If the SG80 outcome has not been achieved, the CAB shall rewrite thecondition against the reassessment tree, in accordance with 7.16.1.

ii.

If the SG80 outcome has been achieved, or if achievement of thecondition would not affect the score of any PI that would otherwise scoreless than 80 in the reassessment tree, the CAB shall apply 7.29.16.3 toclose the condition.

The CAB shall include its determination of the issues above, and any justification
for decisions made relating to these issues, in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

7.31.6The CAB shall clearly identify related conditions that are set during reassessment, andinclude a justification for each. ◙7.31.7

If there are IPI stock(s) within the UoA, the CAB shall follow Annex PA.

7.31.8The CAB shall follow the MSC Disputes Process during reassessment.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.31.8.1

If an objection is accepted during a reassessment, the CAB may extend thecurrent certificate up to a maximum of 6 months from the date that the objection is
accepted, to allow this procedure to be followed.

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ to create the Full Reassessment
Report.

7.31.9Reduced reassessment activities
7.31.10

A UoA is eligible for reduced reassessment if:
a. The UoA was covered under the previous certification or scope extension.
b. The UoA had no conditions remaining after the 3rd surveillance audit.
c.

The CAB confirms that all stakeholder input related to the MSC Fisheries Standard
has been addressed by the 3rd surveillance audit.

d. The reassessment is against the same version of the MSC Fisheries Standard as the
UoC.
7.31.11

If multiple fishery clients wish to combine their UoAs into 1 reassessment, the CAB may
conduct a reduced reassessment provided all the UoAs meet the eligibility criteria under
7.31.10.

7.31.12

If the UoA is eligible for reduced reassessment, the CAB shall provide a detailed
explanation of how the reduced reassessment criteria are satisfied at the time ofannouncing the reassessment.

7.31.13

For a reduced reassessment, the CAB shall follow the full reassessment requirements,
with the following modifications: ◙a. The CAB may conduct the site visit with 1 team member on site and other teammember(s) joining remotely.
i.

The CAB shall determine which team member competencies are required on site
and remotely, based on:
A. The topic(s) that stakeholders raised in previous audits.
B. The availability of information on Principle 1, Principle 2 or Principle 3
components that would enable comprehensive review by an off-site teammember.

b. Only 1 peer reviewer is required to review the reassessment peer review report.
7.31.14

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template’ to create theReduced Reassessment Report.

7.32

Assessing UoCs that expire after the transition deadline against
the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 ◙7.32.1

As per the implementation timeframes of the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0, if a certificate
expires after 1 November 2028 and is certified against a version of the MSC Fisheries
Standard published before the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0, the CAB shall either:a. Apply Annex PE (Transition Assessment) by 1 November 2028, or ◙b. Announce the reassessment of the certified UoA against the MSC Fisheries Standard
v3.0 no later than 9 months before 1 November 2028.
7.32.1.1

7.32.2The CAB may apply 7.32.1 at any time to a UoC that is certified or in assessment
against a version of the MSC Fisheries Standard published before the MSC
Fisheries Standard v3.0.

If the CAB has not applied 7.32.1 by 1 November 2028, the CAB shall suspend thecertificate until the UoC has been certified against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

7.33

Management system requirements for CABs

7.33.1

To identify any corrective or preventive actions that would contribute to continual
improvement of the assessment process, the CAB shall conduct, and document, a review
of each full fishery assessment.

7.33.2

7.33.1.1

The CAB shall consider, and document, submissions and/or comments fromstakeholders or other parties on the CAB’s activities and processes in the review.

7.33.1.2

The CAB shall keep records of the reviews.

For any complaint evaluated by the CAB as per the complaints and appeals requirementsof the GCR, and that relates to the MSC Fisheries Program, the CAB shall send asummary of the complaint and decision(s) taken to the MSC via complaints@msc.org
within 20 days of closure of the complaint.
End of Fisheries Certification Process

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex PA:

Requirements for inseparable or practicably
inseparable stocks – normative

PA1

Requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks

PA1.1

Scope

PA1.1.1

The requirements of this annex shall apply to all inseparable or practicably inseparable(IPI) catch within fisheries being assessed.

PA1.2

Default assessment tree

PA1.2.1

The Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) shall review and, if necessary, propose
modifications to the default assessment tree to proceed with the assessment of IPI
stock(s).

PA1.2.2

Using the tree, the CAB shall:a. Assess the IPI catch under the primary component of Principle 2.
b. Separately assess the impact of all fishing activity on the IPI stock(s) considered forentry into certified Chains of Custody using the criteria specified in PA1.4.2, for the
purposes of determining the eligibility of the catches of IPI stock(s) to enter further
certified Chains of Custody.

PA1.3

Conditions

PA1.3.1

If there are IPI stock(s) within the scope of certification, the CAB shall set conditions to: ◙a. Promote the future Principle 1 assessment of the IPI stock(s), orb. Promote the development of techniques to effectively separate catches of currently IPI
stock(s).

PA1.4

Entry into further Chains of Custody

PA1.4.1

The CAB shall ensure that only defined and limited proportions of catches from IPI
stock(s) enter into certified Chains of Custody.

PA1.4.1.1
PA1.4.2

The MSC ecolabel is only permitted for use on these catches for a maximum of 1
certification period.

The CAB shall verify that the IPI stock(s) meet the following requirements, prior to being
considered eligible to enter further certified Chains of Custody:
a. The IPI stock(s) are likely to be above the PRI as defined in the MSC Fisheries
Standard GSA2.2.1.1, or if below the limits, measures are in place that are expected
to ensure that all fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery and rebuildingof IPI stock(s).
b. If the stock status is poorly known, measures or practices are in place that are
expected to keep the IPI stock(s) above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) or toprevent all fishing activity from hindering recovery.
c.

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PA1.5

Surveillance

PA1.5.1

If the UoA includes IPI stock(s), the CAB shall review and document the continuing
performance against conditions in PA1.3.1 and against the requirements in PA1.4.2.

PA1.6

Reassessment

PA1.6.1

IPI stock(s) are only eligible for the period of 1 certificate. For continued certification, the
CAB shall inform clients of the following options:a. Certify all IPI stock(s) against Principle 1 at reassessment.
b. Develop techniques to effectively separate catches of currently IPI stock(s) from target
stock(s) so the IPI scope criteria are no longer met.
c.

PA1.6.2

Develop measures to reduce the proportion of IPI stock(s), to be able to meet therequirements for IPI stock(s) as set out in 7.5.14.2.

The CAB shall assess remaining IPI stock(s) against Principle 1 at reassessment.

End of Annex PA

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex PB:

Harmonisation of overlapping Units ofAssessment – normative

PB1

Harmonised Units of Assessment – normative ◙PB1.1

Scope and assessment tree

PB1.1.1

The CAB shall use this annex where Units of Assessment (UoAs) overlap, irrespective of
the assessment tree and version of the MSC Fisheries Standard.

PB1.1.1.1

Where UoAs have been assessed against different versions of the MSC Fisheries
Standard, CABs shall only harmonise those Performance Indicators (PIs) thathave the same intent.

PB1.1.1.2

The CAB shall use the Change Tracker Report – FS 2.01 to 3.0 to identify the PIs
across different versions of the MSC Fisheries Standard that have the same
intent.

PB1.1.2

The CAB shall use the latest version of this annex when different versions of the MSC
Fisheries Certification Process are used.

PB1.2

Identifying overlapping Units of Assessment

PB1.2.1

The CAB shall use the following criteria to identify overlapping UoAs: ◙a. UoAs that have the same P1 stock (7.5.2.a).
b. UoAs that operate in the same geographical area (7.5.6).
c.

UoAs that impact the same P2 scoring elements (MSC Fisheries Standard SA3.1.2).

d. UoAs that are subject to management by the same jurisdictions (MSC Fisheries
Standard SA4.1.1).
PB1.2.2

The CAB shall use Table PB1 to determine the PIs that are subject to harmonisation(noting PB1.1.1.1).

Table PB1 – Harmonisation requirements per PI
PI /Scoring Issue (SI)All P1 PIs

Required to harmoniseYes

PI 2.1.1.a (MSC
Fisheries Standard
v3.0 andv2.01/v1.3)
PI 2.2.1.a (for UoAs
assessed against
the MSC Fisheries
Standard v3.0 only)

Partially

PI 2.4.1.b (MSC
Fisheries Standard
v2.01)
PI 2.3.1.b (MSC
Fisheries Standard
v3.0)
PI 2.4.2.a, c (MSC
Fisheries Standard
v2.01)

Partially

Partially

Partially

Teams shall harmonise P1 assessment outcomes for any
UoA that has the same P1 stock.
For stocks that are “main” in both UoAs, teams shallharmonise status relative to PRI (at SG60, 80, and 100), andif below PRI, harmonise cumulative impacts at SG80 (not atSG60).
Harmonise selection of Endangered, Threatened, orProtected (ETP) and Out-of-Scope (OOS) units unless UoAs
have demonstrably different footprints or the organisations
responsible for assessing impact of ETP/OOS species indifferent UoAs have identified different ETP/OOS species.
Where the same ETP/OOS unit is selected, teams shallharmonise status relative to favourable conservation status.
Teams shall harmonise identification of more sensitive
habitats (v3.0) / vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)(v2.01) where both UoAs operate in the same “managed
area(s)” (see the relevant Guidance to the MSC Fisheries
Standard).
Teams shall harmonise scoring with consideration of
cumulative impacts at SG100 as all UoA impacts are
considered (not at SG60 or SG80).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PI /Scoring Issue (SI)PI 2.3.2.a, c (MSC
Fisheries Standard
v3.0)
All P2 PIs

Required to harmonise

Situation
dependent

PIs 3.1.1–3.1.3

Situation
dependent

PIs 3.2.1–3.2.4

Situation
dependent

PB1.2.3

If UoAs are identical in scope (FCP 7.5.2), even if the Units ofCertification (UoCs) are different (e.g. separate clients),
teams shall harmonise P2 assessment outcomes.
If overlapping UoAs are part of the same larger fishery or fleet
or have stocks in either P1 or P2 that are at least partiallymanaged by the same jurisdiction(s) (nation states, Regional
Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), or others) or
under the same agreements, teams shall harmonise
assessment outcomes for PIs 3.1.1–3.1.3 wheremanagement arrangements apply to overlapping UoAs.
The MSC accepts that it may be impractical to attempt fullharmonisation, due to the large number of fisheries that may
be managed under the relevant policy framework, and thedifferences in application between them.
If overlapping UoAs have stocks within either P1 or P2 thatare at least partially managed by the same jurisdiction(s)(nation states, RFMOs, or others) or under the same
agreements, the teams shall harmonise assessment
outcomes for PIs 3.2.1–3.2.4 where management
arrangements apply to overlapping UoAs (e.g. at the RFMO
level but not the national level in the case of 2 separate
national fleets both fishing the same regional stock).

The CAB shall: ◙a. Identify the overlapping UoA(s) and the PIs subject to harmonisation in the
Announcement Comment Draft Report.
b. Confirm the need for harmonisation in the Fishery Announcement.
c.

Inform the CAB(s) of the overlapping UoA(s) that an overlapping UoA is entering anassessment.

PB1.3

Harmonised assessment outcomes

PB1.3.1

CABs shall harmonise assessment outcomes of overlapping UoAs to ensure: ◙a. Consistent scoring and rationales. ◙b. Consistent conditions and milestones, including condition deadlines. ◙c.

Consistent categorisation of Principle 2 scoring elements (MSC Fisheries Standard
SA3.1.2).

PB1.3.1.1

CABs shall ensure the same categorisation of ETP/OOS species (MSC Fisheries
Standard SA3.1.4).

PB1.3.1.2

CABs shall ensure the same modifications to ETP/OOS species are applied (MSC
Fisheries Standard SA3.1.4.1–4).

PB1.3.1.3

If ETP/OOS species are nationally listed in 1 country but not another, the CAB
shall cite “exceptional circumstances” as per PB1.3.2.1 and PB1.3.2.2.

PB1.3.2

Teams shall only allow differences in outcomes with respect to scoring, identification ofscoring elements, rationales, and/or conditions of the overlapping assessments if a team
identifies “exceptional circumstances”, such as the UoAs being demonstrably different. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PB1.3.2.1

Teams shall fully document “exceptional circumstances”, together with clear
indication of agreement of “exceptional circumstances” between teams
responsible for the overlapping fisheries.

PB1.3.2.2

Teams shall explain and justify any difference in the scores, scoring elements
identified, rationales, and/or conditions resulting from “exceptional circumstances”
in the scoring rationale for relevant PIs.

PB1.4

Annual harmonisation ◙PB1.4.1

CABs shall complete the harmonisation activities (PB1.5) for overlapping UoAs once percalendar year.

PB1.4.1.1

CABs shall convene additional harmonisation activities (PB1.5) if there arechanges to the circumstances of the overlapping UoAs and/or new informationthat may cause: ◙a. A PI score to fall below 60.
b. A Principle score to fall below an aggregate 80 score as a result of changes tothe score for 1 or more PIs.

PB1.5

Harmonisation activities

PB1.5.1

Teams of overlapping UoAs shall discuss (verbally or via email): ◙a. Fishery information.
b. Scoring and rationales of PIs subject to harmonisation. ◙c.

Conditions and milestones. ◙d. Categorisation of P2 scoring elements, including ETP/OOS species and modifications(MSC Fisheries Standard SA3.1.2 - SA3.1.5).
PB1.5.1.1

Teams shall consider:a. Stakeholder input received during assessments or surveillance audits thattook place since the previous harmonisation activity.
b. Peer reviewer comments received during assessments that took place since
the previous harmonisation activity.
c.

PB1.5.2

MSC technical oversight comments received during assessments that took
place since the previous harmonisation activity.

If teams reach agreement on PB1.5.1.b–d, the teams shall adopt the outcomes.

PB1.5.2.1

If teams do not reach agreement on PB1.5.1.b, all teams shall adopt the lowest
score(s).

PB1.5.3

The CAB shall include the harmonised assessment outcomes (PB1.3) in the next reportpublished for the UoA as part of an assessment or audit process (e.g. Public Comment
Draft Report or Surveillance Report).

PB1.5.4

CABs of overlapping UoAs shall coordinate planning and conduct of assessments,
including coordinated process steps and publications of assessment outputs.

PB1.6

Harmonisation scenarios

PB1.6.1

Where a UoA in an assessment (initial assessment, reassessment, scope extension
assessment, or transition assessment) overlaps with only 1 UoA that is also in an
assessment, the team shall liaise with the CAB of the overlapping UoA to organise
harmonisation activities (PB1.5) as soon as possible during the assessment process, toensure harmonised assessment outcomes (PB1.3).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PB1.6.2

Where a UoA in an assessment (initial assessment, reassessment, scope extension
assessment or transition assessment) overlaps with only 1 UoA that is certified, the teamof the UoA in assessment shall liaise with the CAB of the overlapping UoA to organise
harmonisation activities (PB1.5) as soon as possible during the assessment process, toensure harmonised assessment outcomes (PB1.3).

PB1.6.3

Where a UoA in an assessment (initial assessment, reassessment, scope extension
assessment, or transition assessment) overlaps with 2 or more UoAs that are certified,
and these certified UoAs have harmonised assessment outcomes, the team shall liaise
with the CABs of the overlapping UoAs to:a. Determine the date of the last harmonisation activities.
b. Determine the harmonised assessment outcomes (PB1.3).
c.

PB1.6.4

Determine if there are changes to circumstances of the overlapping UoAs and/or new
information.

Teams shall follow PB1.4.1.1 if there are changes to the circumstances of the overlapping
UoAs and/or new information.

PB1.6.4.1

If there are no changes to circumstances of the overlapping UoAs and/or new
information, teams shall adopt the harmonised assessment outcomes of theoverlapping UoAs.

End of Annex PB

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex PC:

Fishery team leader, team member, team andpeer reviewer qualifications and competencies –normative

PC1

Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer
qualifications and competencies

PC1.1

Scope

PC1.1.1

This annex sets out additional requirements to the MSC General Certification
Requirements (GCR) for fishery team leader, team member and team qualifications andcompetencies, which the CAB shall verify in accordance with GCR.

PC1.2

Fishery team leader qualification and competency criteria ◙Table PC1: Fishery team leader qualification and competency criteria
1. General
Qualifications
a. Degree or equivalent in business, economics, science, or technical subject (for example,
supply chain and logistics management, food/seafood science, or fisheries science), orb. 3 years’ experience in the fisheries sector related to the tasks under the responsibility of theteam leader.
Verification mechanisms
•

CV

•

Certificates

2. Understanding of MSC Fisheries Standard and MSC Fisheries Certification Process
Qualifications
a. Review any updates to the MSC Fisheries Program Documents at least annually. ◙b. Pass the MSC’s fishery team leader training course at least every 5 years. ◙c.

Pass new versions of the compulsory online training modules when new versions of the MSC
Fisheries Standard or certification process are published prior to undertaking assessments
against the revised MSC Fisheries Standard or certification process.

d. Pass new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before
undertaking assessments using these modifications, such as enhanced bivalves, salmon, andother modifications that may be developed in the future.
Competencies
Ability to:i. Describe the intent and requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
i. Place the steps of the fisheries assessment process in the correct order.
ii. Identify the steps in which stakeholder consultation occurs.
iii. Score a fishery using the default assessment tree.
iv. Describe how conditions are set and monitored.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

v. Describe the reporting stages, including the role of the peer reviewer.
Verification mechanisms•

Examination pass•

Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation body•

CAB witness audits

3. Assessment experience
Qualifications
a. Has conducted 2 MSC fishery assessment or surveillance site visits as a team member in thelast 5 years.
b. For new fishery team leaders only: has conducted an assessment as team leader that will be
witnessed by an MSC-appointed accreditation body as part of a CAB’s initial accreditation
audit.
Competenciesi.

Ability to apply knowledge of auditing techniques in the gathering of information, thescoring of the fishery, and the rationales for the scores given.

Verification mechanisms•

CAB records•

Previous employer reference letter•

Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation body•

CAB witness audits•

Previous audit reports

4. Communication and stakeholder facilitation skills
Qualifications
a. Experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques.
Competenciesi.

Ability to communicate effectively with the client and other stakeholders.

Verification mechanisms
•

CV

•

CAB records•

Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation body•

CAB witness audits

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PC1.3

Fishery team member qualification and competency criteria ◙Table PC2: Fishery team member qualification and competency criteria
1. General
Qualifications
a. University degree in fisheries, marine conservation biology, natural resources environmental
management, or relevant field (for example, economics, mathematics, or statistics), orb. 3-years’ management or research experience in a marine conservation biology, fisheries,
natural resources, or environmental management position.
Verification mechanisms
•

CV

•

Certificates

2. Understanding of MSC Fisheries Standard and relevant MSC Certification Process
requirements
Qualifications
a. Review any updates to the MSC Fisheries Program Documents at least annually. ◙b. Pass the MSC’s fishery team member training course at least every 5 years. ◙c.

Pass new versions of the compulsory online training modules when new versions of the MSC
Fisheries Standard are published prior to undertaking assessments against the new MSC
Fisheries Standard.

d. Pass new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before
undertaking assessments using these modifications, such as enhanced bivalves, salmon, andother modifications that may be developed in the future.
Competencies
Ability to:ii. Describe the intent and requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
i. Score a fishery using the default assessment tree.
ii. Describe how conditions are set and monitored.
Verification mechanisms•

Examination pass•

CAB records

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PC1.4

Fishery team qualification and competency criteria ◙PC1.4.1

The CAB shall ensure that the fishery team collectively meets the qualification andcompetency criteria listed in Table PC3.

Table PC3: Fishery team qualification and competency criteria
1. Fish stock assessment ◙Qualifications
a. 3-years’ or more experience of applying relevant stock assessment techniques being used by
the fishery under assessment, orb. Primary authorship of 2 peer-reviewed stock assessments of a type used by the fishery underassessment.
Competenciesi.

Ability to conduct a stock assessment using stock assessment techniques relevant to thefishery.

Verification mechanisms•

CV with full publication list•

Employer’s reference letter•

CAB witness audits

2. Fish stock biology/ecology ◙Qualifications
a. 3-years’ or more experience working with the biology and population dynamics of the target
species or species with similar biology.
Competenciesi.

Can demonstrate knowledge of, and ability to interpret, scientific information relating to the
biological processes of the target species, or species with similar population dynamics.

Verification mechanism•

CV with full publication list•

Employer’s reference letter•

CAB witness audits

3. Fishing impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Qualifications
a. 3-years’ or more experience in research into, policy analysis for, or management of, theimpact of fisheries on aquatic ecosystems, including at least 2 of the following topics:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

BycatchEndangered, Threatened, or Protected (ETP) and Out-of-Scope (OOS) species
Habitats
Ecosystem interactions

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Competencies
v. Can demonstrate knowledge of, and ability to interpret, scientific data relating to theimpact of fisheries on at least 2 of the topics in 3.a.i–iv above.
Verification mechanisms
•

CV

•

Employer’s reference letter•

Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation body•

CAB witness audits

4. Fishery management and operations
Qualifications
a. 3-years’ or more experience as a practising fishery manager and/or fishery/policy
analyst/consultant.
Competencies
Ability to:i. Identify likely problems for a fishery under Principle 1 and Principle 2 that would arise frompoor management.
ii. Demonstrate a good understanding of the types of management system(s) and laws
applicable to the fishery under assessment.
Verification mechanisms•

CV with full publication list•

Employer’s reference letter•

Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation body•

CAB witness audits

5. Current knowledge of the country, language and local fishery context ◙Qualifications
a. Knowledge of a common language spoken by clients and stakeholders, and 1 of the following:
2-years’ fishery work experience in the country or in a relevant fishery in the last 15 years.
2 assignments in the country or region in which the fishery under assessment is based in
the last 10 years.
iii. Primary authorship of at least 1 published paper in a journal or grey literature in the last 5
years on a fishery issue in the country or region in which the fishery under assessment isbased.
i.
ii.

Competencies
Ability to:i. Communicate effectively with stakeholders in the country in a common language.
ii. Explain the geographical, cultural, and ecological context of the fishery under assessment.
Verification mechanisms

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

iii. CViv. Employer’s reference letter
v. Journal extracts
vi. Witness or office audits by an MSC-appointed accreditation bodyvii. CAB witness audits
6. Understanding of the Chain of Custody Standard and Chain of Custody Certification
Requirements
Qualifications
Pass the MSC’s Traceability training module every 5 years.
b. Pass new versions of the training when new traceability requirements are published prior toundertaking assessments against the new requirements.
c.

Review any updates to the traceability requirements at least annually. ◙Competenciesi.

Ability to explain the elements of traceability that are relevant to fishery assessments.

Verification mechanisms•

Examination pass•

CAB records•

CAB witness audits

7. Use of the Risk-Based Framework
Competencies
Demonstrate an understanding of:i. When the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) can be used.
ii. How to implement RBF components.
iii. How to engage stakeholders effectively when the RBF is used.
iv. How Performance Indicators are scored when the RBF is used.
v. The reporting of the RBF process and outcomes.
Verification mechanisms•

Examination pass•

CAB witness audits

End of Annex PC

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Scope extensions – normative

Annex PD:
PD1

Scope extensions – normative

PD1.1

Scope

PD1.1.1

The requirements of this annex shall apply to all scope extensions for the purpose ofextending an existing fishery certificate.

PD1.1.2

If the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) determines in its review of the proposed Unit ofAssessment (UoA) that additional assessment steps or Performance Indicator (PI)rescoring are necessary, the CAB shall conduct these in addition to the requirements inthis annex. ◙PD1.2

Assessment process

PD1.2.1

The CAB shall upload an announcement and Announcement Comment Draft Report to the
MSC database for publication on the MSC website, announcing its intent to conduct a
scope extension assessment.

PD1.2.2

The CAB shall follow 7.10.2 and 7.10.3.

PD1.2.2.1

The CAB shall include the following additional information in the announcement:a. A gap analysis, described in 7.27.5, and justifications for the outcomes. ◙b. The assessment components held in common between the two fisheries.
c.

The assessment components that will be assessed in the scope extension.

d. Justification confirming whether there are any potential implications for otherPIs.
PD1.2.3

The CAB shall follow Section 7.13 except for 7.13.1.1.

PD1.2.4

The CAB shall include in the scope extension assessment at least the following steps:

PD1.2.4.1

The CAB shall announce at least 1 team member who meets:a. The criteria in Table PC2.
b. The criteria in Table PC3 rows 1–4 appropriate to the assessment
components to be assessed.

PD1.2.4.2

The CAB shall conduct the scope extension either during an on-site assessment
or during a regular on-site surveillance audit.
a. The CAB shall inform stakeholders and the MSC, specifically identifying thatthe scope of the assessment or regular surveillance audit will include a scope
extension of the certificate to include another UoA.
i.

PD1.2.4.3

The CAB shall identify in the notification which assessment components
will be assessed in the scope extension.

The CAB shall evaluate the assessment components using all relevant
requirements in the MSC Fisheries Standard and following the process as
described in Sections 7.15, 7.16 and 7.17.
a. If the stock under assessment overlaps with another UoA(s), the CAB shallfollow the harmonisation steps as per Annex PB.
b. If there are any changes in the other assessment components, the CAB shallrescore the relevant PIs. ◙PD1.2.4.4

The CAB shall conduct the scope extension assessment in compliance withtimelines as set out in 7.11.1 and 7.22.1.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

PD1.3

ReportingPD1.3.1

The CAB shall produce the following reports using the appropriate templates:
a. Announcement Comment Draft Report.
b. Client and Peer Review Draft Report.
c.

Public Comment Draft Report.

d. Final Draft Report.
e. Public Certification Report.
PD1.3.1.1

The CAB shall follow requirements in Sections 7.8, 7.12, and 7.19–7.24.

PD1.3.2

If the scope extension assessment site visit is taking place at the same time as an on-site
surveillance audit of the existing Units of Certification (UoCs), the CAB shall produce a
separate report for the scope extension assessment as per Sections 7.19–7.24.

PD1.3.3

The CAB may populate sections of the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ using the informationfrom the Public Certification Report for the existing UoC(s).

PD1.3.4

There shall be at least 1 peer reviewer for the scope extension.

PD1.3.5

The CAB shall follow all other requirements for peer review in 7.19.3–7.19.5 and 7.20.10.

PD1.4

Certification decision and certificate issue

PD1.4.1

The CAB shall make a determination regarding the scope extension assessment outcome
and inform stakeholders of the Final Draft Report.

PD1.4.2

The CAB shall follow the MSC Disputes Process.

PD1.4.3

If the CAB determines that the scores from the assessed PIs in combination with thescores obtained for the commonly held components with the existing UoC(s) meet therequirements for certification, the CAB shall:a. Include the new UoC within the scope of the existing valid fishery certificate.
b. Follow the requirements on certification decision and certification issue as per Section
7.25.

PD1.4.4

If the CAB determines that the new UoA has not met the requirements for certification, the
CAB shall report this in the Final Draft Report and Public Certification Report.

PD1.4.4.1

The CAB shall not make changes to the existing certificate’s scope, which shallremain valid.

End of Annex PD

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Transition assessments – normative

Annex PE:
PE1

Transition assessments – normative

PE1.1

Scope

PE1.1.1

The Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) shall apply the requirements of this annex to alltransition assessments for the purpose of assessing Units of Certification (UoCs) against
the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.

PE1.1.1.1

In a transition assessment, the CAB shall assess the Principle Indicators (PIs)marked with ‘Y’ in column G of Change Tracker Report – FS 2.01 to 3.0 against
MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0. ◙PE1.1.2

The CAB shall only conduct a transition assessment on a certificate holder of a valid MSC
fishery certificate. ◙PE1.2

Assessment process

PE1.2.1

The CAB shall upload an announcement and Announcement Comment Draft Report to the
MSC database for publication on the MSC website, announcing its intent to conduct atransition assessment.

PE1.2.1.1

The CAB shall ensure that the Announcement Comment Draft Report is open to
stakeholder input for 60 days.

PE1.2.1.2

The CAB shall follow 7.10.2.

PE1.2.1.3

In the announcement, the CAB shall confirm whether there are any potential
implications for PIs not marked with ‘Y’ in column G of Change Tracker Report –FS 2.01 to 3.0.

PE1.2.2

If the CAB proposes to use the Risk-Based Framework (RBF), the CAB shall follow 7.10.3.

PE1.2.3

The CAB shall form an assessment team as per Section 7.6.

PE1.2.3.1
PE1.2.4

The CAB shall conduct the transition assessment on site.

PE1.2.4.1
PE1.2.5

The team member shall also meet the criteria in Table PC3 rows 1–4 appropriate
to the assessment components to be assessed.

The CAB should coordinate the on-site transition assessment with any other onsite activities.

The CAB shall assess the PIs marked with ‘Y’ in column G of Change Tracker Report –FS 2.01 to 3.0 against MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 as per Sections 7.15, 7.16 and 7.17.

PE1.2.5.1

If the stock under assessment overlaps with one or more Units of Assessment(UoA), the CAB shall conduct harmonisation as per Annex PB.

PE1.2.5.2

If there are any implications for PIs identified at PE1.2.1.3, the CAB shall assess
the relevant PIs against MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0..

PE1.2.5.3

If new conditions and milestones are set as part of a transition assessment, theCAB may set condition timeframes that carry over into the next certificate. ◙PE1.2.5.4

If there are any open conditions, the CAB shall apply 7.29.16.1 to determine theadequacy of progress against those conditions and milestones.
a. If the CAB concludes that the client has made inadequate progress, the CAB
shall withdraw the UoA from transition assessment. ◙PE1.2.5.5

If an open condition is written against a PI in an assessment tree that differs fromthat in the transition assessment tree, the CAB shall consider whether thecondition as originally drafted is appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome for thePI, or the equivalent PI, in the transition assessment tree. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

a. If the condition is appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome in the transitionassessment tree, the CAB shall evaluate progress against the conditions
according to PE1.2.5.4.
b. If the condition is not appropriate to deliver the SG80 outcome in the transitionassessment tree, the CAB shall consider what action is needed to deliver theoutcome required at SG80 level and evaluate whether this outcome has beenachieved.

PE1.2.5.6

i.

If the SG80 outcome has not been achieved, the CAB shall rewrite thecondition against the transition assessment tree, as per 7.16.1.

ii.

If the SG80 outcome has been achieved, or if achievement of thecondition would not affect the score of any PI that would otherwise scoreless than 80 in the transition assessment tree, the CAB shall apply
7.29.16.3 to close the condition.

The CAB shall clearly identify all open conditions in the transition assessment
Announcement Comment Draft Report.
a. The CAB shall clearly identify if an open condition will be closed during thetransition assessment.
b. The CAB shall outline how and when the condition will be closed during thetransition assessment.

PE1.2.5.7

The CAB shall include its consideration of the issues above, as well as any
justification for decisions made relating to these issues, in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’.

PE1.2.5.8

The CAB shall clearly identify related conditions that are set during a transitionassessment and include a justification for each. ◙PE1.2.6

The CAB shall complete the transition assessment in compliance with timelines set out in
7.11.1 and 7.22.1.

PE1.3

ReportingPE1.3.1

The CAB shall produce the following reports using the appropriate templates and follow
procedures in Sections 7.8, 7.12, and 7.19–7.24:
a. Announcement Comment Draft Report.
b. Client and Peer Review Draft Report.
c.

Public Comment Draft Report.

d. Final Draft Report.
e. Public Certification Report.
PE1.3.2

Where appropriate, the CAB shall populate sections of the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ fromthe previous Public Certification Report.

PE1.3.3

The CAB shall follow all other requirements for peer review in Section 7.12, 7.19.3–7.19.5,
and 7.20.10.

PE1.4

Certification decision and certificate issue

PE1.4.1

The CAB shall make a determination regarding the transition assessment outcome andinform stakeholders in the Final Draft Report.

PE1.4.2

The CAB shall follow the MSC Disputes Process.

PE1.4.3

If the determination is that the UoC has met the requirements of the MSC Fisheries
Standard v3.0, the CAB shall:a. Report this decision in the Final Draft Report and Public Certification Report.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

b. Set the duration of the certificate for the transition assessment for only as long as theexisting fishery certificate.
PE1.4.4

If the determination is that the UoC has not met the requirements of the MSC Fisheries
Standard v3.0, the CAB shall:a. Report this decision in the Final Draft Report and Public Certification Report.
b. If the existing certificate against a previous version of the MSC Fisheries Standard
v3.0 expires after 1 November 2028, the CAB shall update the certificate by setting its
new expiry date as 1 November 2028.
i.
c.

The CAB shall make no other changes to the existing certificate’s scope.

Upload a copy of the updated fishery certificate(s) to the MSC database for publicationon the MSC website.

d. Upload a copy of the updated certificate(s) to the MSC Database within 10 days of thedate that the Public Certification Report was published on the MSC website.
End of Annex PE

End of Fisheries Certification Process

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Certification Process

Version 3.0, 26 October 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council’s “MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process” and its
content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” – © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2022. All
rights reserved.
The official language of this standard is English. The definitive version is maintained on the MSC
website (msc.org). Any discrepancy between copies, versions, or translations shall be resolved byreference to the definitive English version.
The MSC prohibits any modification of part or all of the contents in any form.

Marine Stewardship Council
Marine House
1 Snow Hill
London EC1A 2DH
United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900
Fax:

+ 44 (0) 20 7246 8901

Email: standards@msc.org

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Responsibility for the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Certification Process
The Marine Stewardship Council is responsible for the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification
Process.
Readers should verify that they are using the latest copy of this and other documents. Updated
documents, together with a master list of all available MSC documents, can be found on the MSC
website (msc.org).
Versions published
Versionno.

Date

Description of amendment

2.0

1 October 2014

New document released as part of the Fisheries Standard Review
completed in 2014.

2.1

31 August 2018

Version released incorporating guidance to support changes to thefisheries assessment process, including streamlining,
harmonisation, and labour policy development topics.

2.2

25 March 2020

Version issued incorporating guidance to support changes to theconfirmation of scope process, defining the Unit of Assessment(UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC), conditions, and the expedited
audit process.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.

2.3

26 October 2022

Version issued incorporating guidance to support changes to:harmonisation, stakeholder input, traceability.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.

3.0

26 October 2022

Version issued incorporating guidance to support changes to theassessment process related to the release of v3.0 of the MSC
Fisheries Standard, removal of the Risk-Based Framework,
harmonisation, stakeholder input, and traceability.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Introduction to this document
The MSC Guidance to the MSC Fisheries Certification Process (GFCP) is provided to help conformity
assessment bodies (CABs) interpret the MSC Fisheries Certification Process (FCP).
The headings and numbering in the GFCP, when included, match those in the FCP exactly, withnumbers prefaced with the letter “G” to indicate guidance.
The MSC recommends that CABs read the FCP in conjunction with the GFCP. Text in the FCP is notrepeated in the GFCP.
Where guidance is provided that generally relates to the subject of a section, or relates to the content
of a specific clause, this icon ◙ appears at the end of the section title or clause in the FCP. These
icons provide hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the GFCP.
Within the GFCP, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink back to the corresponding section or clause in the
FCP.

Auditability of the Guidance to the MSC Fisheries Certification Process
The guidance in the GFCP is not directly auditable.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table of contents
The MSC Fisheries Certification Process ................................................................. 10
The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process ......................................... 6
G4

General requirements ...................................................................................... 7

G7

Process requirements .................................................................................... 10

Annex GPA

Inseparable and practicably inseparable fisheries – Guidance ......... 48

GPA1.3

Conditions ▲ ......................................................................................................... 48

GPA1.4

Entry into further Chains of Custody ▲ ................................................................. 48

Annex GPB

Harmonisation of overlapping Units of Assessment – Guidance ....... 49

GPB1

Background ▲ ........................................................................................................... 49

Annex GPC Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer
qualifications and competencies – guidance ................................................. 52
Annex GPD
GPD1.2Annex GPE

Scope extensions .............................................................................. 54
Assessment process ............................................................................................. 54

Transition assessments – guidance .................................................. 55

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process
Guidance to implementation timeframes ▲The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) does not expect the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) tochange between versions of the MCS Fisheries Certification Process (FCP) during any assessment oraudit process.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 6© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G4
G4.2

General requirements
Consultation requirements ▲Stakeholder consultation is a critical component of the MSC fisheries assessment process, as:•A robust stakeholder consultation process is fundamental to conducting a high-quality
assessment.

•

Stakeholder input provides important information to assessment team members and the CAB.

•

Stakeholder input contributes significantly to the credibility and outcome of the assessment
process.

The MSC’s intent for stakeholder consultation throughout the FCP is to ensure:•

Early identification of relevant stakeholders, each of whom are given adequate opportunity toprovide their views during relevant stages of the assessment.

•

Issues raised by stakeholders are acknowledged and reported as early in the assessment
process as possible to provide maximum opportunity for resolution.

•

Comments from stakeholders are targeted and relevant to each assessment.

•

Responses from the CAB are presented in a way that makes it easy to see how, where, and why
the comments have (or have not) been considered.

Awareness of cultural norms and technical capacity of stakeholders
Different consultation mechanisms may be best for different stakeholders. To ensure stakeholders areprovided adequate opportunity to comment on the assessment, the stakeholder consultation process
should be designed and carried out in a way that is culturally and technically appropriate for eachstakeholder. This may inform how stakeholders are consulted.
Awareness of cultural norms and expectations and the technological capabilities of those to be
consulted will contribute to the design and implementation of an appropriate and successful
consultation process. For example, there may be specific acceptable channels through which toapproach community or tribal leaders, or elected officials. Ignorance or insensitivity regarding thesefactors, even though unintended, may cause embarrassment or offence to the parties, the CAB,
and/or the MSC, and may seriously undermine efforts to obtain useful input.
It is important to understand the technical capacity of individuals or organisations, particularly
regarding communications mechanisms such as email, telephones, and videoconferencing. For
example, in some circumstances it may be inappropriate to require written input or refer someone to a
website for information. In some situations, communication services may be unreliable, or fishers may
be at sea for extended periods and unable to communicate promptly. It is also important tounderstand and consider cultural sensitivities when contacting and planning meetings with different
stakeholders.

Contacting stakeholders
Throughout the FCP, where there is a requirement that stakeholders are contacted, neither the
uploading of a document for publication on the MSC website nor the inclusion of a notification in the
MSC Fisheries Updates email should be viewed as a substitute for the CAB directly contacting a
stakeholder.

G4.2.1.1

Identifying stakeholders ▲The MSC takes an inclusive approach when considering the definition of a stakeholder. A stakeholder
is a group or individual who may affect or be affected by the outcome of an MSC fisheries
assessment. Stakeholder groups may vary from one assessment to another, but will generally fallunder these 2 categories:
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 7© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

1. Organisations or individuals who can provide information that is relevant to the assessment.
2. Organisations or individuals who may be affected by the outcome of an assessment.
oThis includes individuals and organisations that have expressed a particular interest in theassessment, the fishery being considered for certification, or in other resources potentiallyaffected by the fishery.

The only exception to this in MSC fishery assessments is that the organisation seeking certification isconsidered the client, rather than a stakeholder. The client provides information and input into theassessment in other ways (for example, via the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’).
Typical stakeholders may include:•

Government agencies (with direct fishery management, research responsibility, or responsibility
for related resources or research).

•

Non-governmental conservation or other public interest organisations (these may be local,
regional, national, and/or international organisations).

•

Academic researchers.

•

Adjacent or potentially affected fisheries (other than the client fishery) or other potentially affected
commercial interests (e.g. the post-harvest sector).

•

Community or tribal entities or individuals.

The team should compile a list of potential stakeholders at the start of the assessment or surveillance
process. The approach to identifying stakeholders will differ from one assessment or audit to another.
As a starting point, the following steps can be taken:•

If a pre-assessment was undertaken, any stakeholders identified in the pre-assessment process
should be included on the stakeholder list.

•

The CAB should ask the client for a list of potential stakeholders. The client will typically have agood idea of the primary parties who have shown interest in the fishery at the local, regional,
national and/or international levels. The client is also a good first source of information about any
cultural or political issues or sensitivities that should be considered when planning stakeholder
consultation. To ensure the client does not withhold information, either intentionally orunintentionally, the CAB should inform the client about:o

Who can be considered a stakeholder in the context of an MSC fishery assessment.

o

The importance of engaging stakeholders, including those who may be critical of the fishery.

o

The risk of objections if stakeholders are not provided with adequate opportunity to comment
during the early stages of an assessment.

•

The CAB should make use of organisational knowledge, including the experience of theirassessors, when identifying stakeholders (for example, by considering the stakeholders who
expressed interest in similar or nearby assessments).

•

The CAB may contact the MSC to seek information about stakeholders to consider including on
the initial contact list. MSC regional staff are often knowledgeable about the stakeholders
interested in certain fisheries and may be able to provide information about national andinternational interest groups (particularly industry, conservation, government entities, academics,
and technical experts) who have a history of interest in the fishery in question or a similar one, orin issues that could emerge in the fishery under examination. The MSC cannot, however, provide
an exhaustive list of stakeholders for use in the assessment.

Other sources of information that could inform stakeholder lists may include coverage of the fishery or
specific fishery issues in the media, interest group publications, and the public record.
Prior to the site visit being announced, the CAB should contact the identified stakeholders tocoordinate a date for the site visit that ensures the highest level of attendance. There may be someinstances where identified stakeholders cannot be engaged ahead of announcing the full assessment;in such instances, the CAB may choose to postpone the announcement of the site visit date until
these stakeholders have been engaged in the process.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 8© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G4.2.2

Consultation announcements ▲Consultation announcements should be sent at the start of each consultation period. Consultation
periods include the following:•

Announcement of a fishery assessment or reassessment.

•

Announcement of use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF).

•

Announcement of the Public Comment Draft Report.

•

Announcement of the Final Draft Report.

•

Surveillance audit announcement.

•

Scope extension announcement.

“Relevant stakeholders” should be taken to mean all identified stakeholders, expect for duringconsultation on the Public Comment Draft Report and Final Draft Report, at which stage only
registered stakeholders should be contacted.
As part of consultation announcements, CABs can ask stakeholders contacted to confirm thefollowing, as appropriate to the consultation period:•

Whether they are interested in providing input on the report or attending the site visit.

•

If an organisation is identified, who the most appropriate contact in the organisation is for mattersrelating to the fishery assessment or audit.

•

If an individual representing an organisation has been contacted, that the individual is the mostappropriate person in the organisation to be contacted.

•

If they are aware of any other stakeholders who should be contacted.

For announcements of fishery assessments or reassessments, stakeholders should be informed that,to engage with the assessment, they must provide comments on the Announcement Comment Draft
Report or attend the site visit.

G4.2.3–4

MSC Templates for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments ▲The main purpose of the MSC stakeholder input templates is to enable interested parties to easily
track how the team considers input provided by stakeholders and incorporates the input into
assessments. This ensures that stakeholder input and CAB responses are reported transparently.

G4.2.8

Registering stakeholders ▲Stakeholders should be considered “registered” in an assessment if they provide written input on the
Announcement Comment Draft Report or provide written or verbal input at the site visit for theongoing assessment. If stakeholders do not participate during the site visit or comment on the
Announcement Comment Draft Report, they cannot comment during later stages of the assessment.
At each surveillance audit, and at the start of each reassessment:•

The full list of stakeholders should be revisited.

•

Any new stakeholders should be added.

•

All stakeholders should be contacted again and offered the opportunity to provide input.

The CAB is encouraged to have stakeholder management systems in place to ensure the correct
stakeholders are contacted and provided with adequate opportunity to comment during each part of afishery assessment. These management systems may go above and beyond the requirements andguidance set out in the FCP and the Guidance to the FCP (GFCP).
If stakeholders do not wish to actively engage with a fishery assessment but would like to be kept
updated about progress on the assessment, the CAB is encouraged to support this. Stakeholders cansign up for MSC Fisheries Update emails to keep track of assessments and can also keep up to datewith progress via the MSC Track a Fishery website.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G4.4

Access to information

G4.4.1

Key information ▲The CAB should interpret “key information” to mean information that is essential for a stakeholder tohave access to so that they are able to properly review the logic that the team has used in scoring
rationales.
For information that is available online, the CAB should provide a full reference to make it easy forstakeholders to find this information. Where possible, the CAB should include a hyperlink, and include
additional details that can be used to find the information if the hyperlink breaks.
If peer-reviewed literature that is not open access is cited within a public assessment report, the CAB
should provide the details required for a stakeholder to find and gain access to the peer-reviewed
literature. However, the CAB is not expected to provide this access.

G4.4.1.1

Unpublished information ▲The CAB can use the ‘Supporting Information’ annex within the reporting templates to make available
information that is unpublished or not online. Alternatively, the CAB may make the information
available by sharing it directly with stakeholders and the Peer Review College on request.

G7
G7.1.7

Process requirements
Communication CAB-client ▲The CAB should inform the client that failure to prepare properly – if the relevant information is notavailable, or if critical issues have not been addressed – might mean that the Unit of Assessment(UOA) could fail assessment.

G7.1.8

Information collection related to MSC pre-assessments ▲The information provided may be aggregated and publicly reported on the MSC website to show
regional pre-assessment activities without revealing either the CAB or client identities or other specificfishery details.
This reporting allows the MSC to monitor the number of fisheries that are engaging with the MSC
process in different regions of the world and assess the proportions of those fisheries that
subsequently enter (as opposed to those who do not enter) full assessment. The example report(Table G1) provides information from the same CAB for a later year and includes a status update for apreviously reported pre-assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table G1: Example report (for a year after the first submission, including updates for the previous year where the status is now known orrevised)Conformity Assessment Body (name)
Reportingperiod(year
ending 31
March)

Fishery

SpeciesStock(location)

2012

Brown trout(Salmo. trutta)

2012

Herring(Clupeaharengus)

ABC Certification Ltd

Geartype(s)Fishery evaluation at time ofpre-assessment

Actions since pre-assessment

Status(1, 2, 3,4, or 5)Notes

1

Now in preparation for
submission ofannouncement
documents

3

Working on researchplan, expect to enter
full assessment whencomplete

Client(organisation
name)Fishery
scale

Status(1, 2,
or 3)

Deep Lake, Gill net
ScotlandBT Fishing
Ltd

Small
scale

3

Irish Sea

New FishingLtd

Semiindustrial

2

Gill net

Justification for
assigned status

Expected fail in
Principle 3 due tolack of written
research plan andother issues

Include rows below to update information on fisheries included in previous annual reports where the status was ‘not known’ at the time of firstreporting, or where the status has since changed
2011

Lobster(Homarus
gammarus)

Isle ofSkye, UK

Pot

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

DEF Fishing
Ltd

Small
scale

1

Expected fail on
Principle 1 due tolack of existing
harvest control
rules

2

Entered assessmentwith CAB XYZ Ltd.
Announced September
2011

Page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2020

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.3

The MSC Client Document Checklist ▲The intent of the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’ is to ensure that all available information needed tocomplete the Announcement Comment Draft Report has been collated.

G7.4

Confirmation that the UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries
Standard ▲In the context of the MSC Fisheries Standard 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, if a fishery is not vessel-based, the term
“vessel” should be interpreted as “individual operators”.

G7.4.7

CAB process if a vessel is excluded ▲Figure G1 outlines the process for the CAB to follow if the client (or client groups) informs the CAB
that a vessel has been removed in relation to the MSC Fisheries Standard 1.1.5.1 or 1.1.6.1.
Examples in Figure G1 are for illustrative purposes only.
If a vessel has been excluded or removed from a Unit of Certification (UoC) due to a scope issue
related to the MSC Fisheries Standard 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, that vessel may request to re-enter the UoC
once it can demonstrate that 2 years have passed since its exclusion or removal. In this instance, the
CAB should follow the requirements in Section 7.27.
In cases where fishing operations are not vessel based, the requirement should be interpreted tomean the exclusion of the individual fishing operator that undertook a serious crime or a shark finningoffence.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Figure G1: The process the CAB should follow when the client or client groups inform the CAB that a
vessel has been removed from the UoA, UoC, and certificate in relation to the MSC Fisheries
Standard 1.1.5.1 or 1.1.6.1.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.5

Scope of assessment: defining the Unit of Assessment and Unit ofCertification ▲MSC certification is specific to the fishery holding the certificate, defined as the Unit of Certification(UoC). The CAB may choose to assess a wider unit as the Unit of Assessment (UoA), to which thecertificate may be extended under some circumstances. Both the UoC and UoA need to be defined at
the start of assessment.
The MSC allows parts of a fishery (i.e. a combination of stock(s)/gear(s)/vessel(s)) to be certified even
if the rest of the fishery is not certified.

G7.5.2–3

Defining the UoA/UoC ▲The UoC (i.e. the unit entitled to an MSC certificate) is defined as follows:“The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit(s)) combined with the fishing gear and vesseltype(s) pursuing that stock.”
At its simplest, a single vessel with a single gear could be the UoC, although it is more likely that a
UoC would comprise a number of vessels within the same fishery.
The UoA defines the full scope of what is being assessed and is therefore equal to or larger than the
UoC. If it is larger, it will include other eligible fishers. Such other eligible fishers exist in cases wherea client enters assessment with the aim of initially certifying only part of a fishery (e.g. vessels owned
by a single entity), but wishes to have the possibility of expanding the UoC later by the mechanism ofcertificate sharing.
If the number of fishers within the UoA is greater than the number within the UoC, there are othereligible fishers. If there is any difference between the UoC and UoA, the CAB must communicate thisclearly to the MSC and other stakeholders.
Sufficient information should be provided to fully define the scope of the UoA that is to be assessed.
In some fisheries, for example, further information may be given on the specific fishing seasons
and/or areas that are included. Details could also be provided on which fishing “fleets” are covered, or
licence categories, as used in the management of the UoA. “Groups” of vessels could also be
identified that are not full fleets, but still have some special characteristics, such as membership of an
association, or a binding commitment to a code of conduct. In cases where an assessment isintended to cover all fishing activities on a stock within the national waters of a state, there may be noneed to individually specify all the different “fleets” or varieties of vessels that are covered (although
the diversity of such vessels and gears should then be considered in scoring). In some cases,
individual vessels or “groups” of vessels owned by a particular client may also be named, if the scopeof the assessment is limited to only these vessels.
In defining a UoA/UoC, stocks could be different species, or different “more or less isolated and selfsustaining” groups within a species. UoAs/UoCs are usually defined for a single species (or stock)and the gear type(s) used to catch that species. The client may prefer more than 1 species, stock, orgear type to be included in a UoA/UoC. The advantages of joint scoring in these cases (e.g. costsavings and simpler tracking in the Chain of Custody (CoC) may outweigh the risk that the failure of
one element could result in the failure of the whole UoA.

G7.5.2.b and G7.5.3.bDefining gear type(s) used in the UoAs/UoCs ▲“Fishing gear” is defined as the tool with which living aquatic resources are captured. For MSC
assessments, gear type is distinguished based on the physical configuration, rather than how the gearis deployed. For example, a beam trawl with sumwing can be classified as a different gear type than abeam trawl with tickler chains, because these have different configurations – in this instance, different
accessory equipment. However, beam trawling on sandy bottom and beam trawling on rocky
substrate would not constitute the use of different gears and both activities are required to be included
in a single UoA.

Single UoA/UoC with multiple gears
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Where there are discrete variations in the type of gear used (such as 2 different mesh sizes used in astandard type of trawl gear), the CAB may include these within a single UoA. The CAB should clearly
describe the gears and the variations, and consider these in the assessment and scoring (with any
conditions included as normal for <80 scores). If the UoA is certified, the CAB should monitor the useof each gear at surveillance to ensure that the effort applied to each has not changed to the extent
that the impact of the UoA has also changed; if this occurs, the CAB should update the scoring. The
client and the CAB should note that when 2 or more gear types are scored together, the lower scorewill determine the result. Decisions on the definition of the UoA should thus reflect the benefits of joint
scoring against the risk of an individual analysis on a gear type resulting in a fail for all the others in
the UoA.

Single UoA/UoC with single gear
In cases where the UoA/UoC includes a single gear type, the CAB should consider whether there areany variations in use. If so, the CAB should:•

Describe these variations and any potential differences in impact on Principle 2 components.

•

Monitor any changes in use at surveillance to ensure the full impact of the variations are
considered in scoring.

Examples include, but are not limited to, variations in how the gear is deployed, or variations in type ofbait used.
The UoA/UoC must include all activities undertaken for the specified gear. For example, in a UoA
where the gear type is purse seine, it may be used in multiple ways, such as setting on a FAD or on afree-school of fish. If the UoA employs multiple set-types, all set-types must be included in the UoA
assessment of each gear type.
Such a flexible approach is allowed in order to minimise the complexity of assessment reports as far
as possible while ensuring that all fishing impacts for the combined gear types/variations are fully
assessed.

Trading of catch quota between vessels
In cases where catch quotas for certified fish stocks are traded between vessels, fleets, or nations,such catches should be included within the UoA/UoC only if the recipient of the quota is:•

Already explicitly included within the UoA/UoC and/or recognised as a member of the clientgroup, or•Itself certified and catches that fish in conformity with its own UoA/UoC.

Such trading of catch quota does not automatically grant the right to enter catches into MSC certified
CoCs, although this may be possible in the above circumstances.
The team should assess the impacts of fishing by any quota recipients consistent with the normal
requirement that the Principle 1 assessment covers all impacts on the stock. Any changes in suchaccess arrangements in an existing certified UoA should be considered during surveillance audits.

Assessment of metapopulations within the UoA/UoC
The MSC requires that fishing activity on Principle 1 species is assessed at a level that is sustainable
for the stock. However, the application of the “stock” concept may vary depending on the knowledge
available and complexity in management1.
Generally, from the fisheries management point of view, a “unit stock” can be defined as a group offish that can be treated as a stock and managed as an independent unit, as long as the results of the

1 Maguire, J.-J.; Sissenwine, M.; Csirke, J.; Grainger, R.; Garcia, S. (2006). The state of world highly migratory,

straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No.
495. Rome: FAO, 84pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

assessment and the impact of management measures do not differ significantly from what they would
be in the case of a truly independent stock2.
In some cases, stocks may be structured as “metapopulations” – systems in which local populations(= sub-populations) inhabit discrete habitat patches, and inter-patch dispersal is neither so low as tonegate significant demographic connectivity, nor so high as to eliminate any independence of local
population (LP) dynamics3.
In these cases, the team should consider the connectivity between sub-populations of themetapopulation that defines the underlying source-sink dynamics, and thereby clearly define theactual unit stock that is to be assessed against Principle 1.
Connectivity patterns range from a well-mixed larval pool (maximal connectivity) at one extreme to acollection of closed self-sustaining populations (minimal connectivity) at the other. However, mostsituations are intermediate to these two extremes. Connectivity is rarely symmetrical, and larval flows
between 2 subpopulations will nearly always be stronger in 1 direction with maximum asymmetry
found in non-reproductive pseudo-populations (absolute sinks). Source-sink models describe asituation where larvae or adults from source locations supplement less-productive sink areas. In asink location, reproduction is insufficient to balance local mortality, and the LP therefore persists only
because it receives immigration from more-productive sources. Source locations are considered net
exporters of individuals whereas sinks are net importers of individuals.
The degree of self-recruitment and connectivity among sub-populations dictates the specificmanagement required to achieve a sustainable harvest. Where management recognises a
metapopulation, it may need to ensure that fishing effort and catches consider the abundance orbiomass in each local population.
In cases where fisheries are targeting a mixture of LPs that cannot be clearly separated, a practicalmanagement approach may be to consider the whole metapopulation as the unit stock. In this case,more precautionary reference points or other adjustments to the harvest strategy may be needed toallow for uncertainties in the stock structure. However, where appropriate and justified, 1 or more LPs
can also be designated as the unit stock(s) on which the outcome and harvest strategy components
are to be assessed.
The team should be alert to the special issues of metapopulation in assessing a UoA. At the time ofreporting on the fishery assessment, the team should include detailed information in the assessment
report, clarifying whether the unit stock is based on 1 or more LPs or on a metapopulation as a whole.
Details should be provided on the appropriateness of the level of assessment and management
chosen, explaining:•

In the case that management is based on the whole metapopulation, how it is expected to avoid
local depletion.

•

If based on 1 or more local populations:oWhether these are believed to be sources or sinks.

oThe relationship among subpopulations.

o

How management avoids over-exploitation within both the selected local populations andmore broadly in the whole metapopulation.

Table G2 shows the level of assessment expected and considerations for scoring the stock outcome
and harvest strategy components of a unit stock for a normal single population stock (case A), and for
3 different forms of metapopulations (cases B, C, and D). Teams should note that harmonisation
between Principle 1 assessments would normally be expected only in cases where 2 fisheries are
fully overlapping in their definition of the unit stock. Fisheries on 2 separate LPs within a wider
metapopulation, for example, need not have harmonised outcomes.

2 Gulland, J.A. (1983). Fish stock assessment. A manual of basic methods. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons,

FAO/Wiley series on food and agriculture. Vol. 1: 223pp.
3 Sale, P.F.; Hanski, I.; Kritzer, J.P. (2006). The merging of metapopulation theory and marine ecology:
establishing the historical context. In: Kritzer JP, Sale PF (Eds) Marine Metapopulations. Chapter 1. Elsevier,
Amsterdam: 3–28.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table G2: Level of assessment expected and considerations when scoring the stock outcome
and harvest strategy components of a unit stock for different forms of metapopulation
Stockstructure

Description(degree of connectivity andself-recruitment)

Implications for management of the stock(assessment of Outcome and Harvest Strategy)

A.
Singlepopulation

Completely isolated.
Self-contained with noemigration or immigration ofindividuals from or to thestock.
Occupies a well-defined
spatial range and isindependent of other stocksof the same species.

Whole population.
Fishing on the population has no effect on the
dynamics of neighbouring populations.
Normal expectations may apply for reference points.
The fishery must manage the stock above the point of
recruitment impairment (PRI) to ensure recruitment issustained.

B.
Local
population
with partial
isolation

Partially isolated and minimal
connectivity.
Self-sustaining.
The degree of connectivity
with other LPs in themetapopulation is so weak
that, for management
purposes, it can beconsidered a self-sustaining
population. This may be true
even if occasional larval
exchanges between LPs areenough to maintain a certain
degree of genetic flow andhomogeneity.

Local population.
Fishing on the local population appears to have noeffect on the dynamics of neighbouring populations.
Normal expectations may apply for reference points.
The fishery must manage its own local unit stock
above the PRI to ensure recruitment is sustained.
Requires information on the biology of the species,
larval dispersal, source-sink dynamics, andoceanographic conditions supporting management at
a local level.
Information and uncertainties related to stock
structure need to be scored in Performance Indicators(PIs) 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4.

C.
Local
population(s) withmoderateconnectivity
within themetapopulation

Moderate connectivity.
The degree of connectivity
between LPs is enough tomaintain genetic flow andsome degree ofhomogeneity.
Source-sink dynamics withvariable degree of selfrecruitment. Sources ofrecruits act as core areas in
the species range where thespecies occurs in all years
and where the typical age
composition exhibits regular
recruitment patterns withmultiple age classes present.
There may be sinks whereoccasional individuals or low
densities usually occur andwhere populations typicallyconsist of only 1 or a few age
groups, often of old
individuals.

Local population(s).
Fishing on local populations affects the dynamics ofneighbouring populations. Fishing and the
management decision affecting upstream populations
will have impacts on the components downstream.
Local populations are not entirely in control of theirproductivity.
The fishery must manage its own local unit stock
above the PRI to ensure recruitment is sustained, butreference points also need to take into accountconnections with and dependences on neighbouringlocal populations.
Per recruit reference points (e.g. percentage
spawners per recruit) may confirm the goodmanagement of the fishery to contribute to the wider
surrounding populations.
Separate monitoring of absolute reference points(either of incoming recruitment or of local populationlevels) may also be needed to confirm that the inputsof external recruitment are being sustained.
Requires information on the biology of the species,
larval dispersal, source-sink dynamics, andoceanographic conditions supporting management at
local level.
Information and uncertainties related to stock
structure need to be scored in PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and1.2.4.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Stockstructure

Description(degree of connectivity andself-recruitment)

Implications for management of the stock(assessment of Outcome and Harvest Strategy)

D.
Local
populations
withmaximum
connectivity
within themetapopulation

Maximum connectivity.
Metapopulation is panmictic(mating is random within theentire metapopulation).
Subpopulations are arbitrary.
Well-mixed larval pool.

Whole metapopulation.
Fishing on local populations affects the dynamics ofneighbouring populations.
The fishery must manage the whole metapopulation(unit stock) above the PRI to ensure that recruitment
is sustained. Special attention may be needed insetting reference points to ensure that the LP
structure is not affected by fishing.
Scored against the whole metapopulation.
Information and uncertainties related to stock
structure need to be scored in PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and1.2.4.

G7.5.4

Defining the UoA and UoC by subset of activities ▲While the MSC allows a portion of the fishery to be certified, it does not allow the UoA or UoC to be
defined by a subset of activities undertaken with the stock(s)/gear(s) combination. For example, if
assessing a fishery using a purse seine with multiple set types such as FAD-set and free school-set,
the CAB should include all set-types within the UoA and UoC.

G7.5.5

Definition of UoA at time of fishing ▲The CAB should define the UoA based on the gears that are used. The CAB should not define a UoA
based on the species caught as observed at the time of landing. The CAB should include in theassessment all potential impacts of the UoA from all hauls or landings that are defined as having beentaken by the gear type and in the area defined in the UoA. The CAB should not define the UoA basedon, for instance, a subset of hauls that are defined as targeting a Principle 1 species and for which a
calculation of the proportion of the catch that includes that Principle 1 species is required.

G7.5.6

Geographical area of the fishery ▲This is a description of the geographical area within which the fishery is undertaken. It should include
the following:•

FAO Major Fishing Area, identified by name and two-digit code (www.fao.org/cwp-on-fisherystatistics/handbook).

•

Commonly used name for the body of water (e.g. North Sea).

•

Local fisheries management area (e.g. ICES divisions VI, VII, and VIII abc).

•

Stock region, which may be all or part of the biological stock unit assessed in Principle 1.

In defining the geographical area, the CAB should consider the fishery client’s ability to track andtrace to it, as per 7.5.10 (initial traceability risk assessment) and Section 7.17 (Determination of the
traceability systems and point(s) at which fish and fish products enter further certified Chains of
Custody).

G7.5.7

Principle 1 and Principle 2 species components ▲The team does not need to define all P2 species within the UoA and UoC. However, the team needs
to demonstrate that 7.5.7 has been applied to determine and rationalise species being assessed
within Principle 1 and 2. This rationale should be presented in sections 10.1 (P1) and 10.2 (P2)respectively of the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.5.8Changes to UoC/UoA ▲During an assessment, the CAB should limit changes to the UoA and proposed UoC to the target
stocks identified for consideration under Principle 1, as per 7.15.3. The MSC recognises that stocks
initially proposed as target stocks (and assessed under Principle 1) may be recategorised as in-scope
species and assessed under Principle 2.
For example, a client may want to propose multiple species for consideration under Principle 1, but
the CAB may not have sufficient information to confirm whether that species is best assessed underPrinciple 1 or Principle 2 until after the site visit. A CAB may therefore confirm the species to beassessed under Principle 1 after the site visit, to be formally confirmed within the Public Comment
Draft Report, see 7.15.3.
It is not the MSC’s intent that the CAB announces a provisional UoA and adds additional target stocks
or gear types or makes other changes during an assessment except those in 7.15.3.
The CAB should consider whether any changes to the UoA or UoC made during an assessment will
have an impact on the traceability and ability to trace and identify product to each UoC.

G7.5.9Withdrawing a UoA and proposed UoC during the assessment ▲For fishery assessments with multiple UoAs and proposed UoCs, a client may decide to withdraw 1 ormore UoAs and proposed UoCs during the assessment process, for example to remove a gear type.

G7.5.10

Review of traceability factors ▲The intent of this section is to assure that the UoCs are defined in such a way that it will be possible
for the fishery client to trace and identify them, in order to be eligible to sell product as MSC certified.
The CAB will consider the risks that affect this as detailed in the clause. The risk of vessels outside
the UoC fishing on the same stock is relevant where this is for commercial purposes (i.e. intending tosell on this catch rather than discard it). Other risks of substitution may occur between point of harvestand point of sale to any party not covered by the fishery certificate, for example transhipment of
product between a catch vessel in the UoC and another vessel, or sale via auction.

G7.5.10.1

Notification of obligation to meet traceability requirements ▲Fisheries may have systems in place to manage traceability but may not be fully aware of MSC
traceability requirements until later in the assessment process, particularly if the UoC does not cover
the entire fishery. The intent of this requirement is to enable clear communication with the client groupso that they are aware of the traceability requirements early in the assessment process. Key
traceability risks can be documented in the traceability section of the ‘MSC Reporting Template’, andthe client will have more time to implement traceability solutions during the remainder of theassessment process.

G7.5.11

Other eligible fishers and entities, and certificate sharing ▲The MSC has the following intent regarding its certification program and certificate sharing:•

To minimise the number of overlapping assessments requiring harmonisation.

•

To encourage the largest proportion of fishers to enter at the start of the full assessment process,but when only a select group of fishers within a fishery wants to undertake MSC assessment, toallow them to proceed so as not to delay certification.

•

To ensure that the process is clear and transparent to interested parties.

This arrangement defines which other eligible fishers may gain access to the fishery certificate, if andwhen the fishery is certified.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Certificate-sharing mechanisms developed in existing MSC fisheries include a number ofarrangements, such as the provision of unrestricted access to the certificate, providing thatcertification and surveillance costs:•

Are shared fairly and equitably with all participants.

•

Are met through the payment of a landing levy or some other approach agreed within the clientgroup, and/or•

That all product is initially sold to the certificate holder.

The MSC recognises the role of individual fishery clients in devising mechanisms that are appropriate
to their circumstances. There are no formal, mandatory arrangements for the development ofcertificate-sharing mechanisms.
The guidance below provides suggestions rather than directions to clients and their potential partners
for their use and/or inclusion in any certificate-sharing mechanisms. The CAB may wish to provide theadvice in Box G1 to fisheries.
Box G1: The MSC’s advice on allocating costs of certificate sharing
The MSC provides this non-binding advice to certificate holders on the sharing of certificate costs.
The CAB may wish to provide this information to those involved in certificate sharing.
When a client allows access to a certificate and seeks proportional reimbursement of the initialcosts paid either as a one-off payment or as an ongoing cost-sharing mechanism, this guidancesuggests how these costs could be calculated. Costs may include the following:a) Direct costs paid to a CAB.
b) Direct costs that the client incurs in managing or facilitating the assessment.
c) Cost of the client’s time spent managing/facilitating the assessment process.
d) Risk premium, a maximum of 20% of the other assessment costs.
If costs additional to those identified above are included in the proposed certificate-sharing
mechanism, they must be documented and justified in any and all communication about the
proposed sharing mechanism.
Allowable costs would not be expected to include any grant or subsidy made to the client to cover
the costs incurred during the assessment, except where a proportion of such grants or subsidies
are subsequently repaid.
The direct costs and the time costs that the client incurs in managing or facilitating the assessment
may either be costed directly from the client’s accounts or estimated as a simple overhead rate.
Where the direct and time costs are to be estimated from the client’s accounts, the CAB will makefull details available to other fishers seeking to gain entry to the certificate. If audited accounts
detailing these costs are required, the other eligible fishers will pay the costs incurred in conducting
such audits. The cost of the client’s time will be based on the earnings records for the individuals
involved. The client will record and substantiate time inputs recorded.
Where the client’s direct and time costs are to be estimated according to an overhead rate, this rateshould not exceed 30% of the fees paid to the CAB. In this case, the following formula is suggested
for calculating the overall cost to be shared:(Costs x overhead) x risk premium
Where the rates for the overhead and risk premium are set at the proposed upper limits of 30% and20%, respectively, the overall cost is calculated from the following formula:((Direct cost paid to the CAB less any cost paid for a consultant) x 1.3) x 1.2
Costs (both for entry and maintenance to the certificate, including the fulfilment of conditions) would
be apportioned to the new entrant(s) seeking certification in accordance to the mechanism.
Examples could include, but are not limited to, a pro rata sharing of costs based on:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0e) The number of vessels (or operators) or processing or marketing entities seeking entry as
a proportion of those documented as originally included in the UoC, orf)

The quota held by the new vessel(s) (or operators) or processing or marketing entities
seeking entry, as a proportion of those documented as originally included in the UoC, org) The increase in fishing power of new vessel(s) (or operators) or processing or marketing
capacity seeking entry pro rata to those documented as originally included in the UoC.
If additional fishers or processing or marketing entities seek to join the certificate after an initial andsuccessful certificate-sharing negotiation, a rebate may be due to those who joined the certificate
previously. Alternatively, potential costs may be apportioned between all the fishers who arepotentially eligible to share the certificate, and payments made by sub-sets of fishers only inproportion to their share of the overall costs (thus avoiding the need for rebates if other fishers joinlater). Such cost-sharing mechanisms will be detailed to stakeholders when an assessment isundertaken.

G7.5.12Inseparable or practicably inseparable stock(s) ▲The intent of the requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) stocks is to:•Create incentives to promote the improved management of non-target stock(s), for example tobring to Principle 1 level of performance or encourage adoption of a mechanism for catch
separation.

•

Allow a defined and limited proportion of catches of IPI stock(s) to enter further certified Chains of
Custody and use the MSC ecolabel.

The requirements for IPI stock(s) acknowledge that Principle 2 catch can be practicably inseparablefrom the Principle 1 catch during normal fishing operations. For example, the Principle 2 catch may befrom a stock of the same species, or a closely related species. As an extreme example, the Principle
2 species may only be distinguishable by the number of gill rakers or the number of rays in the caudal
fin. These requirements also acknowledge that, even when the Principle 2 catch is distinguishable, it
may not be commercially feasible to separate the catch (i.e. significant modification to existing
harvesting and processing methods would be required).
The intent of the IPI requirements is to incentivise management of these species to Principle 1 level,
or to encourage adoption of a mechanism for separation. As a result, IPI is only valid for 1 certification
period, unless the proportion is <2%.
Requirements for IPI stock(s) are designed to improve consistency in the application of the MSC FCP.
The requirements on IPI stock(s) vary based on the percentage in the catch:•

If the proportion of IPI catches to total target + IPI catches is less than or equal to 2%, the CAB
needs to make an assessment that the UoA does not create a significant impact on the IPI stock
but is not required to apply PA1.4.2. The CAB is also not required to make a further determinationof status under Principle 2, although the IPI stock is effectively held to the same requirement as
Principle 2 in that the UoA should not be creating a significant impact on the IPI stock.

•

If the proportion is greater than 2% and less than 15%, Annex PA is to be applied in its entirety,
including an assessment against Principle 2 in-scope species PIs and considering the impact of
all fishing activity.

•

The CAB should take into account the variability of the catch composition over the last 5 years or
fishing seasons. Depending on data availability and species characteristics, the team may choosea different length of the time series, but a rationale should be provided in all cases for the method
chosen. Species characteristics may include life history (e.g. longevity or generation time), timescales of production variability (e.g. decadal-scale vs. shorter time frames), and regulatory
periods that affect spatial distribution of the fishing activity. There should be a good understandingof the long-term average catch composition of IPI species.

Note that the MSC restricts the application of the requirements for IPI stocks to a fishery certification
to 1 certification period. At reassessment, IPI stock(s) should:

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0•

Be separated from target stock(s), or•

The proportion of IPI should be reduced to 2%, or•

The IPI stock(s) should be assessed against Principle 1.

G7.7

Preparing for the Announcement Comment Draft Report ▲G7.7.1

Fishery with enhanced stock ▲Background
The intent is that management systems exist to control exploitation rates on wild stocks in order toallow for self-sustaining, locally adapted wild stocks (i.e. adequate wild stock levels that canperpetuate themselves at harvestable levels on a continuing basis, consistent with Principle 1). The
management of enhancement activities related to the fishery should not prevent the ability of wild
stocks to sustain themselves at their optimum levels, according to their natural habitat-related andbiologically based productive capacities.

G7.7.1.2.b

Extent of translocations ▲For these requirements, translocation does not include the transfer of species to outside the
distribution of their native range. The latter should be considered as an introduction of a species, to beconsidered under MSC Fisheries Standard Section SD.
The extent of translocation must be considered to ensure that the fishery enhancement programs
predominantly utilise stocks or populations that are native to the natural production area from which
the UoA’s catch originates.
The means of confirming that fish are “native” to a fishery production area (i.e. from within the “naturalrange”) may not be simple, except in cases where no movement occurs.
PIs may need to be developed to determine the extent of movement within a range that can beconsidered to have acceptably low risks. Related performance assessment will require theidentification of the “natural production area” or genetic range of a stock.
Translocation of fish/shellfish in enhanced fisheries should ensure that fisheries maintain the diversity,
structure, and function of the ecosystem on which they depend while minimising any adverse effects.
Inadequately managed translocations of fish/shellfish between different areas may have genetic andother impacts that need to be assessed (e.g. the spread of diseases between areas, or accidental
species introductions).

G7.7.1.2.c.i

Other interventions ▲Currently, the MSC Fisheries Standard does not cover the issues of feed augmentation and the use of
medicines or other chemical compounds.
Examples of other interventions used in catch and grow (CAG) systems include:•

Fertilisation to enhance natural food availability, or•Removal of predators or competitors, either to maximise capture or minimise post-capture
mortality.

G7.7.1.2.d

Habitat modification ▲The cumulative impacts of multiple production operations, areas, facilities and systems within ageographical region must be considered.
For example, a small mussel rope facility may have minimal impact on the natural ecosystem’s
structure and function, but filling a whole bay with such structures may have much greater impacts.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Consideration is needed for those situations where an individual operation is the subject of anassessment under the MSC Program but is only 1 of several similar operations in a finite space. The
assessment should consider whether the cumulative impacts of a particular production system arelikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.

G7.8

The Announcement Comment Draft Report ▲The MSC’s intent is that the drafting of the Announcement Comment Draft Report is a desk-based
exercise using information provided in the ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’. However, additional
resources that are readily available can also be used. For an initial assessment, information available
in pre-assessments or from Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) may be used. For a reassessment,
information in the previous Public Certification Report and surveillance audit reports may be used.
The Announcement Comment Draft Report provides indicative scoring and rationales, and identifies
where more information is needed.
One of the objectives of the Announcement Comment Draft Report is to assist the site visit byfacilitating stakeholder input to the assessment before the site visit. The Announcement Comment
Draft Report also ensures the CAB, the client, and stakeholders are better informed and prepared forthe site visit.
The Announcement Comment Draft Report includes an initial review of traceability risks identified inthe ‘MSC Client Document Checklist’ stage, the proposed point of change of ownership of product toany party not covered by the fishery certificate, and the point from which subsequent CoC certification
is proposed. The full review of risks and mitigation, determination on eligibility of product, andadditional description of traceability is completed after, and informed by, the site visit as per Section
7.14.

G7.8.1

Preparing the Announcement Comment Draft Report ▲The MSC does not expect assessment teams to conduct stakeholder interviews or site visits for the
purposes of completing the Announcement Comment Draft Report. If a CAB chooses to conduct
stakeholder interviews or site visits during the drafting of the Announcement Comment Draft Report,
this will not count towards meeting the requirements in Section 7.14.

G7.8.2.g.i

Harmonisation for the Announcement Comment Draft Report ▲The MSC’s intent regarding preparation for harmonisation no later than the site visit is that the CAB
identifies overlapping UoAs and the need for harmonisation, and informs the relevant CABs that
harmonisation discussions might be needed after the site visit.
The MSC does not expect the team to have had harmonisation discussions with other assessment
teams of overlapping fisheries to produce the Announcement Comment Draft Report.

G7.10

Announcement of fishery assessment ▲G7.10.4.b

Pre-assessment reports uploaded to database ▲The MSC will maintain confidentiality of pre-assessment reports. The client may require the MSC tosign a confidentiality agreement.

G7.10.5.1

Modifications to the default tree ▲The CAB should draft quantitative PIs, where appropriate. For example:•

Potential biological removals (PBR) of marine mammals – where fishing activity does not impede
the recovery rate of populations.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0•

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) – the UoA is at or above MSY, or biomass at maximum
sustainable yield (BMSY), or some other variation of an appropriate fisheries management
reference point.

G7.12

Peer Review College ▲The MSC has set up a Peer Review College to fulfil the following objectives:•

Increase the independence of peer reviews of fishery assessments.

•

Increase the quality and consistency of peer reviews, and the reliability of their use by CABs,
stakeholders and independent adjudicators.

•

Not to increase, and if possible reduce, the cost of peer reviewers to fishery clients undergoingassessment.

The CAB will need to request peer reviewers from the College according to the requirements in
Section 7.12. The operations of the College are described separately to this guidance. Peer reviewers
will have similar competencies to auditors.

G7.12.3.b

Proposed peer reviewers after the site visit ▲Following the site visit:•

The Peer Review College will ensure that all registered stakeholders are proactively invited tocomment on the potential conflicts of interest of the proposed peer reviewers for a period of 10
days.

•

The College will review any conflicts of interest highlighted by stakeholders, in accordance withthe procedures outlined in the FCP.

If stakeholders do not agree with the Peer Review College’s determination on conflict of interest:•

They have the right to appeal to the Peer Review College who shall inform the MSC within 10
working days.

•

The MSC will appoint a third party to conduct a review of the decision.

•

The MSC Executive will inform the Peer Review College of the outcome of the review.

•

The MSC Executive will provide instructions on how the Peer Review College should proceed.

Once the consultation and appeals process is complete and the Peer Review College has acted as
directed by the third party, the CAB and stakeholders will be informed of the decision that no conflictof interest exists for the peer reviewers appointed to conduct the peer review.

G7.12.5

Final decision peer reviewers ▲The CAB can express a preference for individual reviewers to be contracted from a shortlist drawn up
by the Peer Review College. However, the Peer Review College will make the final decision.

G7.13

Stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report ▲G7.13.4

Publish stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft
Report ▲The CAB should upload the stakeholder input in a timely manner to the MSC database for publicationon the MSC website. The purpose of publication is to keep the stakeholders informed before the site
visit about what has been raised. Additionally, the stakeholder input is useful for the assessment teamto prepare the site visit.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.14

Site visits, stakeholder input, and information collection ▲G7.14.1

Additional site visits ▲The team may require further site visits by 1 or more team members where:•

Information is not available, or•

The client or stakeholders have not assembled information in time for the first assessment visit toadequately assess and analyse the evidence.

•

G7.15

Scoring the UoA ▲Background
This is the stage where the information gathered in the formal assessment is evaluated, and scores
are assigned and justified.
Guidance for scoring the UoA using the RBF is given in the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox.

G7.15.1-2

Scoring decision ▲The MSC's intent is that the full team appointed by the CAB agrees the scoring of the UoA. Although
individual team members may lead on the scoring of a particular Principle, their conclusions should be
agreed in discussion with the team as a whole. Discussions on scoring may begin at the site visit.
However, these discussions often cannot be completed until after the team has dispersed, whenvirtual interactions may be needed; for example, by teleconference and exchange of emails.

G7.15.5.1

Smaller scoring intervals ▲The team may need to assign scores in intervals smaller than 5 when considering the complexity
generated by multiple scoring issues (SIs) and scoring elements.

G7.15.7.3

Terms used ▲In considering the scoring of individual PIs based on the performance of different scoring elements,
the team should use the terms below:•

Few: most of the SIs should be taken to indicate “minority:majority” or “less than half:greater thanhalf. For example, if there were 3 or 4 SIs, the ratios “1:2” and “1:3” would be represented by theterms “few:most”).

•

Some: “some” should be taken to indicate a roughly equal split of SIs.

G7.15.8

Weighting ▲Table G3 below shows the default weighting when using the default tree.
This information can be found in the ‘MSC Fishery Assessment Default Scoring Worksheet’.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table G3: Default weighting to be applied when using the default assessment tree
Principle
weightComponent
weightPI

1

Outcome
0.333

1.1.1

Weight withincomponent andPrinciple
EITHER

Stock Status

1

0.333

OR
0.5
1.1.2

Stock Rebuilding

0.167

EITHER
0

0

OR
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3

Harvest Strategy
Harvest Control Rules & Tools
Information & Monitoring
Assessment of Stock Status
OutcomeManagement
Information
OutcomeManagement
Information

0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333

2.3.1

Outcome

0.333

0.067

2.3.2

Management

0.333

0.067

2.3.3

Information

0.333

0.067

Ecosystem
0.2

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3

OutcomeManagement
Information

0.333
0.333
0.333

0.067
0.067
0.067

Governance andPolicy
0.5

3.1.1
3.1.2

0.333
0.333

0.167
0.167

3.1.3
3.2.1

Legal/Customary Framework
Consultation, Roles &Responsibilities
Long Term Objectives
Fishery Specific Objectives

0.333
0.25

0.167
0.125

3.2.2
3.2.3

Decision Making processes
Compliance & Enforcement

0.25
0.25

0.125
0.125

3.2.4

Management Performance
Evaluation

0.25

0.125

Management
0.667

2

In-scope
species
0.2
Endangered,Threatened, orProtected (ETP)
species
0.2
Habitats
species
0.2

3

Fishery-specificmanagement
system
0.5

G7.15.9

0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.067

Weighting to be applied in enhanced salmon fisheries ▲Default weighting is applied in the ‘MSC Fishery Assessment Default Scoring Worksheet’, adjusted as
appropriate for the additional PIs in salmon fisheries.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.15.10.1

Scoring rationale ▲The report’s text should include explicit rationales for all scores.
Example: Rationale for a score of 75 in Principle 2 (In-scope species, Management PI 2.1.2)
The rationale for a score of 75 for PI 2.1.2 might read as follows:
There are 5 in-scope species and therefore 5 scoring elements.
1. For 3 of them, catch by weight of that species is less than 5% of the UoA’s total catch, so theywould not be considered “main”. For these species, there is a management strategy in placethat:oIs primarily designed for the fisheries that target these 3 species.

o

Recognises limit reference points (LRPs) that are based on sensible assumptions about
the stock.

Although there is evidence that this strategy works in similar fisheries, there is no evidence
directly about the UoA that shows it is achieving its objectives. None of the species is a shark,so the shark-finning SI is not scored. All 3 species are landed and sold; additionally, the teamconsiders that unobserved mortality is negligible based on research of similar fisheries. Given
these points, the unwanted catch SI is not triggered. As the ghost gear SI has been scored inPI2.2.2, the ghost gear SI within this PI is not scored (this applies to all in-scope species
scored within this PI).
Given the information above, only SIs (a) and (b) are scored for the minor species scoring
elements. As none of the species are main:oThey all meet the Scoring Guidepost (SG)80 requirements by default.

oThey meet the SG100 requirements for SI (a) – strategy in place.

oThey do not meet the SG100 for SI (b) – strategy effectiveness.

These 3 species would each score 85 for each scoring element.
2. A fourth species (hake):o

Is a major target species of high value to another fishery.

o

Is assessed and managed rigorously.

oMakes up 20% of the UoA catch.

o

Has quotas applied to the UoA and its major target fishery that are effectively monitored
and enforced. Evidence indicates that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock
status is above the PRI.

oIs landed and sold; additionally, the team has determined that unobserved mortality is
negligible based on published research of similar fisheries. Given these points, unwanted
catch SI (c) is not triggered.

oIs not a shark species so SI (d) on shark finning is not scored

Given the information above, only SIs (a) and (b) are scored and this scoring element meets
the SG100 requirements.
3. The fifth species is a deepwater species that is:oManaged using reference points and robust harvest control rules (HCRs).

o

Well above its PRI.

o

Not utilised, and most of the catch is thrown back with a high mortality rate.

o

Is not a shark species so SI (d) on shark finning is not scored.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0o

The UoA has reviewed current measures to minimise capture of this species as well asother measures. A cost-effective and practical measure was identified, but it has not yet
been implemented.

Given the information above, SIs (a), (b) and (c) are scored for this scoring element. This
species meets SG80 for SIs (a) and (b) but only meets SG60 for SI (c). This scoring element
receives a 75.
Based on the SGs, in the above scenario, 3 of the species achieve a score of 90, 1 achieves ascore of 100 and 1 achieves a score of 75. According to Table G7, all of the scoring elements meet
the SG60 level, and most achieve higher performance at or exceeding the SG80 level. Only 1 does
not achieve the SG80 level. Therefore, using Table G7, the appropriate overall PI score would be
75. This is because, as stated in 7.15.11.b, if any single scoring element fails to meet the SG80
level, the overall score for that element shall be less than 80. In such cases, a condition is raised,
regardless of whether any other elements are at the SG100 level.
The rationale for this scoring result is shown in tabular form below.
Table G4: Example scoring for rationale 1
Species

SG level

Minor 1
Minor 2
Minor 3

60

80

100

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E

Met?
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Y
N
n/a
n/a
n/a

Overall
score
90
90
90

Table G5: Example scoring for rationale 2
Species

SG level

Hake

60

80

100

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B

Met?
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Y
Y

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Overall
score
100

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

C
D
E

n/a
n/a
n/a

Table G6: Example scoring for rationale 3
Species

SG level

Deepwater

60

80

100

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E

Met?
Y
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
Y
Y
N
n/a
n/a
Y
Y
N
n/a
n/a

Overallscore
75

Table G7: Example overall scoring rationale
Species

Score

Minor 1
Minor 2
Minor 3Hake
Deepwater
OVERALL PI

90
90
90
100
75
75

G7.15.11.c

Terms used ▲In considering the scoring of individual PIs based on the performance of different scoring elements,
the terms below should be used:•

Few: Most of the scoring elements should be taken to indicate “minority:majority” or “less thanhalf:greater than half” (e.g. if there were 6 scoring elements, the ratios “1:5” and “2:4” would bothbe represented by the terms “few:most”).

•

Some: “Some” should be taken to indicate a roughly equal split of scoring elements.

Scoring of minor species and habitats
For “minor” species and habitats, SGs only exist at the SG100 level in some PIs (2.1.1–2.2.3, 2.3.1,
and 2.3.3). When scoring such “minor” species or habitats as scoring elements, the team should
assume that the SG80 level is met by default, such that the scores are simply based on how many of
the SIs that apply to “minor” (or all) species/habitats are met at the SG100 level.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Examples: scoring elements•

Where most elements did not meet the SG80 level, indicating an overall score of 65, but
generally scored high intermediate scores, a higher overall score would be appropriate (e.g.
70). However, if the elements score only low intermediate scores, a score of 65 or below would
remain appropriate.

•

Where only a few elements failed to achieve the SG80 level, suggesting an overall score of 75,
but achieved low intermediate scores, a lower score (e.g. 70) would be appropriate.

•

Where some elements met the SG100 level but some only met the SG60 level, suggesting ascore of 70, it may be appropriate to reflect the very high performance of some of the elementswith an upwards adjustment to 75.

G7.16

Setting conditions ▲Background
Conditions provide for agreed further improvement in the UoA and provide one of the bases for
subsequent audits. They are intended to improve performance against the MSC Fisheries Standard,in terms of target species status, maintenance of ecological function, and management system
performance.
If scores of less than 80 are awarded, then measurable, outcome-oriented, and time-bounded
conditions of certification are prepared.
Conditions can relate to:•

Reducing uncertainty.

•

Improving processes and/or implementation.

•

Reducing risk.

•

Improving outcomes.

These elements can be hierarchical and may be linked together in pursuing a longer-term outcome
and potential continuous improvement.

G7.16.2

Drafting conditions ▲The CAB should draft conditions that articulate the outcome that needs to be achieved by thecondition deadline. This should reflect the language used in the SG80 PISG and draw upon relevant
text in the MSC Fisheries Standard Section SA clauses and guidance. The CAB should not simply
repeat the SG80 PISG.

G7.16.6

Exceptional circumstances ▲Exceptional circumstances should be applied:•

When a condition is first drafted during assessment and before certification, or•At a surveillance audit if a new condition is raised.
Examples: exceptional circumstances
Examples of exceptional circumstances are the time taken for:•Natural ecological functions and response times.

•

Relevant research to be funded, undertaken, and published.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.17

Assessment of the traceability systems and determination of thepoint(s) at which fish and fish products enter certified Chains of
Custody ▲BackgroundFisheries often have robust systems in place to manage traceability, through regulatory or voluntary
controls. However, these systems may not be sufficient for differentiating between certified and noncertified products, especially if the UoC only covers specific vessels or gear types. The intention ofthis section is to enable clearer documentation of the traceability systems in place for a certified
fishery and to make clear how substitution risks are adequately controlled by the fishery client. Thiscan be informed through the site visit and completed in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ after the site
visit and before the Public Comment Draft Report.
The intent of this section is to ensure that all fishery assessment reports clearly:•

Describe the systems that ensure product segregation and identification to the UoC for all
activities and product movements covered by the fishery certificate.

•

Identify risks of substitution or mislabelling of certified products.

•

Explain how the traceability systems and controls in place mitigate these risks.

G7.17.1 & 7.17.1.2 Traceability record keeping ▲Traceability systems need to be sufficient to allow the fishery client to trace MSC certified sales backto the individual UoC. The MSC may request the traceability records for a product traceback or aninvestigation into an MSC supply chain.
The client will need to trace back to an individual UoC, which means that segregation andidentification to each UoC are needed. In some cases, segregation may not be practical throughout
handling but will always be ultimately possible prior to or at the start of CoC. An example of this would
be where visually distinguishable species (some covered by the UoC and some not) are caught
together, and sorting by species happens upon landing. This assures that should a UoC voluntarily
leave or be suspended, it is possible to continue trading certified product.
Records demonstrating traceability back to the UoC should be kept for at least 2 years wherepracticable, to allow a product from the supply chain to be traced back to the UoC.
Traceability records can be maintained by fishers, the fishery client group, auctions, or other entities,
depending on the management of the UoA and the point at which subsequent Chain of Custody
begins.

G7.17.1.3

High seas transhipment ▲High seas transhipment brings higher risks of substitution or mislabelling of MSC certified fish and fish
products. Examples of sufficient systems for high seas transhipment include 100% observer coverageor independently verified electronic monitoring.

G7.17.1.4 and G7.17.6.e Risk factors and mitigation ▲Mitigation measures can include existing regulatory and traceability controls, such as logbooks, butshould consider whether these systems are sufficient to ensure traceability back to the UoC. If not,additional systems or controls may need to be implemented.
Several possible risk factors exist:•

The possibility that non-certified gears are used within the UoA.
This concerns cases where vessels within the UoA may use gear types that are not included in
the UoC. This can happen on the same trip where certified gears are used, or can happen on

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

different trips. This can lead to a greater risk of mixing between certified and non-certified producton vessels or at points of landing, and the UoA needs adequate systems in place to segregate
and identify the certified catch from non-certified catch.
•

The possibility of vessels from the UoC fishing outside the UoC or in different
geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips).
This concerns the potential for vessels to fish in non-certified geographical regions (which may
also be affected by fishing-season or temporal restrictions). This can lead to a greater risk of
mixing between certified and non-certified product on vessels or at points of landing. The UoA willneed to demonstrate how traceability and control systems (such as vessel monitoring systems or
logbooks) help to ensure that only product caught within the UoC will be identified and sold as
MSC certified.

•

The possibility of vessels from outside the UoC or client group fishing the same stock.
This concerns the likelihood that other, non-certified fishers may catch the same stock, which
could produce higher risks of substitution or mislabelling at the point of landing or sale (forexample, where certified and non-certified catches are sold at the same auction).

•Transhipment, especially high seas transhipment.
Where high seas transhipment occurs, Chain of Custody is needed unless there are
independently verified systems to cover the fishing and receiving vessels for all transhipment
events.

•Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC and fish from outside this unit.
This refers to any other points at harvest, on the vessel, during transhipment, or at points oflanding or sale where there is the potential risk of substitution between non-certified and certified
products. This also includes the presence of other nearby fisheries activities or other fisheries
where non-certified product may be landed or transhipped alongside certified catches. This
assessment should consider the presence of these risks and specifically how they are addressedby the traceability systems in place.

G7.17.6

Documented in the ‘MSC reporting template’ ▲Clear information on the UoC must be available to stakeholders and particularly any party purchasing
certified product from the fishery client. The change of ownership relates to the first point of sale toany party not covered by the fishery certificate. Any specific conditions related to eligibility of productfrom the UoC to bear the MSC ecolabel should be clearly stated in this section (for example, if roe is
not considered within the UoC).
If sales agents or non-fisher client group members are confirmed as included in the fishery certificate,
Chain of Custody could be required to start from the point of sale by the sales agent or client groupmember, and these entities need to be assessed as per 7.17.1.1. All entities that handle or trade
product between harvest and start of CoC (such as transhipment, unloaders, offloaders, storage, andtransport) will also be considered under 7.17.1.1.

G7.17.6.c

Critical tracking events ▲Critical tracking events are all events that need to be recorded in order to allow for effective
traceability of products. The critical tracking events within the fishery certificate could include
transhipment, offloading at landing, sorting at auction, or sale by sales agent.

G7.17.6.1

CoC auditor review ▲The CoC auditor may be a member of the team and involved at each stage, or may be a reviewer
who is only involved after the site visit in reviewing and making recommendations on improving clarityand detail of the traceability sections in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’. The team can then edit the‘MSC Reporting Template’ prior to publication of the Public Comment Draft Report and improve its
clarity for buyers and other stakeholders interested in traceability.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.17.7

Non-conforming product ▲This clause provides consistency with the requirements for CoC certificate holders. Fisheries have a
responsibility to ensure that any non-eligible (non-conforming) product that enters the supply chain is
identified, and downstream supply chain companies are appropriately notified. For example, if productfrom outside the UoC is accidentally labelled or sold as MSC certified, the UoA would need to takeaction in line with this procedure.

G7.18

Determination of eligibility date ▲Background
The MSC has developed requirements on eligibility dates to clarify the date from when the MSC
ecolabel could be used on fishery products caught before the eventual fishery certificate date, and topromote consistency of approach across fisheries. The intent of a flexible eligibility date is to:•

Outline the situations under which fishery products caught before the date of certification of afishery may be considered to have come from a sustainable fishery and be eligible for use of the
MSC ecolabel.

•

Allow fisheries to use the MSC ecolabel and make claims for fish products that are sold after thefishery certificate is awarded, but that are caught before this date.

•

Ensure that the MSC Chain of Custody is maintained and that only products from certified
fisheries use the MSC ecolabel.

G7.18.1.1

Eligibility date ▲The eligibility date needs to be included in the Public Comment Draft Report as per 7.20.3.k.
In cases where the UoC could change (e.g. due to some regions or fishing gears being omitted at alate stage), or there could be further delays to the assessment process, the CAB may choose to set
the eligibility date as the certification date, rather than the Public Comment Draft Report date.
In cases where the eligibility date is set before the certification date, the CAB will need to consider
any potential traceability impacts, and risks including that of product from outside the UoC being
incorrectly identified as under-assessment product. Accordingly, the CAB should verify traceability
and identification systems before the eligibility date.
Fisheries handling under-assessment product should be aware of relevant requirements in the Chainof Custody Standard on identification and traceability of under-assessment product.

G7.19

The Client and Peer Review Draft Report ▲G7.19.5.a

Address peer reviewer comments by CAB ▲The team should note that reviewers will have the right of reply to the team’s conclusion during the
Public Comment Draft Report stakeholder consultation in common with other peer review processes,
such as those used by scientific journals. The reviewer’s reply would state whether they agreed or
disagreed with the team’s response, as this could assist with the MSC Disputes Process. In the Final
Draft Report, the CAB should include a response to any peer reviewer follow-up comments made on
the Public Comment Draft Report.
If any of the peer reviewers’ comments are contradictory, the team should provide justified responses
for each different comment. It may be possible that the team agrees with some of the peer reviewers’comments, but not all. The team should provide clear justifications for all of their responses, includingreferences to the relevant MSC requirements (Standard and/or FCP), and any MSC interpretations orderogations, as appropriate.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

The above also applies to the team’s responses to 2 or more sets of stakeholder comments wherethese are interpreted as contradictory.

G7.19.6

Report viewed by the client ▲The client has up to 60 days to consider and respond to the report. If the client response is received
before the end of the 60-day period and the peer review is complete, the CAB can move on to thenext assessment stage without waiting for the full 60 days to elapse.

G7.19.7

Preparation of the Client Action Plan by the client ▲Specific parts of the Client Action Plan may cover more than 1 PI even though each PI must have its
own condition. However, the Client Action Plan should refer to these specific conditions and theirmilestones.
The CAB should not be prescriptive about the means of meeting conditions. The fishery client may
develop its own corrective actions and deal with a condition in its own way. The important points for
the CAB are that the client must demonstrate to the CAB’s satisfaction that a condition can be met
and how the outcome or result will be (or has been) achieved.

G7.20

The Public Comment Draft Report ▲G7.20.4.1

References in Public Comment Draft Report ▲The reference should include identifying details such as number, author, and date.

G7.21

Determination ▲The CAB should also refer to the MSC General Certification Requirements (GCR) and ISO 17065.
The determination is a recommendation the team makes to the CAB’s decision-making entity.

G7.22

The Final Draft Report ▲G7.22.3

CAB response to stakeholder input ▲During the 30-day Public Comment Draft Report consultation, registered stakeholders may provide
follow-up comments to the CAB's responses to their previous input.
Registered stakeholders may also provide input at Public Comment Draft Report stage on issues they
have not previously raised, providing that the information the comments are based on was available
on or before the site visit.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Figure G2: Stakeholder input opportunities and CAB response during the MSC fisheryassessment process

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.24

The Public Certification Report ▲G7.24.7.1

The Fishery Certificate Statement ▲The Fishery Certificate Statement may be included in the Fishery Certificate or made an annex to it.
The advantage of a Fishery Certificate Statement or as annex is the ability to update it more
frequently, e.g. changes with client certificate sharing agreement details, than the Fishery Certificate;while a Fishery Certificate is a statement of fact, the Fishery Certificate Statement can include more
explanation.
The CAB should include all information from the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ Section ‘Eligibility to enter
Chain of Custody’ into the Fishery Certificate Statement in order to provide sufficient information to
CoC holders buying from the UoC.
If a negative determination is made, it should be clear in the Fishery Certificate Statement that fish or
fish products are not eligible to enter certified chains of custody.
•

The entities with access to the certificate referred to in this clause should include:•

Vessels or fleets within the UoA or UoC.

•

Client group members, which may be fishers or other bodies such as processing companies.
o•

If the client wishes to make the certificate available to non-fishing client group members at theexclusion of non-client group members, a list of named companies needs to be provided or
linked to here.

Sales agents with the right to sell product on behalf of the fishery client into certified chains ofcustody.

G7.24.7.1.eOther limits to eligibility ▲The Fishery Certificate Statement should detail all exclusions to product eligibility that the client has
defined, which could include:•

Sale through the client group.

•

Product forms (e.g. fish meal) being excluded from eligibility.

•

Trip exclusions (e.g. the trips that go both inside and outside the UoC).

•

Landing processes where eligibility is verified (e.g. verifying catch area or gear).

The Fishery Certificate Statement may also include other information relevant to the first buyer. This
could include:•

Where the CoC starts and from whom certified product can be purchased (e.g. relevant auctions,
agents, and/or client group members).

•

How product can be identified as certified when it enters the CoC. This is copied from the fisheryassessment report including a description of documents or labels.

•

G7.25

Certification decision and certificate issue ▲A fishery certificate is the formal document that is issued to a fishery client as evidence that a fisheryis certified against the MSC Fisheries Standard. The CAB should refer to the certification decisionmaking entity requirements of the GCR and ISO 17065.

G7.26

UoA(s) that fail or withdraw from assessment ▲Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.26.4.1

Non-binding conditions ▲The CAB should clearly report in the Client and Peer Review Draft Report (CPRDR) and subsequentassessment reports why conditions are non-binding. If, for any reason, there are score changes that
result in the UoA passing after the CPRDR stage, the CAB should follow 7.19.6–7.19.9.

G7.26.7

Reporting ▲The following are to be provided in full and should not report only on elements revised between theinitial and subsequent assessment of the UoA:•

Announcement Comment Draft Report.

•

Client and Peer Review Draft Report.

•

Public Comment Draft Report.

•

Final Draft Report.

•

Public Certification Report.

G7.27

Extension of scope of fishery certificate (scope extensions) ▲Background
This section provides for limited extensions to the scope of a fishery certificate, as requested by anexisting fishery client, to include other fishing operations in the same area or an adjacent area. Suchextensions may, for example, bring in a gear type or fleet of vessels that also targets the main
Principle 1 species but was not included in the original assessment. The process also allows for the
movement of a target species from Principle 2 to Principle 1, so that it can be included in the existingcertificate. It is provided as an alternative, cost-effective assessment option for fishery clients in cases
where a whole new assessment is not needed. In these instances, some form of certificate sharing
will often be involved between the original and new fisheries.

G7.27.1.b

Confirming the fisheries’ eligibility for extension ▲The MSC default assessment tree identifies 8 assessment “components”:•

Principle 1 – Target stock outcome (status); target stock management.

•

Principle 2 – In-scope species; ETP or out-of-scope (OOS) species; habitats; ecosystems.

•

Principle 3 – Governance and policy; fishery-specific management.

G7.27.5.b

Gap analysis ▲The individual completing the gap analysis may use Table G8 below to provide justification for theoutcome of the gap analysis to determine which assessment components are the same across the
proposed UoA and the existing UoC(s).
ExampleThe proposed UoA may have the same target stock, management system, and gear but be fishingin a different geographical area and be taking a different mix of ETP/OOS species. If so, ETP/OOS
PIs would have to be rescored in the scope extension assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Table G8: Gap analysis table for assessment components
Assessment
component

UoA – Fishery 1 (identify the scoring
elements for each assessment
component)

Principle 1 –OutcomeTarget species stock +Management of target species stock

Principle 1 –Harveststrategy

Target species stock +Management of target species stock

Principle 2 –In-scope
species

In-scope (fish/invertebrate) species
normally retained by client gear type inclient geographical area

Principle 2 –ETP/OOSETP/OOS species bycatch of client
gear type in client geographical area

Principle 2 –HabitatHabitat impact of client gear type inclient geographical area

Principle 2 –Ecosystem

Broad ecological community andecosystem in which the fisheryoperates

Principle 3 –Governanceand policy

Overarching management framework
Multi-jurisdictional management
framework (as appropriate)Principle 3 –Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemLocal management framework +Client-specific management

G7.27.7

UoA – Fishery 2(provide justification to confirm
whether the scoring elements in the
proposed UoA are the same as thosein the existing UoC)

Adding new “other eligible fishers” ▲Fishery clients sometimes fail to identify all of the possible “other eligible fishers” who are included in
an assessment even though their impacts have been assessed and taken into account when theexisting UoA was scored. In this case, the CAB may extend the certificate to these “other eligible
fishers” as long as the team confirms that the impacts were included in the scoring of the existing
UoA. In cases where the assessment did not include the other fishers (e.g. it was restricted to only a
few of the members of the fishing fleet), this option does not apply, and the scope extension processof Annex PE should be followed to assess the additional impacts in Principle 2.

G7.28

Merging fishery certificates ▲G7.28.2.c.i

Merging fishery certificates – expiry dates ▲The CAB should not extend certificate durations for any of the certificates being merged.

G7.29

Surveillance ▲Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.29.2

Surveillance levels ▲Table G9: All possible combinations of surveillance level
Surveillance
level

Years after certification or re-certification

Number of auditors

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Initialcertification
periodSubsequentcertification
period(s)Level 6
Default
surveillanceOn-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification2

1 or 2

Level 5
(3 on-site, 1
off-site)

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit

2

1 or 2

Level 3(3 on-site, 1
off-site)

Off-site

Off-site

Off-site2

1 or 2

Level 2
1 review of
information

On-site /Off-site

On-site /Off-site

Review of
information2

1 or 2On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site2

1 or 2

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

On-site /Off-site2

1 or 2On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

Review of
information

On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance2

1 or 2

Level 4(2 on-site, 2
off-site)

Level 1Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Minimum
surveillance
2 reviews of
information

Review of
information

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

G7.29.4.b & 7.29.6.c

audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification2

1 or 22

1 or 2

Verification of information ▲To assess fisheries against the verification of information criteria, the CAB should create a list of
information, information resources, and aspects of the UoA that need to be reviewed in the annual
audit. For each item, the CAB should use Table G10 below to determine the likelihood that it will beable to access the required information remotely and that it can confirm veracity of the information.
In determining how fisheries meet the criteria on verification of information, the CAB may consider thetype, nature, and complexity of the UoA. UoAs will be at different points on the spectrum, from a very
limited ability to a highly advanced ability to provide information remotely. The CAB should use its
expert judgement and knowledge of the UoA to determine a surveillance level commensurate with thefishery client’s ability to provide the information remotely for verification by the CAB.
Table G10: Assessment of information available to enable the determination of appropriate
surveillance

Client andstakeholder
input

Fisheryreports,
government
documents,
stockassessment
reports, and/or
other relevant
reports

Ability to verify remotely is
low
(low)

Ability to verify remotely ishigh(higher)

Electronic forms ofcommunication and othermechanisms to engage withclients and stakeholders (suchas video-conferencing, phoneconferencing, email, phone) areabsent, limited, or inefficient andineffective in providing theinformation required for an audit
in the particular circumstancesof the fishery.
Fishery reports and other typesof report, which are required forthe surveillance and todemonstrate fisheryperformance in relation to any
relevant conditions and ongoing
performance against the MSC
Fisheries Standard, are notavailable publicly and cannot betransmitted electronically. Thereis no remote access to theinformation and there are no orvery limited other sources
available to triangulate andconfirm status of the fishery withrespect to the MSC Standard.

There are ample opportunities
and mechanisms to engage withclients and stakeholders
including electronic forms ofcommunication, such as videoconferencing, phoneconferencing, email, and phone.
The mechanisms are effective inthe particular circumstances ofthe fishery.

CAB
evaluation(high)

Fishery reports and otherdocumented evidence, which
can be used to demonstrateprogress against conditions andother issues relevant to the MSC
Fisheries Standard, can beeasily and transparently
checked remotely. This is due tosuch information being available
publicly, such as being available
on a website or having been
widely distributed and madepublicly available to several
stakeholders. The reports canbe transmitted electronically,and veracity easily confirmed.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Ability to verify remotely is
low
(low)

Ability to verify remotely ishigh(higher)

Information
appropriate todeterminationof Principle 1
and Principle 2
information
requirements(see theGuidance tothe MSC
Fisheries
Standard)
Transparencyof themanagement
systemInformation from electronicmonitoring of position, observer
data, logbooks, fisher interviews,
dockside monitoring, etc. isrequired for audits but cannot beeasily transmitted to a remote
auditor in a form that can beeasily interpreted.

Where information fromelectronic monitoring of position,observer data, logbooks, fisher
interviews, dockside monitoring,etc. is required to verify
performance against the MSC
Fisheries Standard, thisinformation is available to betransmitted electronically toauditors in a form that can beeasily interpreted.

Level of transparency of
information by management is
low such that information about
the performance of the fishery is
generally not easily or widely
available.

Vessels, gear,or other
physical
aspect of thefishery

There are milestones andconditions that require
inspection of vessels or otherphysical aspects of the fisheryduring the audit and there are
no reliable mechanisms forverifying these aspects of thefishery from a remote location.

There is a high level oftransparency in management,such that information on thefishery is widely and publicly
available or known to the wider
group of stakeholders. Any
information provided on thefishery can be easily verified.
There are no milestones that
require investigation of physicalaspects of the fishery or, if there
are any such milestones, there
are reliable mechanisms toenable verification ofdevelopments with respect tothat milestone from a remotelocation.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

CAB
evaluation(high)

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Example of how to determine surveillance levels
In this example, a fishery has conditions on the following PIs: 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 3.2.3.
Condition

Action plan and milestones

Client commitment and CAB
evaluation

1.2.1
By the fourth annual
surveillance audit, theclient shall provide
information to demonstratethat there is a robust andprecautionary harvest
strategy in place andevidence exists that it isachieving its objectives forall significant fisheries thattarget this stock.

1. At each annual surveillance
audit, provide updates on
progress the fishery
management agency has
made towards developing arobust and precautionary
harvest strategy for the stock.
2. By the 4th annual
surveillance audit, the client
will provide evidence of therobust and precautionary
harvest strategy in place forthe fishery.

1. The CAB shall be provided
with meeting minutes andresearch papers to assess thedevelopments.
2. Adoption of harvest strategy
could be checked bydocuments (agreements,
research plans, fishery
management plans), lettersfrom stakeholders, as well as
impact assessment of harvest
strategy.

1.2.3
Develop and implement asampling program of fullcatch recording across asuitable sample of the
fleet.

Year 1
1. Request scientific institute tohelp set up self-sampling
program consistent withcondition requirement.
2. The skippers and crew ofvessels will be trained in how
to perform self-sampling.
3. Results of self-sampling
protocol will be presented
annually in a report.

Year 1
1. Present the CAB with reportby scientific institute as well as
the self-sampling program
protocol and results.
2. Provide evidence that crewhas been trained – record oftraining material, attendancelist to training. Also (raw)records of self-sampling (froma sample of vessels).
3. Analysis of results
documents sent to CAB.

3.2.3
A monitoring, control, andsurveillance (MCS) system
has been implemented.
However, sanctions for
non-compliance exist, butthey are not necessarily
consistently applied. The
lack of regular datacollection on vessel
infringements will support
this view.

Year 1
The coastguard will review
MCS procedures, provide aplan to ensure effective
enforcement and identify
required resources; records
will also be collated on
infringements and sanctions
before the first audit.
Year 2The updated MCS procedures
will be implemented in the 2nd
year. Records on
infringements and sanctions
will be maintained andanalysed to determine theeffectiveness of the plan.
Years 3 and 4
Records on infringements andsanctions will continue to be
maintained and analysed insubsequent years to monitor
and refine the MCS plan.

Year 1The CAB shall be provided
with minutes of meetings
between the client and thecoastguard as well as adetailed plan of how MCS
procedures will be tightened
and an overview of increased
monitoring of infringements.
Year 2
Evidence of roll-out of updated
MCS procedures is provided to
the CAB. The CAB will also bepresented with effectivenessanalysis.
Year 3 and 4
The CAB will also bepresented with effectivenessanalysis.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

The above assessment demonstrates that all required information can be provided remotely.
Consequently, the CAB would present a detailed justification for each surveillance activity and thenumber of auditors that will carry out the surveillance as outlined in the following table:
Year
1

Surveillance
activity
Off-site audit

Number ofauditors
2

2

Off-site audit

2

3

On-site audit

1 on site withremotesupport4

On-site audit

2

G7.29.8.1

Justification
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided
remotely in year 1.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided
remotely in year 2.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided
remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones
indicate that most conditions will be closed out inyear 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit
with 1 auditor on site with remote support – this toensure that all information is collected and because
the information can be provided remotely.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided
remotely in year 4.
It is assumed that this site visit will be combinedwith the site visit for the reassessment so that theteam for reassessment can carry out thesurveillance at the same time.

Surveillance schedule ▲The 6-month flexibility either side of the anniversary date allows:•

Surveillance audits to align with key dates in the fishery management cycle.

•

Surveillance audits to align with the expected delivery of conditions according to the Client Action
Plan.

•

The coordination of site visits with the surveillance audits of other nearby MSC fisheries, thereby
minimising the inputs required from management agencies and stakeholders.

This flexibility means that some or all surveillance audits will not be held on the anniversary date of
the certificate.
Regardless of revised surveillance audit timings, 4 surveillance audits are to be conducted before theexpiry date of the existing certificate, see 7.29.9.

G7.29.15.a.iv

Changes to traceability ▲Changes that affect traceability and the ability to segregate MSC from non-MSC product may be to:•

The systems or tools used for traceability, and/or•

The UoC(s).

The team should include this response and the review of the traceability change (as per 7.29.15.e.v)
within the surveillance audit report as per the template.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.29.16.1.b“Behind target” ▲“Behind target” means that actions, outcomes, expected results, or milestones have fallen behind thetimeframes specified when setting the condition.

G7.29.16.1.b.i

Remedial action ▲Remedial action can include the CAB setting new milestones provided these are still expected toachieve the condition within the timeframes identified at the time of setting the condition.

G7.29.16.2“Back on target” ▲“Back on target” means meeting the original milestones or revised milestones (described in
7.29.16.1.b.i) within 12 months of falling behind.

G7.29.16.2.c & G7.29.16.4.c

Full assessment after suspension related toconditions ▲The MSC’s intent is that if a fishery client has failed to achieve a condition by its deadline, the fisheryclient is not allowed to enter the same UoCs, or entities in the UoC(s), into (re)assessment undereither the same or an alternative name or alias where the effective intent is to extend the duration of
the condition into a new certification period.

G7.29.23

Completing the audit ▲In line with ISO 17065 and ISO 19011 requirements, the CAB is required to have an audit planestablished with clear timeframes. The plan is required to justify when evidence-gathering will takeplace in an audit process. During both on-site and off-site audits, the end of the evidence-gathering
stage should be used as the start day for surveillance report submission timelines.

G7.30

Expedited audits ▲G7.30.1

New information ▲Examples of “changes to the circumstances of the UoA and/or new information” that may requirecompletion of an expedited audit include:•

Major changes in management.

•

New information describing a major impact of the UoA.

However, as the FCP states, there must be good reason to think that these are actual material
differences, and not a likely temporary change in indicated status; such a change might arise, forexample, from the introduction of a new and not yet validated stock assessment model.
The MSC’s intent is that if the CAB is uncertain whether changes to circumstances or new information
will cause any of the triggers as defined in 7.30.1.a–c, the CAB should:•

Take a precautionary approach.

•Complete an Expedited Audit to assess the impact.

G7.30.10

Expedited audits during full and initial assessment or scope
extension ▲The MSC’s intent for expedited audits during full assessments is as follows:•

Expedited audits are triggered at any point after the information cut-off date.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0•

Expedited audits are conducted alongside the assessment process.

•

The determination and certificate decision are based on the information that was available up until
the information cut-off date (7.15.1.1).

•

If the draft determination is to certify a UoA but the expedited audit results in the rescoring of anindividual PI to less than 60 or a Principle score to less than 80, the determination and certificate
decision is not affected (i.e. the certificate is issued). However, the result of the expedited audit
means that the certificate is suspended immediately. The expedited audit report and the ‘MSC
Notice of Suspension Template’ are published at the same time as the Public Certification Report.

•

The suspension is immediate, with no 30-day notice period.

G7.30.12

Expedited audit during a reassessment ▲If the reassessment is against a new version of the MSC Fisheries Standard, it is possible that an
expedited audit is triggered for the existing certificate and not the reassessment, or vice versa, due todifference in PISGs.
When an expedited audit is triggered as per 7.30.1 for both the existing certificate and thereassessment, the MSC does not expect the CAB to conduct 2 separate expedited audits. Therefore,
the CAB may:•

Conduct the expedited audit activities so that all relevant information and PISGs are considered at
the same time.

•

Publish a single expedited audit report.

However, if there are differences in the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts due to a newversion of the MSC Fisheries Standard being used for the reassessment, the CAB will need to:•Record the results separately.

•

Clearly identify the results that are relevant to the existing certificate and the reassessment.

When an expedited audit is triggered for both the existing certificate and the reassessment, theexpedited audit report is published within 60 days of announcing the expedited audit regardless ofwhen the Public Certification Report is published. This allows the supply chain to prepare for thesuspension of the UoC once the reassessment is complete.

G7.31

Reassessment ▲G7.31.5.2

Open conditions at reassessment ▲There are a number of scenarios under which a UoA could enter reassessment with an open
condition(s):•The condition is being carried over into the next certificate (see G7.31.5.2.a).

•

The condition deadline is the 4th-year surveillance audit and the 4th surveillance audit has notbeen conducted at the time of announcing the reassessment and publishing the Announcement
Comment Draft Report.

•

The condition deadline is in the 5th year.

G7.31.5.2.a

Carrying over conditions ▲Conditions can be carried over in the following scenarios:•

Exceptional circumstances apply, as per 7.16.6.

•

The condition was set during a surveillance audit during the most recent certificate cycle.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0•

The condition was set during a scope extension assessment during the most recent certificate
cycle.

•

The condition was set during an expedited audit during the most recent certificate cycle.

•

The condition was set on PI 1.2.1 SI (a). The stock is at or above B MSY and “available” harvest
control rules (HCRs) are in place (the MSC Fisheries Standard Table SA5 and the MSC Guidance
to the Fisheries Standard GSA2.5).

G7.31.6

Related conditions ▲A related condition is a condition:•

That was closed during the previous certification period, and•Where a new condition on the same PI or SI is set at the subsequent assessment or audit, or•That involves the same scoring element or topic (e.g. collecting information on P2 species).

The scenarios under which a related condition is opened could include:•

A change in the assessment tree that has led to an increase in the performance required at the
SG80 level (i.e. the sustainability bar has been raised).

•

There has been a change in status since the condition was closed; this would only be applicablefor outcomes PIs.

•

The scoring element now falls under a different component. For example, in the previous
assessment a species was designated as an in-scope species but is now designated as an
ETP/OOS species.

G7.31.13

Reduced reassessment ▲Remote team members can provide support to the on-site team member. However, the CAB should
determine how the team can best make use of on-site and remote team member(s) during the
reduced reassessment.
The reduced reassessment may benefit from remote team member(s) participating in stakeholder
consultations conducted at the site visit by the on-site team member. This should be considered andarranged as part of the planning process. There may be some stakeholder consultation meetings
where it is not necessary for the remote team member(s) to participate remotely. If so, their time could
be used more effectively for other reduced reassessment activities.
The team member selected to conduct the site visit (i.e. the on-site team member) should be theperson most relevant to the content of the stakeholder interviews and information gathering that isneeded to assess the UoA. For example, if the UoA had conditions on Principle 2 components, thenthe Principle 2 expert should be the on-site team member. The Team Leader will provide oversight of
the reduced reassessment process.

G7.32

Assessing UoCs that expire after the transition deadline against the
MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 ▲These requirements allow for CABs to assess existing UoCs, as requested by the fishery client,against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 before the transition deadline of 1 November 2028.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

G7.32.1.aTransition assessments ▲Transition assessments are provided as an alternative assessment option for fishery clients in cases
where completing their current certificate cycle against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 is requested
or required – see CAB Briefing Document.
End of FCP GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex GPA Inseparable and practicably inseparable fisheries– Guidance
GPA1.3

Conditions ▲GPA1.3.1

Setting conditions in inseparable and practicably inseparable
fisheries ▲When setting conditions under PA1.3, the CAB should refer to and follow the narrative of PA1.6.1.

GPA1.4

Entry into further Chains of Custody ▲GPA1.4.2.c

Plausible argument ▲A plausible argument could be based on general experience, theory, or comparison with similar
fisheries or species.

End of Annex GPA GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex GPB Harmonisation of overlapping Units ofAssessment – Guidance
GPB1

Background ▲The general principle in Annex PB is that any new assessment or audit within a harmonised group of
overlapping fisheries should take into consideration the conclusions of any previous assessment oraudit such that harmonisation is maintained over time.
When undergoing harmonisation efforts, clients should be encouraged to collaborate where possible(e.g. via certificate sharing), thereby minimising the number of overlapping assessments that require
harmonisation. The MSC accepts that this is sometimes not possible, and that the uncertainties
associated with harmonisation can sometimes be difficult for CABs and clients to plan for andmanage.

GPB1.2.1

Overlapping Units of Assessment ▲CABs may use the MSC’s Harmonisation Database to identify overlapping Units of Assessment(UoAs).
Harmonisation is not necessary in assessments of UoAs that use similar gears or management
approaches but operate in clearly different geographical areas.

GPB1.2.3

Reporting overlapping UoAs ▲These clauses are to ensure there is full transparency over what will need to be harmonised, whether
that involves adopting previous scores or whether there is a need to re-open harmonisation
discussions because PB1.4.1.1 has been triggered.

GPB1.3.1

Harmonised assessment outcomes ▲In cases where there are 2 Units of Certification (UoC) from the same UoA, harmonisation should be
expected to result in identical scores and conditions unless there is a very clear explanation of thedifferent practices adopted by the 2 UoCs that justifies their different scores.
The MSC’s intent is that a part of a UoA that simply decides for commercial or other reasons to havea separate certificate should not be allowed to have different scoring from other members of the same
fleet. The MSC seeks to avoid a situation, particularly in Principle 2, in which a UoA in receipt ofconditions is able to split itself into several small fisheries and avoid conditions or avoid therequirements to deal with cumulative Principle 2 issues, simply because the impacts of the UoAs aremuch smaller.

GPB1.3.1.aConsistent scoring and rationales ▲The MSC’s intent is that overlapping UoAs have the same level of performance (i.e. the overall resultof the relevant PI scoring is either a pass or a fail for overlapping fisheries).
Teams are not required to draft a single harmonised rationale for each relevant PI; scoring rationales
may be drafted independently by each team. The rationales presented should, however, lead logicallyto the harmonised scores that are agreed between the teams (i.e. which Scoring Issue (SI) is met at
each Scoring Guidepost level and for each scoring element). The teams should use largely similararguments and logic for the harmonised scoring rationales.
Having consistent outcomes does not mean the scores need to be exactly the same between different
teams, so long as any conditions are generated by the same SIs and scoring elements withinharmonised PIs, and the same outcome (pass/fail) is achieved. Given this constraint, and the rules
applied in scoring (Section 7.15), it should be rare to find a situation where the scores are not exactly

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

the same (an example would be where P2 species are only partly overlapping such that some species
are harmonised, while others are not, such that the overall scores for the PIs may then differ).

GPB1.3.1.bConsistent conditions and milestones ▲The MSC’s intent is that conditions are set on the same PIs, relating to the same SIs and scoring
elements, as appropriate. There may be occasions when different conditions are justified, but they will
be rare, and based only on 3 aspects:
1. Differences in requirements from different versions of the default trees.
2. Changes to management or status that have occurred since the original assessment.
3. Differences in actual performance of the fisheries.
Teams should consider the certificate lengths of overlapping UoAs. Teams should be precautionary
such that the earliest date for closing a particular condition in 1 (or more) of the overlapping fisheries
should apply to all overlapping UoAs.

GPB1.3.2

Exceptional circumstances ▲An example of an exceptional circumstance in the context of harmonisation relates to P1 when there
are 2 countries that share a stock but their methods of monitoring UoA removals are different, causing
a demonstrable difference in the fisheries with regard to the scoring and rationales for PI 1.2.3 SI (b).
Exceptional circumstances also apply where endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) or out-ofscope (OOS) species are nationally listed in one country but not another, as per PB1.3.1.3.

GPB1.4

Annual harmonisation ▲The MSC’s intent is that harmonisation of assessments of overlapping UoAs takes place once a year
and the harmonised assessment outcomes are subsequently applied to all UoAs, regardless ofwhether they are subject to initial assessment, reassessment, scope extension assessment, transitionassessment, or surveillance audit. The CABs of the UoAs subject to harmonisation should collectively
and collaboratively determine the timing of annual harmonisation activities and organise
harmonisation activities accordingly. CABs should consider the timing of management advice andsurveillance audit schedules when organising annual harmonisation activities.
ExampleManagement advice for stock A is released in April every year. There are 4 UoAs that include stock
A as the P1 target stock. The surveillance audits for the 4 UoAs are scheduled to take place
between July and October. The CABs may decide to hold the harmonisation activities in May, oncethe stock management advice has been released. The CABs may decide to bring forward thesurveillance audits (as per 7.29.8.1) so that the harmonisation activities take place during thesurveillance audit and the harmonised assessment outcomes can be incorporated into theSurveillance Reports immediately. Alternatively, the CABs may decide to announce thesurveillance audits soon after the harmonisation activities have concluded so that the harmonised
assessment outcomes can be incorporated into the Surveillance Reports as soon as possible.

GPB1.4.1.1

New information ▲The MSC’s intent is that harmonisation is not triggered by teams who have a difference of opinion
based on the same information.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

GPB1.5.1

Discussion of overlapping UoA by teams▲

Under PB1.5.1, nothing precludes the harmonisation discussion from being mediated. It is expectedthat at the end of the harmonisation discussion, teams will have harmonised assessment outcomes.

GPB1.5.1.b–c

Harmonisation of scores and conditions when evaluating
cumulative impacts of MSC UoAs in PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.3.2 ▲Discussions of cumulative impacts should be considered as per the requirements in PB1.4.
Cumulative impacts for more sensitive habitats are dealt with under management requirements andthe MSC expects that precautionary avoidance of the cumulative impact should be implemented
rapidly. For instance, it could be the case that a precautionary management measure implemented bya newly certified fishery is the designation and closure of new areas of more sensitive habitat. The
already certified fishery should consider these closed areas at its next surveillance audit.
The terms of an existing condition for currently certified fisheries might also change with the arrival of
newly certified fisheries triggering the cumulative impact requirements, particularly for more sensitive
habitats. This would likely be the case when the cumulative impact has increased and when differing
partial strategies have not aligned. In such cases, the harmonisation of milestones to achieve a
demonstrably effective strategy at SG80 (for PI 2.1.1) or to provide evidence that more sensitive
habitats are being protected by all MSC UoAs at SG80 (for PI 2.3.2) might then also be altered.
End of Annex GPB GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex GPC Fishery team leader, team member, team andpeer reviewer qualifications and competencies –guidance
GPC1.2–4

Fishery team qualifications ▲The qualification requirements for fishery team leaders, members and the team overall (Tables PC1,PC2 and PC3) each require at least 3 years’ experience in different aspects of fisheries science andmanagement. Experience that may be counted towards the 3-year requirement includes:•

Experience working on MSC assessments (e.g. as part of a team on a previous fisheryassessment).

•

Relevant research experience, including that gained during higher-level research degrees (e.g. a
PhD or a Masters by thesis).However, the CAB should not include lower-level research (e.g.
during a Masters by coursework with a short summer project) or undergraduate training.

The CAB should note the additional ISO19011 training requirements for team leaders in the personnel
requirements of the GCR.

GPC1.2

Table PC1: Team leader qualifications ▲2.aReview of updates to MSC Fisheries Program Documents ▲This may take the form of a search of the MSC website for new updates issued during the preceding
year.

2.b

Pass the fishery team leader course ▲The fishery team leader training course consists of a set of compulsory online training modules, which
are listed on the MSC Online Training Platform.

GPC1.3

Table PC2: Team member qualifications ▲2.aReview of updates to MSC Fisheries Program Documents ▲This may take the form of a search of the MSC website for new updates issued during the preceding
year.

2.b

Pass the fishery team leader course ▲The fishery team member training course consists of a set of compulsory online training modules,
which are listed on the MSC Online Training Platform.

GPC1.4

Table PC3: Team qualifications ▲1

Fish stock assessment ▲Where 3 years’ or more experience is stated, the “3 years” refers to an individual team member
needing to have 3 years’ experience. The experience cannot be the accumulated experience ofdifferent team members (e.g. 1+2 years).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

2

Fish stock biology/ecology ▲For a team member to comply with this requirement, “similar biology” in this context means that where
the target species is:•

A demersal fish species, experience with other demersal fish species qualifies.

•

A pelagic fish species, experience with other pelagic fish species qualifies.

•

A crustacean species, experience with other crustacean species qualifies.

•

A mollusc species, experience with other mollusc species qualifies.

Similarly, for any other taxon.

5

Current knowledge of the country, language, and local fisherycontext ▲“Common language” means knowledge of a language that is spoken by clients and stakeholders. The
intent of the requirement is to ensure that information can be clearly exchanged between the team,client, and stakeholders, and understood by most parties. For example, “the common language” inIndonesia could be Bahasa, and in African countries it could be English, French, or Portuguese.
A “relevant fishery” in this context means where the scale of the fishery, the stock assessment
techniques, and management approaches are similar to those in the fishery under assessment. For
example, if the fishery under assessment is a small-scale operation with limited quantitative
information and informal management systems, then “relevant fisheries” would also have thesecharacteristics. Similarly, if the fishery under assessment is large scale or industrial with fully
quantitative stock assessment approaches and related management systems (such as harvest control
rules related to input/output measures) then “relevant fisheries” would also have these characteristics.

6.cReview traceability requirements ▲The review of any updates to the traceability requirements may take the form of a search of the MSC
website for new updates issued during the preceding year.

End of Annex GPC GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex GPD Scope extensions
GPD1.1.2 ▲Annex PD outlines the minimum assessment requirements necessary for a scope extension from analready certified fishery to another fishery. There may be cases where additional assessment steps or
evaluations are necessary to ensure that the entire assessment of the fishery across all 3 Principles
continues to be accurate when additional stocks are added to Principle 1.

GPD1.2

Assessment process

GPD1.2.2.1.a

Gap analysis ▲The CAB may use Table G8 to describe the outcome of the gap analysis.

GPD1.2.4.3.bConsiderations for rescoring of Principle 2 species ▲In cases where there are a number of stocks identified as main in-scope in a certified fishery,assessing 1 or more of these against Principle 1 instead will mean that they are removed as scoring
elements from Principle 2 in-scope species.
The remaining scoring elements in Principle 2 in-scope species should then be rescored according to
Section 7.15. This does not require a Principle 2 expert.
If the new Principle 2 score causes a failure of the fishery due to the reallocation of Principle 2
species to Principle 1, the CAB may choose to discontinue the scope extension process for 1 or more
stocks.
End of Annex GPD GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0

Annex GPE Transition assessments – guidance
GPE1.1.1.1

Assessment components of a transition assessment ▲Change Tracker Report – FS 2.01 to 3.0 lists out the differences between v2.01 and v3.0 of the MSC
Fisheries Standard. These differences are the assessment components that need to be scored aspart of the transition assessment.

GPE1.1.2

Responsibilities related to the existing certificate ▲Unless specifically stated in PE1, doing a transition assessment does not remove any responsibilities
the CAB or certificate holder has towards maintaining the existing fishery certificate.

GPE1.2.5.3

Condition timelines following a transition assessment ▲The Unit of Certification of the transition assessment still has a full 5-year timeframe to close out any
conditions raised. The transition assessment is thus considered an exceptional circumstance in linewith 7.16.6. The CAB must state explicitly when the condition would expect to be closed in line with
7.16.6 and sub-clauses. The maximum timeline for any new conditions would be 5 years in total(unless there are other “exceptional circumstances”).

GPE1.2.5.4.a

Where inadequate progress is made ▲See PE1.4.4 for more information.

GPE1.2.5.5

Summary of differences in assessment trees. ▲See Change Tracker Report – FS 2.01 to 3.0 referred to in GPE1.1.1.1 for more information on the
differences between v2.01 and v3.0 of the MSC Fisheries Standard.

GPE1.2.5.8

Related conditions ▲See G7.31.6.

End of Annex GPE Guidance

End of Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022