Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Fisheries Certification Process

Version 2.3, 26 October 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council’s “MSC Fisheries Certification Process” and its content is copyrightof 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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
Versionno.

Date

Description of amendment

1.0

15 August 2011

First version issued for application by Conformity Assessment
Bodies (CABs).

1.1

24 October 2011

Version issued incorporating revised Group Chain of Custody (CoC)
requirements and correcting typos, page numbering, wrong andmissing referencing and unreadable flowcharts.

1.2

10 January 2012

Version issued incorporating Technical Advisory Board 20 agreed
changes regarding reassessment, Objection Procedure,
modifications to the default assessment tree to assess bivalves,
implementation timeframes and Aquaculture Stewardship Council(ASC) requirements.
Minor edits, comprised correction of wrong and missing referencing,typos and unreadable figures.

1.3

14 January 2013

Version issued incorporating Technical Advisory Board 21 andBoard of Trustees agreed changes.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.

2.0

1 October 2014

Version issued incorporating changes to the standard as a result of
the MSC Fisheries Standard review and changes to CAB
procedures as a result of the speed and cost review.

2.1

31 August 2018

Version issued incorporating changes to the assessment process
regarding streamlining, harmonisation and labour policy
development topics.

2.2

25 March 2020

Version issued incorporating changes to: the confirmation of scope
process, defining the Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification,
conditions, and the expedited audit process.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.

2.3

26 October 2022

Version issued incorporating changes to: harmonisation,
stakeholder input, traceability.
Minor edits and clarifications were also incorporated.

3.0

26 October 2022

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, traceability.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 a credible,
independent third-party assessment process. Certification means sustainable fisheries can berecognised and rewarded in the marketplace and gives an assurance to consumers that their seafood
comes from a well-managed and sustainable source.
The MSC Fisheries Standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements
provided in Section 7.4.
The MSC Fisheries Standard comprises of 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Implementation timeframes ◙Effective date of the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Publication date: 26 October 2022
Effective date: 01 May 2023
CABs shall conduct any assessment process (initial assessment, surveillance audit, scope extension,
expedited audit, or reassessment) against the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01 (and subsequentversions up to v2.99) that is announced on or after 1 May 2023 in conformity with the MSC Fisheries
Certification Process (FCP) v2.3.
Any CAB may use the FCP v2.3 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page vi© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Introduction to this document
The MSC Fisheries Certification Process (FCP) v2.3 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-PF).

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 GFCP is maintained as a separate document.
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 policychange or modify the implementation timeframe when publishing a revised version of the normative
document. Derogations are posted on a public log. The MSC requires CABs to follow relevant
derogations.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page vii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification ◙ ..... 17

7.6Team selection .............................................................................................................. 20

7.7

Preparing for the Announcement Comment Draft Report ............................................. 20

7.8

Announcement Comment Draft Report ◙...................................................................... 23

7.9

Decision to proceed to announcement by client ........................................................... 24

7.10

Announcement of fishery assessment ◙ ....................................................................... 24

7.11

Assessment timelines ................................................................................................... 26

7.12

Peer Review College ◙ ................................................................................................. 26

7.13

Stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Draft Report ◙ ............................. 26

7.14

Site visits, stakeholder input and information collection................................................ 27

7.15

Scoring the UoA ◙ ......................................................................................................... 27

7.16

Setting conditions ◙ ....................................................................................................... 30

7.17 Determination of the traceability systems and point(s) at which fish and fish products
enter further certified Chains of Custody ◙ .............................................................................. 31
7.18

Determination of eligibility date ◙ .................................................................................. 33

7.19

Client and Peer Review Draft Report ............................................................................ 33

7.20

Public Comment Draft Report ....................................................................................... 34

7.21

Determination ◙ ............................................................................................................. 37

7.22

Final Draft Report .......................................................................................................... 37

7.23

MSC Disputes Process ................................................................................................. 38

7.24

Public Certification Report ............................................................................................. 38

7.25

Certification decision and certificate issue ◙ ................................................................. 39

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page viii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.26

UoA(s) that fail or withdraw from assessment .............................................................. 39

7.27

Extension of scope of fishery certificate (scope extensions) ◙ ..................................... 40

7.28

Merging fishery certificates ........................................................................................... 42

7.29

Surveillance ................................................................................................................... 42

7.30

Expedited audits ............................................................................................................ 48

7.31

Reassessment............................................................................................................... 50

7.32 Assessing UoCs that expire after the transition deadline against the MSC Fisheries
Standard v3.0 ◙ ........................................................................................................................ 51
7.33

Management system requirements for CABs ............................................................... 52

Annex PA:
Requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks –normative ....................................................................................................... 53
PA1

Requirements for inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks ................................. 53

Annex PB:

Harmonisation of overlapping Units of Assessments – normative ..... 55

PB1

Harmonised Units of Assessment – normative ◙ .......................................................... 55

Annex PC:
Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer
qualifications and competencies – normative ................................................ 59
PC1 Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer qualifications andcompetencies ........................................................................................................................... 59

Annex PD:

Scope extensions – normative .......................................................... 66

PD1

Scope extensions – normative ...................................................................................... 66

Annex PE:

Transition assessments – normative ................................................. 68

PE1

Please see FCP v3.0 .................................................................................................... 68

Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – normative ....................................................... 69
PF1

Introduction to the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ◙ ..................................................... 69

PF2

Stakeholder involvement in RBF ................................................................................... 71

PF3

Conducting a Consequence Analysis (CA) ................................................................... 73

PF4

Conducting a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) .............................................. 76

PF5 Scoring the UoA using the RBF for Species Performance Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1,
2.2.1 and 2.3.1) ........................................................................................................................ 83
PF6

Setting conditions using the RBF for Species PIs ......................................................... 85

PF7

Conducting a Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) ◙ ................................................. 85

PF8Conducting a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) ....................................... 97

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ix© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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:a. MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template.
b. MSC Scope Declaration Template.
c.

MSC Fishery Announcement Template.

d. MSC Client Document Checklist.
e. MSC Use of the RBF in a Fishery Assessment Form.
f.

MSC Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (including versions for enhanced bivalves andsalmon).

g. MSC RBF Worksheets.
h. MSC Reporting Template (including versions for enhanced bivalves and salmon).
i.

MSC Template for Initial Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessmentsj.

MSC Template for Peer Review Follow Up at PCDR Stagek.

MSC Surveillance Announcement Template.

l.

MSC Surveillance Reporting Template.

m. MSC Surveillance Review of Information Template.
n. MSC Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template.
o. MSC Database User Manual for CABs.
p. MSC Variation Request Form – Fisheries.
q. MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments.
r.

MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Surveillance Audits.

s.

MSC At Sea Labour Eligibility Requirements Reporting Template.

t.

MSC IPI Announcement Template.

u. MSC Benthic Impacts Tool Settings Template
In addition, the normative documents listed in the normative documents section of the MSC General
Certification Requirements (GCR) 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

4.2.2

Before the announcement of each assessment or audit, the CAB shall identify and compile
a list of stakeholders. ◙4.2.3

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. ◙4.2.4

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. ◙4.2.5

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. ◙4.2.5.1

An exception to 4.2.5 is permitted for information collected as per 7.29.15.e.

4.2.6

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.

4.2.7

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

4.2.8

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.

4.2.9

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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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:a. Referenced in the assessment.
b. 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 (Annex SA, Annex SB, Annex SC, Annex SD).

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

The CAB shall use Table 3 to determine likely use of the Risk-Based Framework(RBF).

Defining the options for the scope of the full assessment consistent with Sections 7.4
and 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 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.4

Confirmation that the UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries
Standard ◙Confirming 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 7.4.8.
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 7.4.8.

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 7.4.8.

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 7.4.8, the CAB shallsuspend the certificate as per the suspension or withdrawal of certification
requirements of the GCR.

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 7.4.8, 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 7.4.8.5a 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.

7.4.8

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.

The CAB shall verify that the UoA is eligible for certification through the following
determinations:

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.4.8.1

The following taxa shall not be target species of the UoA under Principle 1:a. Amphibians.
b. Reptiles.
c.

Birds.

d. Mammals.
7.4.8.2

The UoA shall not use poisons or explosives.

Controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement
7.4.8.3

The UoA shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to aninternational agreement.
a. The CAB shall use these definitions to interpret this criterion:i.

“Controversial” means creating a controversy in the wider international
community rather than simply between 2 states.

ii.

“Unilateral” means arising from the action of a single state.

iii. “Exemption” means a refusal to join or abide by the rules of aninternational management body, or the taking of a reservation or
exception to a measure adopted by such body, when in either such casethe effect is to undermine the sustainable management of the UoA.
iv. “International agreements” are those with a direct mandate forsustainable management of the resources affected by the UoA according
to the outcomes expressed by Principles 1 and 2.
b. When verifying UoA conformity with this criterion, the CAB shall take into
consideration:i.

The relationship between international and coastal state jurisdictions
recognised by relevant international agreements.

ii.

Whether exemptions result in the implementation of a higher or lower
level of conservation than are currently agreed by an international
management body.

iii. Whether the sustainable management of the UoA is undermined.

Conviction for forced or child labour
7.4.8.4

The CAB shall determine the eligibility of fishery applicants and certificate holders
with respect to the MSC’s labour policy using the relevant sections within the MSC
Labour Eligibility Requirements.

Conviction for shark finning
7.4.8.5

The CAB shall confirm that the client or client group does not include an entity thathas been convicted for a shark finning violation in the last 2 years. ◙a. If an entity that belongs to a certified client group is convicted for a violation oflaw with respect to shark finning, the CAB shall consider the entity as having
become out of scope and shall withdraw it from the certificate or client group.
b. If a conviction is determined, the CAB shall consider the entity as out of scope
until 2 years have passed since the date of the conviction.

Controversy – disputes in fisheries
7.4.8.6

The UoA shall not be eligible for certification if there is no mechanism for resolving
disputes, or if the disputes overwhelm the UoA. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

a. If the UoA applying for certification is the subject of controversy and/or disputeat any time during the assessment process or certification cycle, the CAB
shall consider:i.

Whether the fisheries management regime (national or international
system or plan) includes a mechanism for resolving disputes.

ii.

If there is a mechanism for resolving disputes, whether that mechanism isadequate to deal with potential or existing disputes (e.g. do stakeholders
have access to the mechanism for resolving disputes and is there
sufficient scope to cover the relevant issues).

iii. Whether disputes overwhelm the UoA enough to prevent it from meeting
the MSC Fisheries Standard.

Enhanced fisheries
7.4.8.7

Using the criteria in Table 1, the CAB shall determine whether the UoA is aneligible enhanced fishery. ◙a. If a fishery is enhanced, the UoA shall only be eligible for assessment if itconforms to all of the scope criteria.

Table 1: Scope criteria for eligible enhanced fisheriesA

Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stocki

At some point in the production process, the system relies upon the capture of fish from thewild environment. Such fish may be taken at any stage of the life cycle including eggs,
larvae, juveniles or adults. The “wild environment” in this context includes marine,
freshwater and any other aquatic ecosystems.

ii

The species are native to the geographic region of the UoA and the natural production
areas from which the UoA’s catch originates.

iii

There are natural reproductive components of the stock from which the UoA’s catch
originates that maintain themselves without having to be restocked every year.

iv

Where fish stocking is used in hatch-and-catch (HAC) systems, such stocking does notform a major part of a current rebuilding plan for depleted stocks.
Note: This requirement shall apply to the current status of the UoA. Wild stocks shall be
managed by other conventional means. If rebuilding has been done by stocking in the past,
it shall not result in an out-of-scope determination as long as other measures are now inplace.

B

Feeding and husbandryi

The production system operates without substantial augmentation of food supply. In
HAC systems, any feeding is used only to grow the animals to a small size prior to release(not more than 10% of the average adult maximum weight), such that most of the total
growth (not less than 90%) is achieved during the wild phase. In catch-and-grow (CAG)systems, feeding during the captive phase is only by natural means (e.g. filter feeding inmussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenance of condition (e.g.
crustaceans in holding tanks) rather than to achieve growth.

ii

In CAG systems, production during the captive phase does not routinely require disease
prevention involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties.

C

Habitat and ecosystem impacts

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

A

Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stocki

Any modifications to the habitat of the stock are reversible and do not cause serious or
irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.
Note: Habitat modifications that are not reversible, are already in place and are not createdspecifically for the UoA shall be in scope. This includes:•

Large-scale artificial reefs.

•

Structures associated with enhancement activities that do not cause irreversible
harm to the natural ecosystem inhabited by the stock, such as salmon fry farms
next to river systems.

Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
7.4.8.8

The CAB shall only accept an application for certification from a UoA targeting an
introduced species if it meets the scope criteria contained in Table 2.
a. If the UoA is based upon an introduced species, the CAB shall follow thenecessary steps in the MSC Fisheries Standard Annex SD.
b. The CAB shall inform clients that the requirements for ISBF are part of a pilot
program and may be subject to change.

Table 2: Scope criteria for ISBFA

Irreversibility of the introduction in the new locationi

The introduced species has a large population size (comparable to or larger than the
population sizes of other native species occupying similar ecological niches in the newlocation).

ii

The species has spread to a range beyond that of its initial introduction in the new location.

iii

There is evidence to demonstrate that the species cannot be eradicated from the location by
known mechanisms without serious ecological, economic and/or social consequences.

B

History of the introductioni

The species was introduced to the new location prior to 1993; this being the year that theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes provisions on introduced species,
was ratified.

ii

If the introduction occurred after the CBD was ratified, such fisheries shall only potentially bein scope if the introduction was non-deliberate and occurred at least 20 years prior to the date
the application is made for assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard.

C

No further introductionsi

There is no continuing introduction of the introduced species being considered for certification
to the location (i.e. the species is now entirely self-sustaining in its new location).

7.5

Scope of assessment: defining the Unit of Assessment and Unitof Certification ◙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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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. ◙Changes to UoAs/UoCs and withdrawal of UoAs and proposed UoCs during theassessment
7.5.7

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. ◙7.5.8

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.
7.5.8.1

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 (7.5.9).
b. Confirm that traceability risks are managed and mitigated (Section 7.17).

Traceability factors
7.5.9

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.

d. Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC and fish from outside theUoC.
7.5.9.1

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: ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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
7.5.10

The CAB shall determine whether there are other eligible fishers or other entities that may
share the certificate as client group members. ◙7.5.10.1

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.

7.5.10.2

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
7.5.11The 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). ◙7.5.11.1

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 (ETP) species.
e. The IPI stock(s) are not certified separately.
7.5.12

If the CAB identifies IPI stock(s) as per 7.5.11.1, 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).

7.5.13In the ‘MSC IPI Announcement Template’, the CAB shall follow either 7.5.13.1 or 7.5.13.2
below.
7.5.13.1

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 7.5.11.1 above.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.5.13.2

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 7.5.11.1
above.

ii.

The catch proportion of IPI stock(s) calculated in 7.5.11.1.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).
7.5.14The 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 and Table
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 Annex SB or Annex 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: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.
Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 discretion of the MSC
and may 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 follow PB1.2 to determine whether the UoA overlaps with any existing
UoAs (either certified or in assessment).
7.7.2.1

If any the UoA overlaps, the CAB shall follow the steps for harmonisation in Annex
PB.

Use of risk-based methods for a data-deficient UoA
7.7.3

The CAB shall use the criteria in Table 3 to decide whether a UoA may or may not be
data-deficient with respect to 1 or more scoring element(s) within a PI. ◙7.7.3.1

A PI may contain both data-deficient and non-data-deficient scoring elements.

7.7.3.2

The CAB shall use the criteria in Table 3 to decide whether a scoring element may
or may not be data-deficient.

7.7.3.3

The CAB shall apply the criteria in Table 3 to all scoring elements in Principle 1
and Principle 2. ◙7.7.3.4

The CAB shall not use uncertainties in the stock definition or stock assessment
models as a justification for using Annex PF in cases where some form ofindicators and reference points are available for the UoA. ◙7.7.3.5

If the decision is made that a UoA is data-deficient with respect to 1 or more PIs,
the CAB shall use Annex PF for the assessment of those data-deficient PIs.

7.7.3.6

If a PI contains both data-deficient and non-data-deficient scoring elements, the
CAB shall:a. Use Annex PF to assess data-deficient scoring elements.
b. Score non-data-deficient scoring elements using the tree announced in theassessment.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table 3: Criteria for triggering the use of the RBF
Performance
Indicator

Criteria

Consideration

Notes

1.1.1 StockstatusStock status reference points
are available, derived either
from analytical stock
assessment or using
empirical approaches.

Yes

Use default Performance
Indicator Scoring
Guideposts within default
assessment tree for this PI.

No

Use Annex PF (RBF) for
this PI.

Yes

Use default Performance
Indicator Scoring
Guideposts within default
assessment tree for this PI.

No

Use Annex PF (RBF) for
this PI.

Yes

Use default Performance
Indicator Scoring
Guideposts within default
assessment tree for this PI.

No

Use Annex PF (RBF) for
this PI.

Yes

Use default Performance
Indicator Scoring
Guideposts within default
assessment tree for this PI.

No

Use Annex PF (RBF) for
this PI.

Yes

Use default Performance
Indicator Scoring
Guideposts within default
assessment tree for this PI.

No

Use Annex PF (RBF) for
this PI.

2.1.1 Primary
speciesoutcomeand2.2.1 Secondary
speciesoutcome

Biologically based limits areavailable, derived either fromanalytical stock assessment
or using empiricalapproaches.

2.3.1 ETP
speciesoutcomeCan the impact of the UoA on
ETP species be analyticallydetermined?

2.4.1 Habitats
outcome

In line with the MSC
Fisheries Standard
GSA3.13.1.1, are both of thefollowing applicable?
1. Information on habitats
encountered is available.
2. Information on impact of
UoA on habitats
encountered is available.

2.5.1
Ecosystem
outcomeIs information available tosupport an analysis of the
impact of the UoA on theecosystem?

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 (Section 7.4).
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 an 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.
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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

r.
7.8.3

A plan for RBF activities that the team will conduct at the site visit (as per Annex PF).

The team shall use the default assessment tree as set out in the MSC Fisheries Standard
Annex 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 Annex 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 Annex 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 Annex SD.

7.8.3.4

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

7.8.3.5

If the CAB judges that the default assessment trees referenced in 7.8.3.1–4 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.
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 UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
b. The statement on certificate sharing described in 7.24.7.1, 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 PF2.1 and PF2.3.

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 according to 7.4.1.1.

Modified assessment trees
7.10.5

If the CAB decides that any of the assessment trees need modification, the CAB shall:a. Apply for and obtain a variation from the MSC to 7.8.3 before preparing theAnnouncement Comment Draft Report.
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.
c.

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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 who request one.
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 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.

7.15.37.15.4Use 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.
7.15.3.1

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 Scoring Guideposts (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 scoring issue by including supporting rationale.

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

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 scoring issues at the SG60 level.
a. If any of the SG60 scoring issues are not met, the team shall fail the UoA, andno 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 scoring issues are met, the team shall assign at least a 60 score,
and the team shall assess each of the scoring issues at the SG80 level. ◙a. If any of the SG80 scoring issues are not met, the team shall assign anintermediate score (65, 70 or 75) reflecting overall performance against thedifferent SG80 scoring issues:i.

The team shall assign 65 when performance against the scoring issues isslightly above SG60 (a few scoring issues are fully met, but most are notfully met).

ii.

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

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

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

The team shall assign 85 when performance against the scoring issues isslightly above SG80 (a few scoring issues are fully met, but most are notfully met).

ii.

The team shall assign 90 where performance against the scoring issues
is mid-way between SG80 and SG100 (some scoring issues are fully
met, and some are not fully met).

iii. The team shall assign 95 when performance against the scoring issues isalmost at SG100 (most scoring issues are fully met, but a few are notfully met).
7.15.7.5
7.15.8If all the SG100 scoring issues 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. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.15.8.1

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.

7.15.9To contribute to the scoring of any PI, the team shall verify that each scoring issue is fully
and unambiguously met.
7.15.9.1

The team shall present a rationale to support the team’s conclusion. ◙7.15.9.2

The team shall make direct reference to every scoring issue in the rationale andconfirm whether or not the scoring issue is fully met at each SG level.

7.15.9.3

An exception to 7.15.9.2 is permitted only for those PIs that include only a single
scoring issue at each 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 thescoring issue are met.

7.15.10

If multiple scoring elements are included in Principle 1 or 2 PIs, the team shall score 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 eachscoring guidepost, rather than being derived directly as a numerical average of theindividual scores for 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 4 to determine the overall score for the PI from the scores ofthe different 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 4.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table 4: 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.

7.15.11

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.

7.15.12The 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.

7.15.13

The CAB shall not certify the UoA if any individual scoring issue 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

7.16.2The CAB shall ensure that every PI that receives a score of less than 80 has its
own distinct condition associated with it.

The CAB shall draft conditions to follow the narrative or metric form of the Performance
Indicator Scoring Guideposts and accompanying requirements used in the assessment
tree. ◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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. ◙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 Chain of
Custody (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, which are 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 which arerequired to have separate CoC certification.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

The 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. ◙7.17.6.1

7.17.7The CAB shall inform the fishery client that if they sell or label non-eligible (nonconforming) product as MSC certified, they are required to: ◙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.
7.18.1.1

7.18.2The eligibility date shall be any nominated date on or between the publication dateof the 1st Public Comment Draft Report and the certification date. ◙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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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 toward 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, orDocument: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

c.

Harmonisation as per Annex PB has resulted in score changes.

7.20.2.1

The information used to justify scoring changes was publicly available 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.

7.20.3

The Public Comment Draft Report shall include:a. Confirmation that the UoA is in scope.
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 Scoring Issue (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 7.5.9.

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 any references used to support statements in the evaluation tablesof the reports in the References section of the report.
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 (Annex
PF).

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

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

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 the changes tothe score for 1 or more PIs.
iv. A change in scope (as per Section 7.4, 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. A ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ with a summary ofverbal 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 (4.2.9).
c.

7.20.8.2

7.20.9The timeline for stakeholder input.

The CAB shall inform registered stakeholders (4.2.9) that their previous input(7.20.6.a, b or 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 (4.2.9) 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 Section 7.4, 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 aregistered stakeholder during the assessment containing stakeholder input and the
CAB responses as per 7.22.3.a, b, 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.

7.24.7

If the CAB has confirmed that the new fisher group is an other eligible fisher group, the
CAB shall publish an announcement and completed gap analysis informing stakeholders
that the group has been added. The 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 and subsequently 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 sale offish 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 from 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 7.5.8.1 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

UoA(s) that fail assessment
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 7.5.8.1 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.27.5The assigned individual shall:a. Identify the assessment components and scoring elements in the proposed UoA.
b. Conduct a gap analysis to confirm which assessment components and scoring
elements are the same between 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 (7.5.9).
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 certificate requirementsin 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

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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 7.5.9 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 certificate 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 (see 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 5, unless the team decides on a reduced surveillance schedule, see 7.29.4–7.29.7.
◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table 5: Surveillance levels
Surveillance level

Surveillance requirements

Level 6

4 on-site surveillance audits

Default surveillance
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 1

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

Minimum surveillance

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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

b. The number of conditions.
c.

The ability of the CAB to remotely verify information and progress against theconditions. ◙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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.
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 7.4.1.1.

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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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 Section 7.4, 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. Re-score the PI following scoring processes as per 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:

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

a. Examine relevant objective evidence.
b. Re-score all relevant Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts relating tothat condition.
c.

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

d. Document the justification for the re-scoring 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. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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. Principle score to fall below an aggregate 80 score as a result of changes to the scorefor 1 or more PIs.
c.

7.30.2A change in scope (as per Section 7.4, 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 of 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:

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

a. The surveillance audit is announced within 30 days of the CAB becoming aware of therelevant information.
b. The CAB follows Section 7.29.

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 scheme 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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

7.31.2The CAB shall be responsible for the exact timing and planning of thereassessment, in consultation with the client.

The 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’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.
7.31.8.1

7.31.9If 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.

Reduced 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 MSC Fisheries Standard-related stakeholder input has beenaddressed 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) raised in previous audits by stakeholders.
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 26 October 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 assessments) by 26 October 2028, or ◙b. Announce the reassessment of the certified UoA against the MSC Fisheries Standard
v3.0 no later than 9 months before 26 October 2028.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

7.32.1.1

The 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.

7.32.2

If the CAB has not applied 7.32.1 by 26 October 2028, the CAB shall suspend thecertificate until the UoC has been certified against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.

7.33

Management system requirements for CABs

7.33.1The CAB shall conduct, and document, a review of each full fishery assessment
conducted to identify any corrective or preventive actions that would contribute tocontinual improvement of the assessment process.

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 which 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 biologically based limits as defined in MSC
Fisheries Standard Table SA8, or if below the limits, measures are in place that are
expected to ensure that all fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery andrebuilding of 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 biologically based limits, or to prevent all
fishing activity from hindering recovery.
c.

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 7.5.13.2.

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

End of Annex PA

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex PB:

Harmonisation of overlapping Units ofAssessments – normative

PB1

Harmonised Units of Assessment – normative ◙PB1.1

Scope and assessment tree

PB1.1.1

CABs shall use this annex where Unit of Assessments (UoAs) overlap, irrespective of theassessment 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 that have thesame intent.

PB1.1.1.2

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

PB1.1.2

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

PB1.2

Identifying overlapping UoAs

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).

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 Performance Indicators that are subject toharmonisation (noting PB1.1.1.1).

Table PB1 – Harmonisation requirements per PI
PI/SisRequired to harmonise

All P1 PIs

Yes

PI 2.1.1.a (FS v3.0
& FS v2.01/v1.3)

Partially

PI 2.2.1.a (forfisheries assessedagainst v1.3 andv2.0/v2.01 only)
PI 2.3.1.a (forfisheries assessedagainst FS v1.3
and v2.0/v2.01
only)Partially

PI 2.4.1.b (FSv2.01)
PI 2.3.1.b (FSv3.0)

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), and if
below PRI, harmonise cumulative impacts at SG80 (not atSG60).
For stocks that are ‘main’ in both UoAs, teams shallharmonise status relative to biologically based limits (atSG60, 80 and 100), and if below biologically based limits,harmonise cumulative impacts at SG80 (not at SG60).
Harmonise recognition of any limits applicable to both UoAs
(at SG60, 80 and 100), and cumulative effects of the UoAs at
SG80 and SG100 (not at SG60).

Teams shall harmonise identification of more sensitive
habitats (v3.0)/VMEs (v2.01) where both UoAs operate in thesame “managed area(s)” (see Guidance to the MSC
Fisheries Standard).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PI/SisRequired to harmonise

PI 2.4.2.a, c (FSv2.01)
PI 2.3.2.a, c (FSv3.0)
All P2 PIs

Partially

Teams shall harmonise scoring with consideration of
cumulative impacts at SG100 as all UoA impacts are
considered (not at SG60 or SG80).

Situation
dependent

PIs 3.1.1–3.1.3

Situation
dependent

PIs 3.2.1–3.2.4

Situation
dependent

If UoAs are identical in scope (7.5.2), even if the UoCs aredifferent (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, RFMOs,
or others) or under the same agreements, teams shallharmonise assessment outcomes for PI3.1.1–3.1.3 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 PI 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).

PB1.2.3

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
PB1.3.2

If ETP 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.

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. ◙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 inthe scoring rationale for relevant PIs.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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. ◙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 and c, 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).

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, andthese 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

The team shall follow PB1.4.1.1 if the there are changes to the circumstances of theoverlapping UoAs and/or new information.

PB1.6.4.1

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

End of Annex PB

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 the 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), or.
b. 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
Qualificationsa) 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
and other modifications that may be developed in the future.
Competencies
Ability to:i.
Describe the intent and requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
ii.
Place the steps of the fisheries assessment process in the correct order.
iii.
Identify the steps in which stakeholder consultation occurs.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

iv.
v.
vi.

Score a fishery using the default assessment tree.
Describe how conditions are set and monitored.
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
Qualificationsa) Has conducted 2 MSC fishery assessment or surveillance site visits as a team member inthe last 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 initialaccreditation 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Fishery team member qualification and competency criteria ◙PC1.3

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
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:
i.
ii.
iii.

Describe the intent and requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
Score a fishery using the default assessment tree.
Describe how conditions are set and monitored.

Verification mechanisms•

Examination pass.

•

CAB records.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

Bycatch.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

ii. Endangered, Threatened, or Protected (ETP).
iii. Habitats.
iv. Ecosystem interactions.
Competenciesi.

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.
ii.

Identify likely problems for a fishery under Principle 1 and Principle 2 that would arise frompoor management.
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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Competencies
Ability to:i.
ii.

Communicate effectively with stakeholders in the country in a common language.
Explain the geographical, cultural, and ecological context of the fishery underassessment.

Verification mechanisms
•

CV.

•

Employer’s reference letter.

•

Journal extracts.

•

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

•

CAB witness audits.

6. Understanding of the CoC Standard and CoC Certification Requirements
Qualifications
a. 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 (RBF)
Competencies
Demonstrate an understanding of:i. When the 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

End of Annex PC

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 CAB determines in its review of the proposed UoA that additional assessment steps
or PI rescoring are necessary, the CAB shall conduct these in addition to the requirementsin this 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.

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 other
Performance Indicators (PIs).
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 Section 7.15.
a. If the stock under assessment overlaps with another UoA(s), the CAB shallfollow the harmonisation steps in 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 UoC(s), the CAB shall produce a separate report for thescope 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 in 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex PE:
PE1

Transition assessments – normative

Please see FCP v3.0
End of Annex PE

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – normative
PF1

Introduction to the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ◙PF1.1

Applying the RBF in scoring different PIs ◙PF1.1.1

There are 4 methodologies within the RBF: ◙a. Consequence Analysis (CA).
b. Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).
c.

Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA).

d. Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA).
PF1.1.2

The team shall verify that they can trigger the RBF for a particular scoring element within a
PI using Table 3. ◙PF1.1.3

The team shall use Table PF1 to determine which Risk Based Framework methodology touse.

PF1.1.4

The team shall score scoring elements that are not eligible for the RBF using the default
tree, taking account of any accompanying guidance specific to that PI.

PF1.1.5

The team shall identify any implications for other PIs using Figure PF1 and Table PF1prior to proceeding.

Figure PF1: How to apply the RBF in scoring

Data-deficient scoring
element

For PI 1.1.1

For PIs 2.1.1,
2.2.1 and 2.3.1

For PI 2.4.1

For PI 2.5.1

Undertake CA

Undertake PSA

Undertake CSA

Undertake SICA

Use scoring Table
PF8 to determine finalscore

Use scoring Table
PF18 to determine
final score

Assign SICA score

Undertake PSA

Use scoring Table
PF7 and scoring
Table PF8 todetermine final scoreDocument: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF1: RBF methodologies PIs and implications for non-RBF PIs
PI

RBF

Notes

1.1.1 Stock status

Yes

CA and PSA shall both be undertaken if
scoring using the RBF.

1.1.2 Stock rebuildingNo

If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI
is not scored.

1.2.1 Harvest strategy

No

Score as normal.

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and
tools

No

Score as normal.

1.2.3 Information/monitoring

No

Score as normal.

1.2.4 Assessment of stock statusNo

If RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, a default
score of 80 shall be awarded to this PI.

2.1.1 Primary species outcome

Yes

PSA alone shall be undertaken if using
the RBF.

2.1.2 Primary species management
strategy

No

Score as normal.

2.1.3 Primary species information

No

If the RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1, use the
RBF alternative within scoring issue (a).

2.2.1 Secondary species
outcomeYes

PSA alone shall be undertaken if using
the RBF.

2.2.2 Secondary species
management strategy

No

Score as normal.

2.2.3 Secondary species
information

No

If the RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1, use the
RBF alternative within scoring issue (a).

2.3.1 ETP Species outcome

Yes

PSA alone shall be undertaken if using
the RBF.

2.3.2 ETP Species management
strategy

No

Score as normal.

2.3.3 ETP Species information

No

If the RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1, use the
RBF alternative within scoring issue (a).

2.4.1 Habitats outcome

Yes

CSA alone shall be undertaken if using
the RBF.

2.4.2 Habitats management
strategy

No

Score as normal.

2.4.3 Habitats information

No

If the RBF is used to score PI 2.4.1, use the
RBF alternative within scoring issues (a)and (b).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PI

RBF

Notes

2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome

Yes

SICA alone shall be undertaken if using
the RBF.

2.5.2 Ecosystem management
strategy

No

Score as normal.

2.5.3 Ecosystem information

No

Score as normal.

Principle 3 PIs

No

The RBF shall not be used to score any PIs
within Principle 3.

PF2

Stakeholder involvement in RBF

PF2.1

Announcing the RBF ◙PF2.1.1

If the team determines that the RBF is to be used, the team shall:a. Describe and justify the use of the RBF using the form ‘Use of the RBF in a Fishery
Assessment Form’.
b. Upload the form to the MSC database for publication on the MSC website.
c.

Inform stakeholders of the proposal to use the RBF.

d. Allow at least 30 days for comment.
e. Consider all stakeholder input, recording why each comment has been accepted or
rejected.
f.

Review the decision to use the RBF, taking into account stakeholder input).

g. If a decision is made not to use the RBF for any PI or scoring element, update andresubmit the ‘‘Use of the RBF in a Fishery Assessment Form’ for publication on the
MSC website.
h. Repeat steps PF2.1.1.a-g if the team determines that the RBF is to be used for PIs orscoring elements for which it was not previously announced.
PF2.1.2

If the team determines that only main species will be assessed using the RBF (as per
PF4.1.4), then the team should announce the RBF only for those main species.

PF2.1.3

If only minor species will trigger the RBF, but the team is confident that only main species
will be scored during the assessment, or that there are no main species, then the teamshould not announce the RBF.

PF2.1.4

If at the site visit, information comes to light that the RBF needs to be used to score more
PIs or scoring elements than had been previously announced, the team shall conduct anadditional site visit (as per PF2.1.1.h).

PF2.2

Information gathering ◙PF2.2.1

Prior to the site visit, the team shall gather information needed for scoring, including:a. Management arrangements in place together with any specific strategies, such as
bycatch mitigation or recovery strategies. ◙b. Descriptions of any monitoring strategies in place, including at-sea observer
programmes (coverage, duration, objectives).
c.

Maps of:i.

The distribution of fishing effort within the jurisdictional boundaries of the UoA.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

ii.

The distribution of all fishing effort on the target stock outside the UoA.

iii. Species, habitat and community distributions (including depth ranges).
d. When using the CA, information needed to:i.

Assist in identifying the most vulnerable subcomponent for a species.

ii.

Score the consequence of fishing activity on the species.

e. When using the PSA, information needed for scoring:f.

i.

The productivity attributes of each species.

ii.

The susceptibility attributes of the species.

When using the CSA, information needed to: ◙i.

Define habitat(s)ii.

Score the consequence attributes of the UoA’s habitat(s)iii. Score the spatial attributes of the UoA’s habitat(s).
g. When using the SICA, information needed for scoring:i.

The spatial scale of the UoA on the ecosystemii.

The temporal scale of the UoA on the ecosystem.

iii. The intensity of the UoA on the ecosystem
iv. The consequence of the activity on the ecosystem.
PF2.2.2

The team shall only use information that complies with 7.15.1.1.

PF2.2.3

The team shall use all the data available as part of the assessment and reflect theanalysis of this information when scoring the UoA.

PF2.3

Stakeholder consultation

PF2.3.1

The team shall carry out a stakeholder consultation process to gather data and to seek
expert opinions (see Sections 7.13 and 7.14).

PF2.3.2

The CAB shall inform stakeholders of the use of the RBF in the fishery assessment by
including in communication (PF2.1 and Section 7.10), as a minimum, text equivalent to thefollowing: ◙a. “A key purpose of the site visit is to collect information and speak to stakeholders withan interest in the fishery. For those parts of the assessment involving the MSC’s RiskBased Framework (RBF, see msc.org), we will be using a stakeholder-driven,
qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis during the site visit. To achieve a robust
outcome from this consultative approach, we rely heavily on participation of a broad
range of stakeholders with a balance of knowledge of the fishery. We encourage any
stakeholders with experience or knowledge of the fishery to participate in thesemeetings.”

PF2.3.3

The team shall plan the stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participationfrom a range of stakeholders. ◙PF2.3.3.1

The team shall consult a range of stakeholder groups. ◙PF2.3.3.2

The team shall identify stakeholders early in the assessment process. ◙PF2.3.3.3

The team shall organise meetings to allow for the highest participation of
stakeholders. ◙PF2.3.3.4

The team shall structure meetings to encourage engagement amongst
stakeholders. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF2.3.3.5

If different language groups, educational/vocabulary levels or cultural behaviours
are present, the team shall consider separate consultations tailored to thosespecific interest groups.

PF2.3.3.6

The team shall conduct stakeholder consultation in a language that can beunderstood by all stakeholders.
a. The team shall prepare any materials required for the stakeholder
consultation in a language understood by all participants.

PF2.3.3.7

The team shall make background information available on the UoA ahead of themeeting so that the stakeholder consultation process is focused on providing
information required for the RBF scoring process, while allowing participants toexpress their expert opinions. ◙PF2.3.4

The team shall use the information gathered during stakeholder consultation(s) shall be
used to inform the scoring of the CA, PSA, CSA and SICA.

PF2.3.5

The team shall be responsible for scoring PIs.

PF2.3.5.1

If stakeholders do not reach consensus, the team shall assign the more
precautionary score.

PF3

Conducting a Consequence Analysis (CA)PF3.1

Preparation

PF3.1.1

The team shall conduct a CA for each data-deficient scoring element identified under PI
1.1.1 (target species). ◙PF3.1.2

The team shall only conduct a CA if some qualitative or quantitative data exist from which
trends in 1 or more of the 4 key consequence subcomponents listed in Table PF2 can be
identified.

PF3.1.2.1
PF3.1.3

If there is no indicator data as defined in PF3.1.2, the team shall not assess the
UoA against the MSC Fisheries Standard.

The team shall use the CA scoring template in Table PF2 to present the scores andjustifications of the CA. ◙PF3.1.3.1

The team shall include the CA scoring template in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

PF3.2

Stakeholder involvement within CA ◙PF3.2.1

The team shall use input from stakeholders to:a. Provide information suitable for the semi-quantitative evaluation of the risks that thefishing activity poses to the species included in the risk assessment.
b. Assist in identifying the most vulnerable subcomponent for a species.
c.

Assist in scoring the consequence of fishing for a species.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF2: CA scoring template
Principle 1:
Stock status outcome

Scoring element

Consequence subcomponents

Consequence score

Population size
Reproductive capacity
Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range
Justification for most vulnerable
subcomponent

Justification for consequence scoreDocument: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF3.3

Determine the CA score

PF3.3.1

The team shall only score the subcomponent (population size, reproductive capacity,
age/size/sex structure or geographic range) on which the team decides that the fishingactivity is having the most impact.

PF3.3.2

Using Table PF3, the team shall use indicator and trend data to score the consequence ofthe fishing activity on the selected subcomponent. ◙PF3.3.2.1

The team shall work with stakeholders at the CA consultation meeting(s).

PF3.3.2.2

If there is limited indicator information, the team shall consider the consequence
as high-risk and score consequence at 60.

PF3.3.2.3

If there is no agreement between stakeholders, the team shall use theconsequence category with the lowest score (60, 80 or 100).

PF3.3.3

The team shall interpret the terms “insignificant change”, “possible detectable change” and“detectable change” as follows: ◙a. “Insignificant change” shall mean that changes in the subcomponents areundetectable or if detectable, these are of such a low magnitude that the impact of thefishing activity cannot be differentiated from the natural variability for this population.
b. “Possible detectable change” shall mean that changes are detected and can bereasonably attributable to the fishing activity, but these are of such a low magnitude
that the impact of the UoA is considered to be minimal on the population size anddynamics.
c.

“Detectable change” shall mean that changes to the subcomponent can be attributed
to the fishing activity and changes are of such magnitude that cannot be considered
as minimal.

PF3.3.4

the team shall fail the UoA if fail the fishery if the consequence of the activity is determined
to be at higher risk than 60 level in Table PF3.

PF3.3.5

The team shall use the final CA score in Section PF5.

Table PF3: CA scoring of subcomponents
Consequence category
Subcomponent

Fail

60

80

100

Population size

Consequenceis higher-riskthan 60 level.

Full exploitation rate
but long-term
recruitment dynamics
not adversely
damaged.

Possible detectablechange in size/growthrate (r) but minimal
impact on population
size and none on
dynamics.

Insignificant change
to population
size/growth rate (r).
Change is unlikely to
be detectable against
natural variability forthis population.

Reproductive
capacity

Detectable change inreproductive capacity.
Impact on population
dynamics at
maximum sustainablelevel, long-term
recruitment dynamics
not adversely
affected.

Possible detectablechange inreproductive capacity
but minimal impact on
population dynamics.

Insignificant change
in reproductive
capacity. Unlikely to
be detectable against
natural variability forthis population.

Age/size/sex
structure

Detectable change inage/size/sex

Possible detectablechange inInsignificant change
in age/size/sex

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Consequence category

Geographic
range

structure. Impact on
population dynamics
at maximum
sustainable level,
long-term recruitment
dynamics notadversely affected.

age/size/sex structure
but minimal impact on
population dynamics.

structure. Unlikely to
be detectable against
natural variability forthis population.

Detectable change in
geographic range up
to 10% of original
distribution due tofishing activities.

Possible detectablechange in geographic
range but minimal
impact on population
distribution and noneon dynamics.

Insignificant change
in geographic range.
Unlikely to be
detectable against
natural variability forthis population.

PF4

Conducting a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

PF4.1

Preparation

PF4.1.1

The team shall use the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ to calculate PSA scores.

PF4.1.2

The team shall document the scores and justifications for each PSA attribute in the PSA
justification tables in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

PF4.1.3

The team shall conduct a PSA for each data-deficient scoring element identified within agiven PI, unless the options in PF4.1.4 or PF4.1.5 are chosen.

PF4.1.4

The team may elect to conduct a PSA on “main” species only when evaluating PI 2.1.1 or
2.2.1. ◙PF4.1.4.1
PF4.1.5

The team shall cap the final PI score in accordance with clause PF5.3.2.

When assessing a large number of species under PI 2.1.1 or PI 2.2.1, the team may electto group species according to similar taxonomies and undertake a reduced number of
PSAs. ◙

PF4.1.5.1

The team shall:a. List all species and group them according to similar taxonomy. ◙b. Within each taxonomic group, identify at least the 2 most at-risk species
determined by: ◙c.

i.

Selecting the species with the highest risk score when scoring the
productivity part of the PSA for all species, andii.

Working with stakeholders to identify qualitatively which species are mostat risk within each group.

Score at least 2 species within each taxonomic group using the PSA. ◙PF4.1.5.2

If several species appear to have a similar level of risk, and the team and majorityof stakeholders cannot agree on which 1 is most at risk for a given PI, the teamshall conduct a PSA on all species.

PF4.1.5.3

The team shall document the process of grouping species and determining thespecies most at risk within each group in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

PF4.1.5.4

The team shall provide a justification for the determination of the species most at
risk within each group in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

PF4.1.5.5

The team shall apply the PSA to the representative most at-risk species todetermine the score for the species group. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

a. The team shall assign the PSA-derived MSC score to each of the species inthe species group.
PF4.1.5.6

If the team decides to group species according to similar taxonomies, the teamshall cap the final PI score according to clause PF5.3.2. ◙PF4.2

Stakeholder involvement within the PSA

PF4.2.1

The team shall use input from stakeholders to:a. Assist in the identification of species that are affected by the UoA.
b. Assist in the scoring of the susceptibility attributes within the PSA.

PF4.3

PSA Step 1: Score the productivity attributes ◙PF4.3.1

The team shall score the productivity of each data-deficient scoring element. ◙PF4.3.2

The team shall score each productivity attribute on a three-point risk scale: low (3),medium (2) or high (1), using the cut-offs in Table PF4.

PF4.3.2.1

The team shall only score the average maximum size and average size atmaturity attributes for vertebrate species.

PF4.3.2.2

The team shall only score the density-dependence attribute for invertebrate
species.

PF4.3.2.3

The team shall enter the 3-point scores into the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ tocalculate the overall productivity score.

PF4.3.2.4

If there is limited information available for a productivity attribute, the team shallassign the more precautionary score.

PF4.3.2.5

In the absence of information on depensatory dynamics, or if no justification isprovided supporting lower risk scores (1 or 2), the team should use the highest
risk score (3, low productivity).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF4: PSA productivity attributes and scores ◙Productivity
attribute

High productivity(Low risk, score = 1)

Medium productivity(medium risk, score =2)

Low productivity(high risk, score = 3)

Average age
at maturity<5 years

5-15 years>15 years

Averagemaximum age<10 years

10-25 years>25 years

Fecundity>20,000 eggs per year

100-20,000 eggs per
year<100 eggs per year

Averagemaximum size(not to be used
when scoring
invertebrate
species)<100 cm

100-300 cm>300 cm

Average size
at maturity(not to be used
when scoring
invertebrate
species)<40 cm40-200 cm>200 cm

Reproductive
strategy

Broadcast spawner

Demersal egg layer

Live bearer

Trophic Level<2.75

2.75-3.25>3.25

Densitydependence(to be used
when scoring
invertebrate
species only)

Compensatory dynamics
at low population size
demonstrated or likely.

No depensatory orcompensatory
dynamics demonstrated
or likely.

Depensatory dynamics at
low population sizes (Allee
effects) demonstrated or
likely.

PF4.4

PSA Step 2: Score the susceptibility attributes ◙PF4.4.1

The team shall score the susceptibility of each data-deficient scoring element.

PF4.4.2

The team shall score 4 susceptibility attributes (areal overlap (availability),
encounterability, selectivity and post-capture mortality) on a 3-point risk scale: high (3),medium (2) or low (1), using the cut-offs in Table PF5.

PF4.4.2.1

The team shall enter the 3-point scores into the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ tocalculate the overall susceptibility score.

PF4.4.2.2

If there is limited information available to score a susceptibility attribute, the teamshall assign the more precautionary score.

PF4.4.3

When scoring susceptibility attributes, the team shall take into account the impacts offisheries other than the UoA, including overlapping UoAs (see PB1.2), according to thefollowing requirements:

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

a. The team shall identify and list separately each fishery, including overlapping UoAs,
other than the UoA that affects the given stock. ◙b. When scoring PI 1.1.1 or PI 1.1.1A, the team shall take into account the impacts of all
fisheries, including overlapping UoAs affecting the target stock.
c.

When scoring PI 2.1.1, the team take into account the impacts of all overlapping UoAs
affecting each main primary species.

d. When scoring PI 2.2.1, if the UoA has main species with catches at 10% or more of
the total catch by weight of the UoA, the team take into account the impact of all
overlapping UoAs having a catch of the same species that is 10% or more of the total
catch of the UoAs. ◙e. If the UoA does not have main species with catches at 10% or more of the total catchby weight of the UoA, the team may elect to conduct the PSA on the UoA only.
f.

When scoring PI 2.3.1, the team shall only take into account the impacts of the UoA.

g. If no other fisheries or overlapping UoAs affect the stock, the team shall only take into
account the impacts of the UoA.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF5: PSA susceptibility attributes and scores
Susceptibility
attributeLow susceptibility(Low risk, score = 1)

Mediumsusceptibility(medium risk, score= 2)

High susceptibility(high risk, score = 3)

Areal overlap(availability):
Overlap of the fishingeffort with a species
concentration of thestock<10% overlap

10-30% overlap>30% overlap

Encounterability:
The position of thestock/species within thewater column relative tothe fishing gear, andthe position of thestock/species within the
habitat relative to theposition of the gear

Low overlap withfishing gear (lowencounterability).

Medium overlap withfishing gear.

High overlap withfishing gear (highencounterability).

Selectivity of gear type:
Potential of the gear toretain speciesaIndividuals < size
at maturity are
rarely caught.

aIndividuals < size
at maturity are
regularly caught.

aIndividuals < size
at maturity are
frequently caught.

b

Individuals < size
at maturity canescape or avoid
gear.

b

Individuals < half
the size atmaturity canescape or avoid
gear.

b

Individuals < half
the size at maturity
are retained by
gear.

Post-capture mortality(PCM):
The chance that, if
captured, a species
would be released andthat it would be in acondition permitting
subsequent survival

PF4.4.4

Default score fortarget species(Principle 1).

Evidence of majority
released post-captureand survival.

Evidence of somereleased post-captureand survival.

Retained species or
majority dead whenreleased.
Default score forretained species(Principle 1 or
Principle 2).

When taking into account the impacts of other fisheries and overlapping UoAs, the teamshall score the susceptibility attributes cumulatively.

PF4.4.4.1

To account for impact of other fisheries and overlapping UoAs on a given stock
the team shall determine the contribution of each fishery on the total catch of thegiven stock.
a. If precise catch data are available, the team shall assign weights for eachfishery according to known proportions of total catch of the given stock. ◙b. If catch data are not available, the team shall use and document a qualitative
information-gathering process apply a weight to each fishery according toTable PF6.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF4.4.5

The team shall calculate a weighted average of PSA scores for each fishery andoverlapping UoA affecting the given stock in order to derive the final overall PSA score
except in the following case: ◙PF4.4.5.1

If catch data cannot be estimated for a particular fishery (gear type) using either
qualitative or quantitative data, the team shall base the susceptibility score for theoverall PSA on the attributes of the gear with the highest susceptibility score.

Table PF6: Weighting of fisheries% contribution of catch

Weighting score

0–25

1

25–50

2

50–75

3

75–1004

PF4.4.6

The team shall score areal overlap (availability) as follows: ◙a. The team shall generate areal overlap scores after consideration of the overlap of thefishing effort with the distribution of the stock.
b. If the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account, the team shallscore the areal overlap as the combined overlap of all listed fisheries with the areal
concentration of a stock.
c.

The team shall enter the resulting areal overlap risk scores into those cells in the‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ for all listed fisheries.

d. When scoring the areal overlap the team shall consider the concentration of species
and the overlap of the fishing gear with the concentration species. ◙e. For species with good distribution maps, the team shall score areal overlap using
detailed mapping analysis: the amount of overlap between fishing effort and species
stock distribution.
i.
PF4.4.7

For species without good distribution maps, the team may use stakeholdergenerated maps.

The team shall score encounterability as follows: ◙a. The team shall generate encounterability scores after consideration of the likelihoodthat a species will encounter fishing gear that is deployed within the geographic rangeof that species.
b. If the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account, the team shallscore encounterability as the combined encounterability of all listed fisheries.
c.

The team shall enter the resulting encounterability risk scores into those cells in the‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ for all listed fisheries.

d. When scoring encounterability the team shall consider the concentration of species
and the overlap of the fishing gear with the concentration species.
e. The team shall consider the deployment of fishing gear in relation to the adult habitatof each species as the main aspect for each species.
PF4.4.8

The team shall score selectivity as follows: ◙a. The team shall generate a selectivity score for each gear type within the UoA after
consideration of the potential of gear to capture or retain the species that encountersthe fishing gear.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

b. If the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account, the team shallscore selectivity for each gear type of all listed fisheries.
c.

The team shall determine the selectivity risk scores for each combination of gear typeand species within the UoA individually and enter them into the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

d. The team shall assign scores for gear selectivity using the 2 categories specified inTable PF5. ◙i.

If elements (a) and (b) indicate different risk scores, the team shall assign a scoreas the average of the 2 categories, rounded up to the nearest whole number on
the 1:3 scale.

e. The team shall interpret terms “rarely”, “regularly” and “frequently” in Table PF5 shallbe interpreted as follows:i.

“Rarely” means that the capture of individuals smaller than the size at maturity
occurs in less than 5% few gear deployments.

ii.

“Regularly” means that the capture of individuals smaller than the size at maturity
occurs in 5% to 50% of the gear deployments.

iii. “Frequently” means that the capture of individuals smaller than the size at maturity
occurs in more than 50% of gear deployments.
PF4.4.9

The team shall score Post Capture Mortality (PCM) as follows:a. The team shall use its knowledge of species biology and fishing practice together withindependent field observations to assess the chance that, if captured, a species would
be released and that it would be in a condition to permit subsequent survival. ◙b. If the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account, the team shallscore the post-capture mortality for each gear type of all listed fisheries.
c.

The team shall determine the PCM risk scores for each combination of gear type andspecies within the UoA individually and enter them into the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’.

d. In the absence of observer data or other verified field observations made duringcommercial fishing operations that indicate the individuals are released alive and postrelease survivorship is high, the team shall score PCM of all species as default highrisk.
e. The team may reduce the PCM score from a default high risk if:

PF4.4.10i.

A high risk score has been allocated for the selectivity, andii.

A large portion of animals are returned alive and survive the encounter.

The team may adjust the susceptibility scores if additional information regarding an
attribute that justifies a change in score is available and the source of data is appropriate
to the fishery(ies) or region(s).

PF4.4.10.1 The team shall document the justification for all changes made.

PF4.5

PSA Step 3: Determine the PSA score and equivalent MSC score

PF4.5.1

The team shall use the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ to calculate the overall productivity andsusceptibility risk scores (PSA score) and the equivalent MSC scores for each scoring
element. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF5

Scoring the UoA using the RBF for Species Performance
Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1)

PF5.1

Scoring species PIs

PF5.1.1

When scoring PI 1.1.1, the team shall use both the CA and PSA to produce an overall
score for each scoring element.

PF5.1.1.1

The overall score for the scoring element shall be assigned according to the rulesin Table PF7. ◙Table PF7: Rules for use of CA and PSA scores
CA

PSA

Rule

80 or 100≥80

Score assigned shall be at the midway point between CA
and PSA scores.

80 or 100

≥60 and <80

Score assigned for PI shall be less than 80, as near to themidway point between CA and PSA scores as possible.

80 or 100

<60

Fail

60

≥80

Score assigned for PI shall be less than 80, as near to themidway point between CA and PSA scores as possible.

60≥60 and <80

Score assigned for PI shall be at the midway point between
CA and PSA scores.

60

<60

Fail

<60

≥80

Fail

<60

≥60 and <80

Fail

<60

<60

Fail

PF5.1.2

When scoring PIs 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, the team shall use only the PSA to produce anoverall score for each scoring element.

PF5.2

Combining scoring elements

PF5.2.1

If there is only 1 scoring element for the PI, the team shall consider this as the overall
MSC score.

PF5.2.2

If there is a combination of both data-deficient scoring elements (scored using the RBF)
and scoring elements scored using default assessment tree, the team shall consider thescores for all scoring elements for this PI to derive a final MSC score by using Table PF8.
◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF8: Combining multiple species scores
MSC scoreRequirement to gain score

None

Any scoring elements within a PI that fail to reach a score of 60 represent a
failure against the MSC Fisheries Standard and no score shall be assigned.

60

All elements have a score of 60, and only 60.

65

All elements score at least 60; a few achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80, but most do not reach 80.

70

All elements score at least 60; some achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80; but some fail to achieve 80 and require intervention action.

75

All elements score at least 60; most achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80; only a few fail to achieve 80 and require intervention action.

80

All elements score 80.

85

All elements score at least 80; a few achieve higher scores, but most do not
approach 100.

90

All elements score at least 80; some achieve higher scores approaching 100,
but some do not.

95

All elements score at least 80; most achieve higher scores approaching 100;
only a few fail to score at or very close to 100.

100

All elements score 100.

PF5.3

Adjusting PI scoresPF5.3.1

If no additional information exists to score the PI, the team shall apply the score directly to
the PI with the accompanying ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ and provide a justification.

PF5.3.1.1

If additional information justifies modifying the MSC score either upwards or
downwards by a maximum of 10 points, the team shall use this information toreach the final MSC score for the PI. ◙a. The team shall use all information that is available on the UoA to inform theassessment.
b. The team shall provide justification for any score modification.

PF5.3.2

The team shall cap the final PI score if only a subset of the total number of species has
been evaluated.

PF5.3.2.1

If the team has only considered “main” species in the PSA analysis (as per
PF4.1.4), the team shall not assign a final PI score greater than 80.

PF5.3.2.2

If the team has opted to use the species-grouping option (as per PF4.1.5), theteam shall not assign a final PI score greater than 80.

PF5.3.3

If there are no main species, and minor species are not scored using the RBF (as per
PF2.1.3), the team shall cap the final PI score at 80.

PF5.3.4

The team shall record the CA, PSA scores (equivalent MSC score) and overall MSC
scores in the Scoring Tables in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF6

Setting conditions using the RBF for Species PIs

PF6.1

PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1

PF6.1.1

If any scoring element score is less than 80, the team shall set a condition on that PI.

PF6.1.2

If a condition is set for a PI scored using the CA or PSA, the team shall make sure that the
Client Action Plan proposed by the fishery client meets the following criteria: ◙a. Is capable of raising the score to 80.
b. Addresses all the scoring elements for which the score falls below 80.
c.

Does not cause additional associated problems for other species.

PF6.1.3

The team shall only apply the RBF to the UoA in subsequent MSC assessments if thescore is 80 or above at the point of entering reassessment.

PF7

Conducting a Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) ◙PF7.1

Preparation

PF7.1.1

The team shall use the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ to calculate CSA scores.

PF7.1.2

The team shall document scores and justifications for each scoring element (habitat) in the
CSA justification tables in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

PF7.1.3

The team shall conduct the CSA for each data-deficient scoring element.

PF7.1.4

The team may elect to conduct the CSA on “main” habitats only. ◙PF7.1.4.1

If the team decides to consider “main” habitats only, the final PI score shall be
adjusted downward according to clause PF7.6.5.

PF7.1.5

The team shall apply expert judgement throughout the CSA.

PF7.1.6

When scoring, the team shall consider the full range of possible interactions, and take aprecautionary approach, scoring the highest possible risk score of the relevant ranges, if:◙
a. Possible scores from fishing activity or impact cut across more than 1 threshold range
or more than 1 proxy range.
b. Gear has been modified in a way that could increase its impact.

PF7.2

Stakeholder involvement within the CSA ◙PF7.2.1

The team shall use input from stakeholders to:a. Assist in the identification of the habitat(s) that are affected by the UoA.
b. Assist in the scoring of the consequence and spatial attributes within the CSA.

PF7.3

CSA Step 1: Define the habitat(s)PF7.3.1

The team shall list and define each habitat associated with the “managed area”.

PF7.3.1.1

The team shall interpret the term “managed area” to mean each habitat in the fullarea managed by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries managementin the area(s) where the UoA operates

PF7.3.1.2

The team shall refer to the MSC Fisheries Standard SA3.13.5 and the subclauses
to further interpret the term “managed area”.

PF7.3.1.3

The team shall treat each habitat within the UoA as a scoring element.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF7.3.2

The team shall categorise the habitats in the UoA shall be categorised on the basis of theirsubstratum, geomorphology, and (characteristic) biota (SGB) characteristics (Table PF9).
◙

PF7.3.3

The team shall list the biome, sub-biome, and feature (Table PF10). ◙Table PF9: SGB habitat nomenclature (modified from Williams et al., 2011 1)
Substratum

Geomorphology

Biota

Fine (mud, sand)• Mud (0.1 mm)

Flat

Large erect
Dominated by:• Large and/or erectsponges••

Fine sediments(0.1-1mm)
Coarse sediments (14 mm)•

Simple surface
structure•

Unrippled/flat•Current
rippled/directed scour•

Medium• Gravel/pebble (4-60
mm)

•

Large
•
•

Cobble/boulders (60mm - 3 m)
Igneous,metamorphic, orsedimentary bedrock(>3 m)

Rough surface
structure
Debris flow/rubble
banks

Outcrop• Subcrop (rockprotrusions fromsurrounding sediment<1 m)•

Solitary large sponges•

Solitary
sedentary/sessile
epifauna (e.g.
ascidians/ bryozoans)•

Crinoids•

Corals•Mixed large or erectcommunities

Wave rippled

Low relief• Irregular topography
with mounds anddepressions••

Small erect/
encrusting/burrowing
Dominated by:• Small, low-encrusting
sponges•

Small, low-standing
sponges•

Consolidated (e.g.
mussels) andunconsolidated bivalve
beds (e.g. scallops)•

Mixed small/lowencrusting invertebrate
communities•

Infaunal bioturbators

No fauna or flora• No apparent epifauna,infauna, or flora

Low-relief outcrop (<1m)

1 Williams, A., Dowdney, J., Smith, A.D.M., Hobday, A.J., and Fuller, M. (2011). Evaluating impacts of fishing on

benthic habitats: A risk assessment framework applied to Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research 112(3):154167.
Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Substratum

Geomorphology

Biota

Solid reef of biogenic origin• Biogenic (substratumof biogenic calcium
carbonate)High relief• High outcrop(protrusion of
consolidated
substrate >1 m)

Flora
Dominated by:• Seagrass species•

Depositions ofskeletal material
forming coral reefbase•Rugged surface
structure

Table PF10: List of example biomes, sub-biomes, and features (modified from Williams et al.,
2011)
Biome

Sub-biome

FeatureCoast (0-25 m)
Shelf (25-200 m)
Slope (200-2,000 m)
Abyss (>2,000 m)

Coastal margin (<25 m)
Inner shelf (25-100 m)
Outer shelf (100-200 m)
Upper slope (200-700 m)
Mid-slope (700-1,500 m)

Seamounts
Canyons
Abyss
Shelf break (~150-300 m)
Sediment plains
Sediment terraces
Escarpments
Plains of scattered reef
Large rocky banks

PF7.4

CSA Step 2: Score the consequence attributes (Table PF11) ◙Table PF11: Consequence attributes (modified from Williams et al., 2011)
Habitat-productivity attributes

Gear-habitat interaction attributes

1. Regeneration of biota

1. Removability of biota

2. Natural disturbance

2. Removability of substratum
3. Substratum hardness
4. Substratum ruggedness
5. Seabed slope

Regeneration of biota
PF7.4.1

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the rate of the recovery of biota
associated with the habitat using information on age, growth, and recolonisation of biota, if
available (Table PF12). ◙PF7.4.2

If information on age, growth, and recolonisation of associated biota is not available for the
UoA, the team shall refer to comparable data from studies elsewhere.

PF7.4.2.1
PF7.4.3

In the absence of such comparable studies, the team shall use the proxies inTable PF12 as a surrogate for accumulation and recovery time. ◙The team shall record the “regeneration of biota” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF12: Scoring regeneration of biota based on age, growth, and recolonisation of biota (modified from Williams et al., 2011)Sub-biome

Using available data

Using surrogate when data are not available

AnnualLess
thandecadalMorethandecadalNo epifauna

Small erect/
encrusting

Large erect(sponges)

Large erect(ascidians andbryozoans)

Seagrass
communities/
mixed faunal
communities/
hard corals

Crinoids/
solitary/mixed
communities/
hard and softcoralsCoastalmargin(<25 m)

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

Inner shelf(25-100 m)

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

2

2

Outer shelf(100-200
m)

1

2

3

1

1

3

2

3

3

Upper
slope (200700 m)

1

2

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

Mid-slope(700-1,500
m)

1

2

3

1

2

3

3

3

3

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Natural disturbancePF7.4.4

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the natural disturbance that is assumed
to occur at the particular depth zone in which the habitat and fishing activity occurs (Table
PF13). ◙PF7.4.5

If information on disturbance is unavailable, the team shall use proxies as outlined inTable PF13. ◙PF7.4.6

The team shall record the “natural disturbance” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’. ◙Table PF13: Scoring natural disturbance (modified from Williams et al., 2011)
Attribute

Score
1

2

3

Natural disturbanceRegular or severe
natural disturbanceIrregular ormoderate natural
disturbanceNo natural
disturbanceNatural disturbance (inabsence of information)

Coastal margin andshallow inner shelf(<60 m)Deep inner shelf andouter shelf (60-200m)

Slope (>200 m)

PF7.4.7

The team shall use Table PF14 and Table PF15 to score the gear-habitat interaction
attributes. ◙PF7.4.7.1

If the UoA’s gear type is not provided in Table PF14 and Table PF15, the teamshall score the attributes using the most similar gear in terms of extent of bottom
contact that is provided.
a. The team shall be precautionary when determining the most similar gear type.
b. The team shall provide justification for the selection of the most similar gear
type.
c.

The team shall provide justification for the selection of the most similar gear
type.

Removability of biota
PF7.4.8

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the likelihood of attached biota being
removed or killed by interactions with fishing gear (Table PF14). ◙PF7.4.9

The team shall consider removability and mortality of structure-forming epibiota andbioturbating infauna.

PF7.4.10

The team shall record the “removability of biota” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Removability of substratum
PF7.4.11

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of clast (rock fragment or grain resulting
from the breakdown of larger rocks) size and likelihood of the substratum being moved(Table PF14).

PF7.4.12

The team shall consider the gear type being assessed.

PF7.4.13

The team shall record the “removability of substratum” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC
RBF Worksheets’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 89© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF14: Scoring the removability of biota and removability of substratum attributes(modified from Hobday et al., 20072)
Gear type

Removability of biota

Removability of substratumLow,robust,small (<5cm),
smooth, or
flexiblebiota
ORrobust,deepburrowing
biota

Erect,
medium(<30 cm),
moderately
rugose, orinflexible
biota
OR
moderately
robust,shallowburrowing
biota

Tall,
delicate,large (>30
cm high),rugose, orinflexible
biota
OR
delicate,shallowburrowing
biota

Immovable(bedrockandboulders >3
m)

<6 cm
(transferable)

6 cm - 3 m(removable)

Hand
collection

1

1

1

1

1

2

Demersal
longline

1

1

2

1

1

1

Handline

1

1

2

1

1

1

Trap

1

2

2

1

1

1

Bottom gillnet or otherentangling
net

1

2

3

1

1

1

Danish
seine

1

2

3

1

2

3

Demersal
trawl(including
pair, otter
twin-rig,
and otter
multi-rig)

1

3

3

1

3

3

Dredge

3

3

3

1

3

3

Substratum hardness
PF7.4.14

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of substrata composition (Table PF15).

PF7.4.15

The team shall consider the substrata identified via the SGB characterisation process(PF7.3 - CSA step 1).

2 Hobday, A. J., Smith, A., Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M.,

Dambacher, J., Fuller, M. and Walker, T.(2007). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing:methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 90© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF7.4.16

The team shall record the “substratum hardness” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Substratum ruggedness
PF7.4.17

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the extent to which available habitat is
actually accessible to mobile gear given the ruggedness of the substratum (Table PF15).

PF7.4.18

The team shall consider the characteristics of the substratum and the gear type being
used.

PF7.4.19

The team shall record the “substratum ruggedness” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC
RBF Worksheets’.

Seabed slope
PF7.4.20

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the impact to habitat that occurs as aresult of slope steepness and mobility of substrata once dislodged (Table PF15).

PF7.4.21

The team shall consider the degree of slope.

PF7.4.22

The team shall record the “seabed slope” score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Aggregate consequence score
PF7.4.23

The team shall determine the aggregate consequence score for each habitat by using the‘MSC RBF Worksheets’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 91© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF15: Scoring the substratum hardness, substratum ruggedness, and seabed slope attributes (modified from Hobday et al., 2007)
Gear type

Substratum hardness

Substratum ruggedness

Seabed slope

Hard (igneous,sedimentary,or heavily
consolidated
rock types)

Soft (lightly
consolidated,weathered,or biogenic)

Sediments(unconsolidated)

High relief(>1 m), highoutcrop, orruggedsurfacestructure(cracks,
crevices,overhangs,
largeboulders,rock walls)

Low relief(<1.0 m),roughsurfacestructure(rubble,smallboulders,rock edges),
subcrop, or
low outcrop

Flat, simple
surfacestructure(mounds,
undulations,ripples),current
rippled, wave
rippled, or
irregular

Low degree(<1):
Plains incoastalmargin,inner orouter shelfor midslope
OR
terraces in
mid-slopeORrockybanks/
fringing
reefs incoastalmargin,inner orouter shelf,
or upper or
mid-slopeMediumdegree (110):
Terraces inouter shelfor upperslope

High degree(>10):
Canyons inouter shelf,
or upper or
mid-slopeORseamounts/
bioherms incoastalmargin, innershelf, or
upper ormid-slope

Hand collection

1

2

3

3

3

1

1

2

3

Demersal
longline

1

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

Handline

1

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

Trap

1

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 92© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Gear type

Substratum hardness

Bottom gill net
or otherentangling net

1

2

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

Danish seine

1

2

3

1

1

3

1

2

3

Demersal trawl(including, pair,otter twin-rig,
and otter multirig)

1

2

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

Dredge

1

2

3

1

1

3

1

2

3

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Substratum ruggedness

Seabed slope

Page 93© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF7.5

CSA Step 3: Score the spatial attributes ◙Gear footprint
PF7.5.1

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the gear’s potential for disturbance andthe number of encounters required to produce an impact on a habitat (Table GPF10),
taking into account the size, weight, and mobility of individual gears and the footprint of thegears (Table PF16). ◙PF7.5.1.1

If the UoA’s gear does not fit into the encounter categories in Table GPF10, theteam shall provide justification for increasing or decreasing the default gearfootprint score.

PF7.5.2

The team shall apply PF7.4.7.1 and its subclauses here.

PF7.5.3

The team shall record the gear footprint score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Table PF16: Scoring the gear footprint attribute (modified from Hobday et al., 2007)
Gear typeGear footprint score

Hand collection

1

Handline

1

Trap

1

Demersal longline

2

Bottom gill net or other entangling net

2

Danish seine

2

Demersal trawl (including pair, otter twin-rig, and otter multi-rig)

3

Dredge3

Spatial overlap ◙PF7.5.4

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of spatial overlap between the habitat(s)distribution within the “managed area” (see PF7.3.1.1 and PF7.3.1.2) and the distributionof areas fished by the UoA (Table PF17). ◙PF7.5.5

The team shall record the spatial overlap score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Encounterability ◙PF7.5.6

The team shall score this attribute on the basis of the likelihood that a fishing gear willencounter the habitat within the “managed area” (see PF7.3.1.1 and PF7.3.1.2), taking
into account the nature and deployment of the fishing gear and the possibility of its
interaction with the habitat (Table PF17). ◙PF7.5.7

The team shall record the encounterability score for each habitat in the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Aggregate spatial scoreDocument: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 94© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF7.5.8

The team shall determine the aggregate spatial score by using the ‘MSC RBF
Worksheets’.

Table PF17: Scoring spatial attributes (modified from Williams et al., 2011)
Spatialattribute

Score
0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Spatial overlap

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is
≤15%

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is
≤30%

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is
≤45%

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is
≤60%

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is
≤75%

UoA
overlapwith ahabitat is>75%

Encounterability

Likelihoodofencounterability is≤15%

Likelihoodofencounterability is≤30%

Likelihoodofencounterability is≤45%

Likelihoodofencounterability is≤60%

Likelihoodofencounterability is≤75%

Likelihoodofencounterability is
>75%

PF7.6

CSA Step 4: Determine the CSA score and equivalent MSC score◙

PF7.6.1

The team shall use the ‘MSC RBF Worksheets’ to calculate the overall consequence andspatial scores, the CSA score and the MSC CSA-derived score for each scoring element(habitat).

PF7.6.2

The team shall convert the MSC CSA-derived score into a final MSC score for PI 2.4.1.

PF7.6.2.1

If there is only 1 scoring element (habitat), the team shall:a. Convert the MSC CSA-derived score for the single scoring element into thefinal MSC score.
b. Round the final MSC score to the nearest whole number (e.g. 87).
c.

PF7.6.2.2

Record the final MSC score in the Scoring Tables in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’.

If there is more than 1 scoring element and each scoring element has the same
MSC CSA-derived score, the team shall:a. Convert the MSC CSA-derived scores for the scoring elements into the final
MSC score (e.g. if they are all 64, the final MSC score is 64).
b. Round the final MSC score to the nearest whole number.
c.

PF7.6.2.3

Record the final MSC score in the Scoring Tables in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’.

If there is more than 1 scoring element and each scoring element has different
MSC CSA-derived scores, the team shall:a. Derive the final MSC score by applying the rules in Table PF18.
b. Assign the final MSC score in an increment of 5 (e.g. 60, 65, 70).
c.

PF7.6.3

Record the final MSC score in the Scoring Tables in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’.

If the MSC CSA-derived score of any scoring element is less than 60, the team shall failthe PI.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 95© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF18: Combining multiple scoring element scores
Score

Combination of individual scoring elements

None

Any scoring elements within a PI that fail to reach a score of 60 represent a failure
against the MSC Fisheries Standard and no score shall be assigned.

60

All elements have a score of 60 and only 60.

65

All elements score at least 60; a few achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80, but most do not reach 80.

70

All elements score at least 60; some achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80; but some fail to achieve 80 and require intervention action.

75

All elements score at least 60; most achieve higher scores, approaching or
exceeding 80; only a few fail to achieve 80 and require intervention action.

80

All elements score 80.

85

All elements score at least 80; a few achieve higher scores, but most do not
approach 100.

90

All elements score at least 80; some achieve higher scores approaching 100, butsome do not.

95

All elements score at least 80; most achieve higher scores approaching 100; only
a few fail to score at or very close to 100.

100

All elements score 100.

PF7.6.4

If no additional information exists to score the PI, the team shall apply the MSC CSAderived score directly to the PI within the ‘MSC Reporting Template’ and provide ajustification.

PF7.6.4.1

If there is additional information regarding the attribute(s) that justifies modifying
the MSC CSA-derived score either upwards or downwards by a maximum of 10
points, the team shall use this information to reach the final MSC score for the PI.
◙
a. The team shall use all information that is available on the UoA to inform theassessment.
b. The team shall provide the justification for any score modification.

PF7.6.5

If the team has only considered “main” habitats in its CSA analysis (as per PF7.1.4), theteam shall not assign a final MSC score to the PI greater than 95, reflecting the fact that
only the “main” habitats were assessed.

PF7.7

Setting conditions using the CSA

PF7.7.1

If any scoring element score is less than 80, the team shall set a condition on the PI. ◙PF7.7.1.1

If a condition is set on a PI that was scored using the CSA, the team shall makesure that the proposed Client Action Plan meets the following criteria:a. Is capable of raising the score to 80.
b. Addresses all the scoring elements for which the score was below 80.
c.

Does not cause additional associated problems.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 96© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF8

Conducting a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

PF8.1

Preparation ◙PF8.1.1

The team shall conduct a SICA for each data-deficient scoring element identified within PI
2.5.1.

PF8.2

Stakeholder involvement within the SICA

PF8.2.1

The team shall use input from stakeholders to:a. Assist in the identification of ecosystems that are affected by the UoA.
b. Provide information suitable for the qualitative evaluation of the risks that the fishingactivity poses to the ecosystem.
c.

Assist in scoring the spatial and temporal scales and the intensity of the fishingactivity.

d. Assist in scoring the consequence for the ecosystem.

PF8.3

SICA Step 1: Prepare SICA scoring template for each datadeficient scoring element

PF8.3.1

The team shall document scores and justifications in the SICA scoring template (Table
PF19), in the ‘MSC Reporting Template’.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 97© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF19: SICA scoring template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem
Performance Indicator
PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome

Fishery name and UoA

Spatial scaleof fishingactivity

Temporal scaleof fishingactivity

Intensity offishing activity

Relevant
subcomponents

Consequence score

Species composition
Functional groupcomposition
Distribution of thecommunity
Trophic size/structure

Justification for spatial scale of fishingactivity

Justification for temporal scale of fishingactivity

Justification for intensity of fishingactivity

Justification for consequence scoreDocument: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 98© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

PF8.4

SICA Step 2: Score spatial scale

PF8.4.1

The team shall work with stakeholders to assign a spatial scale score.

PF8.4.2

The team shall use the greatest spatial extent to determine the spatial scale score for theoverlap of the ecosystem with the fishing activity (Table PF20). ◙PF8.4.2.1
PF8.4.3

The team shall only take into account the overlap of the ecosystem with thefishing activity of the UoA.

The team shall record the score for each component and the justification in the SICA
scoring template (Table PF19).

Table PF20: SICA spatial scale scores
<1%

1-15%

16-30%

31-45%

46-60%

>60%

1

2

3

4

5

6

PF8.5

SICA Step 3: Score temporal scale

PF8.5.1

The team shall work with stakeholders to assign a temporal scale score.

PF8.5.2

The team shall use the highest temporal frequency to determine the temporal scale score
for the overlap of the ecosystem with the fishing activity (Table PF21). ◙PF8.5.2.1
PF8.5.3

The team shall only take into account the number of the days of the fishing activityof the UoA.

The team shall record the score for each component and the justification in the SICA
scoring template (Table PF19).

Table PF21: SICA temporal scale score
1 day every 10
years or so

1 day every
few years

1-100 days
per year

101-200 days
per year

201-300 days
per year301-365 days
per year

1

2

3

4

5

6

PF8.6

SICA Step 4: Score the intensity

PF8.6.1

The team shall work with stakeholders to assign a score for intensity. ◙PF8.6.1.1

The team shall base the score for the intensity of the activity on the spatial andtemporal scale of the activity, its nature and extent.

PF8.6.1.2

The team shall take into account the direct impacts of the fishing activity to theecosystem under evaluation (Table PF22). ◙PF8.6.2

The team shall record the score for each component and the justification in the SICA
scoring template (Table PF19).

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF22: SICA intensity scores
Level

Score

Description

Negligible

1

Remote likelihood of detection of fishing activity at any spatial or
temporal scale.

Minor

2

Activity occurs rarely or in few restricted locations and detectability offishing activity even at these scales is rare.

Moderate

3

Moderate detectability of fishing activity at broader spatial scale, or
obvious but local detectability.

Major

4

Detectable evidence of fishing activity occurs reasonably often atbroad spatial scale.

Severe5

Occasional but very obvious detectability or widespread and frequentevidence of fishing activity.

Catastrophic

6

Local to regional evidence of fishing activity or continual andwidespread detectability.

PF8.7

SICA Step 5: Identify the most vulnerable subcomponent of theecosystem and score the consequence of the activity on thesubcomponent

PF8.7.1

The team shall work with stakeholders to select the subcomponent on which the fishingactivity is having the most impact. ◙PF8.7.2

When choosing which subcomponent to score, the team shall recognise that different
subcomponents may be proxies for measuring the same effect but are easier to observeand score on a qualitative basis.

PF8.7.3

The team shall score the consequence of the activity shall be scored using the SICA
consequence Table PF23.

PF8.7.4

The team shall base the consequence score on information provided by all stakeholders
and the team’s expert judgement.

PF8.7.4.1

The team shall use the scale and intensity scores. ◙PF8.7.4.2

If there is no agreement between stakeholders, the team shall use theconsequence category with the lowest score (60, 80 or 100).

PF8.7.4.3

If there is limited or no information, the team shall consider the consequence risk
as high and assign a score of 60.

PF8.7.5

The team shall record the consequence score as fail if the UoA does not meet theperformance levels in consequence category 60.

PF8.7.6

When assessing “changes” to subcomponents, the team shall only consider changes due
to fishing activities.

PF8.7.7

The team shall record the consequence score and justification in the SICA scoring
template (Table PF19).

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 100© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table PF23: SICA consequence score
Consequence category
Subcomponent

Fail

60

80

100

Speciescomposition

Consequenceis higher risk
than 60 level.

Detectablechanges to thecommunity species
composition
without a majorchange in function(no loss offunction). Changes
to species
composition up to
10%. Time torecover from
impact on the scaleof several to 20
years.

Impacted species
do not play a
keystone role(including trophic
cascade impact) –only minor changes
in relative
abundance of otherconstituents.
Changes of
speciescomposition up to
5%. Time torecover from
impact up to 5
years.

Interactions may beoccurring that
affect the internal
dynamics ofcommunities,
leading to change
in species
composition notdetectable against
natural variation.

Functional
group
composition

Changes in relative
abundance ofcommunity
constituents up to
10% chance offlipping to analternate state/trophic cascade.

Minor changes inrelative abundanceof community
constituents up to
5%.

Interactions that
affect the internal
dynamics ofcommunities
leading to change
in functional groupcomposition notdetectable against
natural variation.

Distribution of
the community

Detectable change
in geographic
range ofcommunities withsome impact oncommunity
dynamics. Change
in geographic
range up to 10% of
original. Time torecover from
impact on the scaleof several to twenty
years.

Possible detectablechange ingeographic rangeof communities but
minimal impact oncommunity
dynamics change
in geographic
range up to 5% oforiginal.

Interactions that
affect the
distribution ofcommunities
unlikely to be
detectable against
natural variation.

Trophic/size
structure

Changes in mean
trophic level andbiomass/number ineach size class up
to 10%. Time torecover from
impact on the scaleof several to 20
years.

Change in mean
trophic level andbiomass/number ineach size class up
to 5%.

Changes that affectthe internal
dynamics unlikely
to be detectableagainst naturalvariation.

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 101© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PF8.8

Scoring PI 2.5.1 using the RBF

PF8.8.1

The team shall use the SICA score to determine the final score for PI 2.4.1.

PF8.8.2

The team shall consider whether there is additional information to score the PI.

PF8.8.2.1

If there is no additional information, the team shall apply the converted score
directly to the PI with the accompanying scoring template and a rationale provided
as justification.

PF8.8.2.2

If there is additional information that justifies modifying the MSC score either
upwards or downwards by a maximum of 10 points, the team shall use thisinformation to reach the final MSC score for the PI. ◙PF8.8.2.3

The team shall use all information that is available on the UoA to inform theassessment.

PF8.8.2.4

The team shall provide the justification for any score modification.

PF8.8.2.5

The team shall record all changes to the score and rationale for the changes.

PF8.8.3

The team shall record the final PI score in the SICA table in the ‘MSC Reporting
Template’.

PF8.9

Setting conditions using the RBF (PI 2.5.1)

PF8.9.1

If any score is less than 80, the team shall set a condition on that PI.

PF8.9.1.1

If a condition is set for a PI that was scored using the SICA, the team shall makesure that the Client Action Plan proposed by the fishery client is capable of raising
the score to 80.

PF8.9.1.2

The team shall only apply the RBF to the UoA in subsequent MSC assessments if
the score is 80 or above at the point of entering reassessment.
End of Annex PF

End of Fisheries Certification Process

Document: MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 102© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Certification Process

Version 2.3, 26 October 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 changes to process related to therelease of v3.0 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, removal of the RiskBased Framework, harmonisation, stakeholder input, andtraceability.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Introduction to this document
The Guidance to the MSC Fisheries Certification Process (GFCP) is provided help conformity
assessment bodies (CABs) interpret the Fisheries Certification Process (FCP). The GFCP is
maintained as a separate document.
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 Fisheries Certification Process
The guidance in the GFCP is not directly auditable.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table of contents
The MSC Fisheries Certification Process ................................................................. 10
MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process ................................................ 6
Guidance to implementation timeframes ▲ ............................................................................... 6

G4

General requirements ...................................................................................... 7

G7

Process requirements ▲ ............................................................................... 10

Annex GPA

Inseparable and practicably inseparable fisheries (IPI) – Guidance .. 51

Annex GPB

Harmonisation of overlapping UoAs – Guidance ............................... 52

GPB1 Background ▲ ............................................................................................................... 52

Annex GPC Fishery team leader, team member, team and peer reviewer
qualifications and competencies – guidance ................................................. 55
Annex GPD

Scope extensions ▲ ......................................................................... 57

GPD1.2........................................................................................................Assessment process
57

Annex GPE

Transition assessments - guidance ................................................... 58

Annex GPF

Risk-Based Framework – guidance................................................... 59

GPF1 Introduction to the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ▲ .................................................... 59
GPF2 Stakeholder involvement in RBF ................................................................................... 63
GPF3 Conducting a Consequence Analysis (CA) ................................................................... 65
GPF4 Conducting a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) .............................................. 70
GPF5 Scoring the UoA using the RBF for species Performance Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1,
2.2.1 and 2.3.1) ................................................................................................................................. 80
GPF6 Setting conditions using the RBF for species Performance Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1,
2.2.1 and 2.3.1) ................................................................................................................................. 80
GPF7 Conducting the Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) ▲ ............................................. 81
GPF8 Conducting a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) ....................................... 86

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process
Guidance to implementation timeframes ▲The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) does not expect the Conformity Assessment Body
(CAB) to change between versions of the MCS Fisheries Certification Process (FCP) during
any assessment or audit process.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 6© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G4

General requirements
Consultation requirements ▲G4.2

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, andwhy 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.

G4.2.2

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:
1. Organisations or individuals who can provide information that is relevant to the assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 7© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 potentiallyaffected 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 havea good 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 consideredwhen planning stakeholder consultation. To ensure the client does not withhold information,either intentionally or unintentionally, 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 thefishery.

o

The risk of objections if stakeholders are not provided with adequate opportunity tocomment 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 asimilar one, or in 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 8© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G4.2.3

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.

•

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 formatters relating to the fishery assessment or audit.

•

If an individual representing an organisation has been contacted, that the individual is themost appropriate 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 thatto engage with the assessment, they must provide comments on the Announcement Comment Draft
Report or attend the site visit.

G4.2.4–5

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.

G4.2.9Registering 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 added, and all stakeholders should be contacted again andoffered 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 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 on the MSC Track a Fishery website.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 themselves.

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 UoA could failassessment.

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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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)ABC Certification Ltd

Reportingperiod(year
ending 31
March)

Fishery

SpeciesStock(location)

Geartype(s)Client(organisation
name)

2012

Brown trout(Salmo.
trutta)Deep Lake, Gill net
Scotland2012

Herring(Clupeaharengus)

Irish Sea

Gill netFishery evaluation at timeof pre-assessment

Actions since pre-assessment

Fishery
scale

Status(1, 2
or 3)

Status(1, 2, 3,
4 or 5)

Notes

BT Fishing Ltd

Small
scale

3

1

Now in preparation for
submission ofannouncement
documents

New FishingLtd

Semiindustrial23Working on researchplan, expect to enter
full assessment whencomplete

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 offirst reporting, or where the status has since changed
2011

Lobster(Homarus
gammarus)

Isle ofSkye, UK

Pot

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
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 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Client Document Checklist ▲G7.3

The intent of the 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 ▲Background
This section contains a series of actions required to be undertaken prior to the CAB confirming thescope of the assessment. These actions include:•

Ensuring that the UoA is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard.

•

Reviewing pre-assessment reports and other information.

•

Confirming the proposed units of assessment and certification.

•

Determining whether the UoA has previously failed an assessment.

•

Determining whether the certificate may be shared with fishers not initially part of the clientgroup.

•

Determining whether inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) stock(s) are caught.

•

Determining whether the UoA is an enhanced fishery.

•

Determining whether the UoA overlaps with another MSC certified or applicant UoAs.

•

Determining whether the UoA is based on an introduced species.

•

Determining eligibility of fishery applicants and certificate holders with respect to the MSC
Labour Eligibility Requirements.

Once this process is completed based on the above criteria the scope of the assessment isconfirmed.
Actions associated with this analysis are generally focused on information gathering and preparatory
steps required before the team can be formed, the assessment tree can be confirmed and theassessment and scoring of the UoA can be undertaken. It is designed to provide robust andconsistent assessments and maintain the integrity of the MSC Program.

G7.4.7

Process of removing a vessel from an MSC certified UoA ▲Figure G1 outlines the process for the CAB to follow if the client or client groups informs the CAB thata vessel has been removed in relation to 7.4.8.5. Examples the figure gives 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 7.4.8.5, 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 shark finning offence.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 7.4.8.5.

G7.4.8.5

Conviction for shark finning ▲To confirm scope, a CAB should check with relevant management authorities and compile any otherrelevant data to confirm that no conviction which confirms guilt with respect to a violation of sharkfinning law has occurred in the last 2 years.
The intent of this requirement is that it should apply to specific vessels or groups of vessels as defined
under 7.24.7.1, which are implicated in the conviction with the legal entities (e.g. individuals orcompanies that have been convicted for shark finning offences).

G7.4.8.6

Controversy – disputes ▲As part of Principle 3 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, the UoA is required to incorporate an
appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system. It is worth noting that
outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normallydisqualify a UoA from certification. However, the existence of controversies or disputes are ofthemselves not enough to stop a UoA from being eligible for certification. The existence of lawsuits
are not considered a barrier to certification, otherwise parties opposed to certification could simply

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

lodge lawsuits to prevent an outcome they did not support. The judgement should be whether adispute compromises the ability of the management system to provide sustainable management.
Note that a UoA could pass the 3 points in 7.4.8.6.a with stakeholders having used the mechanism forresolving disputes but remaining unsatisfied with the outcome.

G7.4.8.7

Enhanced fisheries ▲The MSC’s primary focus is on ensuring the long-term viability of global fish populations and thehealth of the aquatic ecosystems upon which they depend. The MSC has included some methods offishery enhancement within the MSC Program but has specifically excluded aquaculture. The MSC’s
intent is to enable certain defined types of enhanced fisheries to be eligible for certification against the
MSC Fisheries Standard while maintaining this focus.
Given the wide range of types of enhanced fishery that may seek to enter the MSC Program, theMSC recognise that existing certification requirements and guidance may require modification for theassessment of enhanced fisheries, through the development of additional (or modification of existing)
Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts.

Categories of enhanced fisheries
Table 1 defines the criteria by which enhanced fisheries may be identified as being within the scope ofthe MSC Program. The categories of potential within-scope enhanced fisheries are as follows:•

Hatch and catch (HAC): This production system may be considered within scope in certain
circumstances, reflecting the established case history and precedent set by the hatcherystocked salmon fisheries. For these types of fishery, more intensive culture activities may beallowed as long as they only apply to a brief period within the species’ life cycle.

•

Catch and grow (CAG): This production system’s grow-out and holding systems may beconsidered within scope under certain conditions. CAG has some features of intensive
aquaculture – requiring routine inputs, such as feed, chemical or medicinal treatments – thatare outside of scope. CAG systems that only require limited enhancement (e.g. rope cultureof bivalves) may be considered within scope for the entirety of their operation.

•

Habitat-modified: This production system involves the modification to habitat, such as
salmon fry farms located next to river systems.

A single UoA may display several of the features of CAG, HAC or habitat-modified fisheries. In theapplication of MSC requirements, it is intended that any overlap between categories should not
become complicating factors in determining whether a given UoA is within or outside scope.
Distinctions are drawn in some cases between applications of the criteria to these different categories.
For enhanced fisheries, only the part of the catch that is clearly landed during the catching operation(e.g. permanently removed from the water by the fishery) would be eligible to enter into MSC certified
chains of custody. The part of the catch that is clearly landed would be subject to the normal chain ofcustody and fishery traceability requirements. Operations in which no part of the catch is clearly
landed are considered inseparable from any subsequent ‘grow-out’ phase and the scope criteria forenhanced fisheries apply to the operation in its entirety.
The MSC requirements allow for enhanced fisheries that are interested in initiating an MSC
assessment to commence the process prior to the completion of further MSC requirements andguidance since:•

Some enhanced fisheries may be able to proceed with assessment against the existing
default tree.

•

Other enhanced fisheries may be considered in scope but require additional guidance and/or
Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts to be scored.

•

The performance assessment issues that would be expected to be covered by thesemodifications for each category of enhanced fishery are outlined below.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Scope criteria A: Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock
Given the MSC focus on the sustainability of global wild fish stocks, the concept of ‘wildness’ plays acentral role in scoping enhanced fisheries.
The UoA should incorporate some element of harvest of a wild population and should be managed sothat the natural productivity and genetic biodiversity of that population is not undermined with respect
to any impacts on long-term sustainability.
Linkages to wild stocks may exist either in HAC systems where marine species are raised to a larval
or juvenile stage in captivity and then released into and harvested from a wild stock or CAG systems
where species are harvested as juveniles or young adults from the wild and then raised in captivity
until they are sold on to the market.

Scope criteria B: Feeding and husbandry
The criteria included in this group emphasise the main focus of the MSC on harvest of wild species.
Production systems that show characteristics more consistent with closed and/or intensive
aquaculture are out of scope.
Feeding is a fundamental requirement in most intensive aquaculture systems and thus provides aclear means for distinguishing between wild- and farmed-production systems. The framing of thescope criteria distinguishes between the use of feeding for a short initial period in HAC fisheries (e.g.
stocked salmon fisheries) and the intent to exclude those CAG fisheries where feed inputs are used toachieve the greater part of the weight gain of the fish over their life cycle. Other CAG operations that
rely on natural sources of feed (e.g. mussels and other bivalves) are thus considered potentially within
scope against this criterion.
Criterion Bi allows for the certification of fish that are fed in captivity only for the purpose ofmaintaining condition once caught, as commonly practised in holding facilities for crustaceans prior tosale.
The application of criterion Bii specifically to CAG operations recognises that disease prevention andother measures to maximise survival may be routinely used in some HAC fisheries. Such practices
are allowed within these systems to reflect the limitations on potential environmental impacts imposedby the short duration of the captive-growth phase. Such impacts shall however be included in the
Principle 2 assessment in this type of UoA.

Scope criteria C: Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Habitat modifications in enhanced fisheries can include both physical changes to the sea bed or rivercourse and the use of a range of man-made structures associated with the rearing or capture of fishthat are not strictly ‘fishing gear’. In the first case, modifications can range from the construction of
simple ponds in intertidal areas or river floodplains through to watercourse management measures
aimed at improving spawning habitats. Examples of the second case are fish attracting and/or
aggregating devices (e.g. FADs), lobster casitas and mussel culture ropes (in CAG systems). Such
artificial habitat modifications either enhance the productivity of the fishery or facilitate the capture or
production of commercial marine species.

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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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
number of vessels within the same fishery would form the UoC.
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 this means it will include other eligible fishers. Such other eligible fishers exist incases where a client enters assessment with the aim of initially certifying only part of a fishery (e.g.
vessels owned by a single entity), but also wishes to have the possibility of expanding the UoC laterby the mechanism of certificate sharing.
If the number of fishers within the UoA is greater than the number within the UoC then 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 thediversity 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 scope of theassessment 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, simpler tracking in the Chain of Custody, etc.) may outweigh the possible risk that the failureof one element could result in the failure of the whole UoA.

G7.5.2.b and G7.5.3.b Defining 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
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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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, a UoA where
the gear type is purse seine it may be used in multiple ways, such as setting on a FAD or on a freeschool 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 quota 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 client group or is 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
chains of custody, 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 management.3
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 theassessment and the impact of management measures do not differ significantly from what they would
be in the case of a truly independent stock.4
In some cases, stocks may be structured as “metapopulations” – systems in which local populations(= sub-populations) inhabit discrete habitat patches, and inter-patch dispersal enables both
demographic connectivity and independence of local population (LP) dynamics5.
In these cases, the team should consider the connectivity between components of the metapopulationthat defines the underlying source-sink dynamics, and thereby clearly define the actual unit stock thatis to be assessed against Principle 1.
3 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. 84p
4 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: 223p.
5 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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, whether these are believed to be sources or sinks,
the relationship among subpopulations and how management avoids over-exploitation withinboth the selected local populations and more broadly in the whole metapopulation.

Table G2 describes 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 (caseA), 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 awider metapopulation, for example, need not have harmonised outcomes.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 a point of recruitment impairment (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 a 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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Stockstructure

Description(degree of connectivity andself-recruitment)

Implications for management of the stock(assessment of Outcome and Harvest Strategy)

Information and uncertainties related to stock
structure need to be scored in PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3 and1.2.4.
D.
Local
populations
withmaximum
connectivity
within themetapopulation

G7.5.4

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 a PRI to ensure that recruitment issustained. Special attention may be needed in settingreference points to ensure that the LP structure is notaffected 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.

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 nor 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 UoA ▲This is a description of the geographical area within which the UoA 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 7.5.9 (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).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G7.5.7

Changes 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.

G7.5.8

Withdrawing 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.

G7.5.9

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 to them, in order to be eligible to sell product as MSC
certified. The CAB will consider the risks which 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 to sell on this catch rather than discard it). Other risks of substitution may occur between
point of harvest and 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 auctions.

G7.5.9.1

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.

G7.5.10

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, to allow 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 theclient group, 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:•

Direct costs paid to a CAB.

•

Direct costs that the client incurs in managing or facilitating the assessment.

•

Cost of the client’s time spent managing/facilitating the assessment process.

•

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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

The number of vessels (or operators) or processing or marketing entities seeking entry as aproportion of those documented as originally included in the UoC, or•

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, or•

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.

G7.5.11

Inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) 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
to bring 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
Fisheries Certification Process. The requirements on IPI stock(s) vary based on the percentage in thecatch:•

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
determination of status under Principle 2, although the IPI stock is effectively held to the samerequirement 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 Performance
Indicators (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 choose a different length of the time series, but a rationale should be provided in allcases for the method chosen. Species characteristics may include life history (e.g. longevity
or generation time), time scales of production variability (e.g. decadal-scale vs. shorter timeframes), and regulatory periods that affect spatial distribution of the fishing activity. There
should be a good understanding of the long-term average catch composition of IPI species.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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:•

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 Annex 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.
Performance Indicators (PIs) may need to be developed to determine the extent of movement within arange that can be considered to have acceptably low risks. Related performance assessment will
require the identification 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 both genetic
and other 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 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, systems, etc. within ageographical region must be considered.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.
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.

G7.7.3Use of the risk-based methods for a data-deficient UoA ▲The CAB should not use the RBF to score a PI unless the answer to any of the questions in Table 3 is“no”. Where it is not yet clear whether a scoring element under either Principle 1 or Principle 2 meetsthe criteria in Table 3, the CAB should announce the use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) to
stakeholders and plan the site visit assuming that an RBF assessment will be needed. See also
GPF2.1.
For fish species, the CAB should treat stock status reference points as biologically based limits whenusing Table 3 to determine whether scoring elements are data-deficient.

G7.7.3.3 Data-deficient scoring elements ▲The CAB should have a list of scoring elements within the UoA when making the decision on whether
a PI is data-deficient or not. If a full list of scoring elements is not be known and/or may change
following the site visit, the CAB should take this into account when making the decision as to whether
the PI is data-deficient or not.
See Annex PF for more information on use of the RBF.

G7.7.3.4 Uncertainties in stock definition ▲In Table 3, analytical stock assessments are based on mathematical models that use defined
theoretical biological underpinnings to develop reference points.
Empirical approaches use indicator data and make logical inferences about more technical reference
points without drawing on mathematical model-based techniques.
Stock uncertainties are scored instead in the information or stock assessment PIs (1.2.3 or 1.2.4).

G7.8

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 Client Document Checklist, but additional resources thatare readily available can also be used. For an initial assessment, information available in preassessments 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 ‘Client Document Checklist’ stage, the proposed point of change of ownership of product to any
party not covered by the fishery certificate, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody(CoC) certification is proposed. The full review of risks and mitigation, determination on eligibility of
product, and additional description of traceability is completed after, and informed by, the site visit as
per 7.17.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 at 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.

•

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.

Peer Review College ▲G7.12

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
undergoing assessment.

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 accordancewith the procedures outlined in the FCP.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 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.

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 to adequately 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 Annex PF and its guidance. .

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 discussion often cannot be completed until after the team has dispersed, when virtualinteractions may be needed (e.g. by teleconference and exchange of emails).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G7.15.5.1

Smaller scoring intervals ▲Scores may need to be assigned in intervals smaller than 5 when considering the complexity
generated by multiple scoring issues 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 terms below should be used:•

Few: Most of the scoring issues should be taken to indicate “minority: majority” or “less thanhalf: greater than half” (e.g. if there were 3 or 4 scoring issues, the ratios “1:2” and “1:3” would
be represented by the terms “few: most”).

•

Some: “Some” should be taken to indicate a roughly equal split of scoring issues.

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’.
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

Management
0.667

2

Primary
species
0.2
Secondaryspecies
0.2
ETP species
0.2
Habitats
species0.2
Ecosystem

Stock Rebuilding

EITHER
0
OR

0.167
0

1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1

Harvest Strategy
Harvest Control Rules & Tools
Information & Monitoring
Assessment of Stock Status
OutcomeManagement
Information
Outcome

0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333

2.2.2

Management

0.333

0.067

2.2.3

Information

0.333

0.067

2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4.1

OutcomeManagement
Information
Outcome

0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333

0.067
0.067
0.067
0.067

2.4.2

Management

0.333

0.067

2.4.3

Information

0.333

0.067

2.5.1

Outcome

0.333

0.067

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.067

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

3

0.2

2.5.2
2.5.3

Management
Information

0.333
0.333

0.067
0.067

Governance andPolicy
0.5

3.1.1
3.1.2

Legal/Customary Framework
Consultation, Roles &Responsibilities
Long Term Objectives
Fishery Specific Objectives

0.333
0.333

0.167
0.167

0.333
0.25

0.167
0.125

Decision Making processes
Compliance & Enforcement
Management Performance
Evaluation

0.25
0.25
0.25

0.125
0.125
0.125

Fishery-specificmanagement
system
0.5

3.1.3
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4

Weighting to be applied in enhanced salmon fisheries ▲Default weighting is applied in the MSC scoring spreadsheet, adjusted as appropriate for the
additional PIs in salmon fisheries.

G7.15.9.1

Scoring rationale ▲Rationale for all scores is required to be explicitly documented in the report’s text.
Example: Rationale for a score of 75 in Principle 2 (Primary 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 primary species.
•

For 3 of them, catch by weight of that species is less than 5% of the UoA’s total catch sothey would not be considered ‘main’. For these species, there is a management strategy inplace that:oIs primarily designed for the fisheries that target these 3 species.

o

Recognises limit reference points that are based on sensible assumptions about thestock.

Although there is evidence that this strategy works in similar fisheries, it has not been fully
tested in this UoA, nor is there evidence yet that the UoA is achieving its objective to maintainthese species at or around BMSY. None of the species is a shark so the shark finning scoring
issue is not scored. All 3 species are landed and sold so the unwanted scoring issue is not
triggered. As none of the species are ‘main’:oThey all meet the SG80 requirements.

oThey meet the SG100 requirements for strategy.

oThey do not meet the 2 scoring issues on management strategy evaluation andimplementation.

These 3 species would each score 85.
•

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 as well as to its major target fishery that are effectively
monitored and enforced.

o

Is landed and sold so the unwanted scoring issue is not triggered.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

This species meets the SG100 requirements.
•

The fifth species is a deepwater species that is:oManaged using reference points and robust harvest control rules.

oWell above its point of recruitment impairment.

o

Not utilised, and most of the catch is thrown back with a high mortality rate.

o

Not a shark species.

The UoA has reviewed current measures to minimise capture of this species as well as othermeasures. A cost-effective and practical measure was identified, but it has not yet been
implemented. This species meets all of the SG60 requirements and all but 1 of the SG80
requirements so would score 75.
Based on the Scoring Guideposts, in the above scenario, 3 of the species achieve a score of 85, 1
achieves a score 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 so using this table, the appropriate overall PI score
would be 75. This is because as stated in 7.15.10.b, if any single scoring element fails to meet the
SG80 level, the overall score for that element shall be less than 80 so that 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 rationale 1
Species

SG level

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E

Met?

Minor 1
Minor 2
Minor 3

60

80

A
B
C
D
E

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

100

A
B
C
D
E

Y
N
N
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Overall
score
85
85
85

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table G5: Example scoring rationale 2
Species

SG level

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E

Met?

Hake

60

80

A
B
C
D
E

Y
Y
Y
n/a
n/a

100

A
B
C
D
E

Y
Y
Y
n/a
n/a

Y
Y
Y
n/a
n/a

Overallscore
100

Table G6: Example scoring rationale 3
Species

SG level

Scoring
issue
A
B
C
D
E

Met?

Deepwater

60

80

A
B
C
D
E

Y
Y
Y
n/a
N

100

A
B
C
D
E

Y
Y
Y
n/a
N

Y
Y
Y
n/a
n/a

Overallscore
75

Table G7: Example overall scoring rationale
Species

Score

Minor 1

85

Minor 285

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Minor 3

85

Hake

100

Deepwater

75

OVERALL PI

75

G7.15.10

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 “lessthan half: greater than half” (e.g. if there were 6 scoring elements, the ratios “1:5” and “2:4”
would both be represented by the terms “few: most”).

•

Some: “Some” should be taken to indicate a roughly equal split of scoring elements.

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 of75, 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, suggestinga score of 70, it may be appropriate to reflect the very high performance of some of theelements with an upwards adjustment to 75.

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, theteam should assume that the SG80 level is met by default, such that the scores are simply
based on how many of the scoring issues that apply to ‘minor’ (or all) species/habitats are
met at the SG100 level.

Setting conditions ▲G7.16
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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

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 Performance Indicator Scoring
Guidepost and draw upon relevant text in the MSC Fisheries Standard Annex SA clauses andguidance. The CAB should not simply repeat the SG80 Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost.

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.

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. MSC may request the traceability records for a product traceback or aninvestigation into an MSC supply chain.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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
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 VMS or logbooks) help toensure 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 stockThis 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 thisunitThis 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 transhipped alongside certified catches. This

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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.

Determination of eligibility date ▲G7.18
Background

The MSC 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 to promoteconsistency 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
the fishery 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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 potentially change (e.g. due to some regions or fishing gears being
omitted at a late 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 Reportdate.
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

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. The CAB
would be able to include a response to any peer reviewer follow-up comments made on the Public
Comment Draft Report in the Final 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 (MSC Fisheries Standard and/or FCP), and any MSC
interpretations or derogations, as appropriate.
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 their own corrective actions and deal with a condition in their 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

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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G7.21

Determination ▲The CAB should also refer to Section 4.6 of the MSC General Certification Requirements (GCR) andISO 17065.
The determination is a recommendation the team makes to the CAB’s decision-making entity.

G7.22

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.
Figure G2 illustrates the stages in the assessment process where stakeholders may provide input andthe CAB should respond.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Figure G2: Stakeholder input opportunities and CAB response during the MSC fishery assessment
process.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G7.24

Public Certification Report ▲G7.24.7.1

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, the CAB should be clear in the Fishery Certificate Statement thatfish 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
the exclusion of non-client group members, a list of named companies needs to beprovided 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 which 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 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 Chain of Custody. This is copiedfrom the fishery assessment 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 certification decision-making
entity requirements of the GCR and ISO 17065.

G7.26

UoA(s) that fail or withdraw from assessment ▲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 scores changes
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

which result in the UoA passing after the Client and Peer Review Draft Report 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.

Extension of scope of fishery certificate (scope extensions) ▲G7.27
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 9 assessment “components”, as listed below:•

Principle 1 – Target species outcome (status); target species management.

•

Principle 2 – Primary species; secondary species; ETP 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 species. If so, ETP PIs would
have to be re-scored in the scope extension assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table G8: Gap analysis table for assessment components
Component

UoA – Fishery 1 (identify the unitthat is assessed for eachcomponent)

Principle 1 –OutcomeTarget species stock +Management of target species stock

Principle 1 –Harveststrategy

Target species stock +Management of target species stock

Principle 2 –Primary
speciesSpecies normally retained by client
gear type in client geographical area

Principle 2 –Secondaryspecies

Unintended bycatch of client gear typein client geographical area

Principle 2 –ETPETP species bycatch of client gear typein 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 –Fishery
Specificmanagement
systemLocal management framework +Client specific management

G7.27.7

UoA – Fishery 2(provide justification to confirm
whether the unit proposed forextension is the same as the unitthat was assessed in the certified
fishery)

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 ▲Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 ▲G7.29.2

Surveillance levels ▲Table G9: All possible combinations of surveillance level
Surveillance
level

Years after certification or recertification
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3

Level 6
Default
surveillanceOn-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit

Level 5
(3 on-site, 1
off-site)

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

Off-sitesurveillanceaudit

On-sitesurveillance
audit

Level 3(3 on-site, 1
off-site)

Off-site

Off-site

Off-site

Level 2
1 Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

On-site / Offsite

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

Level 4(2 on-site, 2
off-site)

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Year 4On-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

Number of auditors
InitialSubcertificasequenttion
certificaperiodtionperiod(s)21 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 22

1 or 2

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Level 1Minimum
surveillance
2 review of
information

Review of
information

On-site /Off-site

On-site /Off-site

On-site /Off-site

Review of
information

Review 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

On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification
On-sitesurveillance
audit & recertification2

1 or 22

1 or 22

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. Fisheries will be at different points on the spectrum from avery 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 withthe fishery 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)
Electronic forms ofcommunication and othermechanisms to engage withclients and stakeholders (suchas video conferencing, phone
conferencing, 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 reports, which are required forthe surveillance and todemonstrate UoA performancein relation to any relevant
conditions and on-going
performance against the MSC
Fisheries Standard, are notavailable publicly and cannot betransmitted electronically. Thereis no remote access to theinformation and there are no or

Ability to verify remotely ishigh(higher)
There are ample opportunities
and mechanisms to engage withclients and stakeholders
including electronic forms ofcommunication, such asvideoconferencing, phone
conferencing, 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 madeDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Information
appropriate todeterminationof Principle 1
and Principle 2
information
requirements(see Guidance
to the MSC
Fisheries
Standard)
Transparencyof themanagement
systemVessels, gearor other
physical
aspect of the
UoA

Ability to verify remotely is
low
(low)
very limited other sources
available to triangulate andconfirm status of the UoA withrespect to the MSC Fisheries
Standard.
Information 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.

Level of transparency of
information by management is
low such that information about
the performance of the UoA is
generally not easily nor widely
available.

There are milestones andconditions that require
inspection of vessels or otherphysical aspects of the UoA
during the audit and there are
no reliable mechanisms forverifying these aspects of thefishery from a remote location.

Ability to verify remotely ishigh(higher)
publicly available to several
stakeholders. The reports canbe transmitted electronically,and veracity easily confirmed.

CABevaluation(high)

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.
There is a high level oftransparency in management,such that information on the
UoA is widely and publicly
available or known to the wider
group of stakeholders. Any
information provided on the UoA
can be easily verified.
There are no milestones that
require investigation of physicalaspects of the UoA or, if there
are any such milestones, there
are reliable mechanisms toenable verification ofdevelopments with respect tothat milestone from a remotelocation.

Example of how to determine surveillance levels
In this example, a UoA has conditions on the following PIs: 1.1.1, 1.2.4, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3.
Condition

Action plan & milestones

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 by the fishery
management agency towards
developing a robust andprecautionary 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 for
the UoA.
Year 1

1.2.3

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Client commitment and CAB
evaluation
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.
Year 1Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Develop and implement asampling program of fullcatch recording across asuitable sample of the
fleet.

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 preform self-sampling.
3. Results of self-sampling
protocol will be presented
annually in a report.

2.2.2
Develop a strategy to
reduce impacts of UoA
secondary species andprovide evidence to the
CAB that the strategy has
been implemented
successfully.
2.2.3
Establish a scientificallydefensible monitoring andreporting system forsecondary species.

Year 3Develop a management planfor secondary species thatoutlines management
strategies and measures forsecondary species that ensurethat the UoA does not hinder
recovery of the species.
Year 1 to Year 3
The processing company
affiliated with the UoA will keep
records of any bycatch that
arrives at the dock. Records
will detail species, species
count, tonnage and datedelivered. The national
fisheries department will
receive a copy of this report
weekly. Vessel logs will also
contain any bycatch therefore
monitoring bycatch not only atdelivery but on the fishingground.
Year 3The monitoring protocol will be
adopted in the fisheries
management plan.
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
prior to the first audit.
Year 2The updated MCS procedures
will be implemented in thesecond year. Records on
infringements and sanctions
will be maintained andanalysed to determine theeffectiveness of the plan.
Years 3 and 4

3.2.3
A MCS system has been
implemented, however,sanctions for noncompliance exist, but they
are not necessarily
consistently applied. Thisview is supported by thelack of regular datacollection on infringements
by vessels.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

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
Year 3
The CAB shall be provided
with the full management planin Year 3.

Year 1 to Year 3
At every surveillance audit
until year 3 the CAB shall be
provided with secondary
species monitoring data fromprocessing company andvessel logs.
Year 3The updated fisheries
management plan will be sent
to the CAB.

Year 1The CAB shall be provided
with minutes of meeting
between the client and thecoast guard 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
be presented witheffectiveness analysis.
Year 3 and 4

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Records on infringements andsanctions will continue to be
maintained and analysed insubsequent years to monitor
and refine the MCS plan.

The CAB will also bepresented with effectivenessanalysis.

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 withremote support

4

On-site audit

2

G7.29.8.1

Justification
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can beprovided remotely in year 1.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided
remotely in year 2.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 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 andbecause the information can be provided
remotely.
Information needed to verify progress towards
conditions 1.2.1 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).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

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 inG7.28.16.1.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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

•

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
an individual PI to less than 60 or a Principle score to less than 80, the determination andcertificate decision is not affected (i.e. the certificate is issued). However, the result of the
expedited audit means that the certificate is immediately suspended. 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 Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts.
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 Performance
Indicator Scoring Guideposts 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 finished.

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 theAnnouncement Comment Draft Report.

•

The condition deadline is in the 5th year.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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.

•

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 scoring issue (a). The stock is at or above B MSY and“available” harvest control rules (HCRs) are in place (MSC Fisheries Standard SA2.5.2-5).

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 Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set at thesubsequent assessment or audit, or•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 which 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 beapplicable for outcomes PIs.

•

The scoring element now falls under a different component (e.g. in the previous assessment a
species was designated as a secondary species but is now designated as an ETP 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 Units of Certification that expire after the transition
deadline against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0▲

Background
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 26 October 2028.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

G7.32.1.aTransition assessments▲

It is provided as an alternative assessment option for fishery clients in cases where completing theircurrent 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex GPA Inseparable and practicably inseparable fisheries(IPI) – Guidance
GPA1.3

Conditions ▲GPA1.3.1

Setting conditions in IPI 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex GPB Harmonisation of overlapping UoAs – 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 UoAs ▲CABs may use the MSC’s Harmonisation Database to identify overlapping 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 due to PB1.4.1.1 being triggered.

GPB1.3.1

Harmonised assessment outcomes ▲In cases where there are 2 UoCs from the same UoA, harmonisation should be expected to result in
identical scores and conditions unless there is a very clear explanation of the different 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 is met at each
SG level and for each scoring element). The teams should use largely similar arguments and logic forthe 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 scoring issues and scoring elements
within harmonised PIs, and the same outcome (pass/fail) is achieved. Given this constraint, and therules applied in scoring (Section 7.15), it should be rare to find a situation where the scores are notexactly the same (an example would be where P2 species are only partly overlapping such that somespecies are harmonised, while others are not, such that the overall scores for the PIs may then differ).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPB1.3.1.bConsistent conditions and milestones ▲The MSC’s intent is that conditions are set on the same PIs, relating to the same scoring issues andscoring elements, as appropriate. There may be occasions when different conditions are justified, butthey 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 regards to the scoring and rationales for PI 1.2.3
scoring issue (b).
Exceptional circumstances also apply where ETP species are nationally listed in one country but not
another, as per PB1.3.1.1.

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 which 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 FCP 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 in opinion
based on the same information.

GPB1.5.1

Discussion of overlapping UoAs 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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPB1.5.1.b–c Harmonisation of scores and conditions when evaluating cumulative
impacts of MSC UoAs in PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.2.1 and PI 2.4.2 ▲In 2014, the MSC introduced a number of requirements for assessing the cumulative impacts ofcertified fisheries.
When 2 or more UoAs enter assessment at the same time, the regular rules of harmonisation apply
and outcomes and conditions need to be accounted for in terms of cumulative impacts andelsewhere.
When an under-assessment UoA overlaps with a certified fishery, the team should consider the
cumulative impact of all MSC UoAs during the assessment process of that UoA, if the UoA and thecertified fisheries all meet the trigger requirement for cumulative impacts (e.g. they all classify primary
species A as “main”).
Certified fisheries do not need to consider the cumulative impact of any newly certified UoA until thefirst surveillance audit following the certification of the additional UoA.
When taking into account the cumulative impacts of several MSC UoAs, it could be the case that acurrently certified fishery would have its Principle 2 scores changed if a newly certified fisheryincreases the cumulative impact on a depleted stock.
Cumulative impacts for vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME) habitats are dealt with undermanagement requirements and the MSC expects that cumulative precautionary avoidance of impact
should be implemented rapidly. For instance, it could be the case that a newly certified fishery has
designated and closed new VMEs. These VMEs should also be considered by the already certified
fishery 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 VMEs. 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 VMEs are being
protected by all MSC UoAs at SG80 (for PI 2.4.2) might then also be altered.
In this case, teams should allow increased flexibility in terms of setting the milestones of theharmonised condition, thereby ensuring that already certified fisheries working on achieving theirmilestones would not fail to meet them during the certificate lifetime due to the arrival of the newly
certified fisheries and the higher impact.

End of Annex GPB GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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-levelresearch (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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Fish stock biology/ecology ▲2For a team member to comply with this requirement, “similar biology” in this context means that where
the target species is:5•

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.

Current knowledge of the country, language and local fishery context▲“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 have thesecharacteristics as well. 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

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 primary 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 primary species.
The remaining scoring elements in Principle 2 primary species should then be rescored according to
7.15.10.d. This does not require a Principle 2 expert.
If the new Principle 2 score causes a failure of the UoA 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 v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex GPE Transition assessments - guidance
See FCP v3.0 Guidance
End of Annex GPE GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Annex GPF
GPF1

Risk-Based Framework – guidance
Introduction to the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)▲

The FAO Guidelines on Ecolabelling for Fisheries and Fisheries Products from Marine Capture
Fisheries provided the conceptual basis for the adoption of a risk-based approach to the evaluation offisheries against certain PIs in circumstances where information is inadequate to evaluate those PIs
conventionally.
In paragraph 32, the FAO guidelines state:“…the use of less elaborate methods for assessment of stocks should not preclude fisheries
from possible certification for ecolabelling”. It goes on to note “...to the extent that theapplication of such methods results in greater uncertainty about the state of the ‘stock underconsideration’, more precautionary approaches to managing such resources will be required
which may necessitate lower levels of utilisation of the resource”.
The inference is that in the absence of detailed scientific information on fishery impacts and providing
the existence of tools that provide a qualitative or semi-quantitative indication of the risk inherent in a
fishery, it should be possible to assess such a fishery for certification based on the extent to which
fishing activity is demonstrably “precautionary” or of “less risk”.
The MSC adopted an approach that considers a combination of risk-based indicators to arrive at arisk score that translates to a parallel MSC score. The risk-based indicators used in this processinclude qualitative and semi-quantitative proxies that assess the impact of fishing activity or
correspond with the level of utilisation of the resource. In addition, the approach requires the team to
adopt the worst-case scenario approach to scoring the risk indicators in the absence of credible
evidence, information or logical reasoning to the contrary.
In the event of the RBF being used for a PI, the likelihood of being scored high risk and of receiving a
low MSC scores on the specified indicator increases with increasing scale and intensity of utilisationof resources in the fishery. While the RBF allows the use of more qualitative information obtained
under an extensive stakeholder consultation process, increased uncertainty around the information orevidence used, or the lack of consensus on information obtained in the process will result in the mostcautious (worst plausible) score being applied, furthering the likelihood of lower MSC scores.
The MSC’s intention in allowing the use of a risk-based approach is to ensure that its assessment
process is accessible to data-deficient fisheries that are readily demonstrated as operating in aprecautionary manner.
Implicit in the approach is a recognition that fisheries operating at relatively high levels of utilisationpose a greater risk to the ecological components with which they interact and that the assessmentand management of such risks must be underpinned by comprehensive scientific information.
The MSC is aware of the existence of other risk-based analysis tools, as well as the fact that thedevelopment of these tools is a continuous process. The MSC has not calibrated any alternative riskbased approaches against the default assessment tree but would encourage interested parties toconsider calibration of such equivalent risk-based approaches against the SGs in the default
assessment tree. Future versions of the MSC RBF will reflect the continuing evolution and refinementof these tools and methods.
The precaution built into the RBF methods creates an incentive to use the conventional process whendata is available. Precautionary levels can be defined as the probability that the resulting RBF score isgreater than the score obtained if using the default assessment tree (DAT). RBF parameters havebeen calibrated so that when scoring data-deficient scoring elements it is expected that:•For PI 1.1.1, the probability that the RBF score is greater than the DAT is <0.01.

•

For PI 2.1.1, the probability that the RBF score is greater than the DAT is <0.05.

•

For PI 2.2.1, the probability that the RBF score is greater than the DAT is <0.2, or resultingscores are on average less than 10 scoring points above PI 2.1.1.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

For PI 2.3.1, the probability that the RBF score is greater than the DAT is <0.05.

•

For PI 2.4.1, the probability that the RBF score is greater than the DAT is <0.5.

•

For PI 2.5.1, the precautionary level of the RBF has not been calculated.

GPF1.1

Applying the RBF in scoring different PIs ▲Background
The RBF is designed for use in association with the default tree for Principles 1 and 2. The RBF was
adopted by the MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data-deficient situations, particularly for theoutcome PIs associated with Principles 1 and 2.
The RBF may be applied to the whole PI if all scoring elements are determined to be data-deficient.
However, there may be occasions where quantitative information is available for some scoring
elements within outcome PIs (i.e. species under PI 2.1.1) and not others. In such cases, the decisionon the use of the RBF should be taken at a scoring element level.
For Principle 1 PIs, there is typically only 1 scoring element being considered (target species of the
UoA), but under Principle 2, the full range of primary and secondary species, habitats, or ecosystems
could be assessed.
There can be cases where there are both data-deficient and non-data-deficient scoring elements (e.g.
different primary species).

GPF1.1.1

RBF methodologies ▲The RBF includes a set of methods for assessing the risk to each of the ecological components from
activities associated with the UoA in assessment. The methods range in complexity and datarequirements from a system based on expert judgment, to a semi-quantitative analysis to assess
potential risk. Each of the methods provides a risk-based estimate of the impact of the UoA on a datadeficient scoring element being scored within outcome PI. These risk estimates are in turn related tothe specific Scoring Guideposts used to assess the performance of the UoA against the PI for acomponent.
To achieve a good result, it is necessary to plan the stakeholder consultation strategy for each of themethodologies in such a way as to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders.
The robustness of these methodologies relies heavily on the inputs of a suitably broad stakeholder
group with a good balance of knowledge about the UoA and the ecological components on which it
has impacts. Table GPF1 below provides a description of the 4 methodologies within the RBF.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF1: Description of methodologies within the RBF
Methodology

Description

Consequence
Analysis (CA)The CA is a semi-quantitative analysis that assesses the consequence offishing activity on a particular species subcomponent. The CA is partly basedon the structured collection of qualitative information from a diverse group of
stakeholders, as well as using information on proxies that can be used toestimate changes to the relevant subcomponent in a UoA.

Productivity
Susceptibility
Analysis (PSA)

The PSA requires information about the productivity and susceptibility of eachspecies in a given PI, and uses this information to individually score a set of
attributes using pre-established PSA tables. Any attribute for which there isinsufficient data is automatically assigned the highest risk score: at least
some of information is thus needed to demonstrate low risk in the UoA.

Consequence
Spatial Analysis(CSA)

The CSA requires information about the consequence of fishing activities andspatial distribution of habitat types and uses this information to individually
score a set of attributes using pre-established CSA tables. Any attribute forwhich there is insufficient data is automatically assigned the highest risk
score: at least some level of information is needed to demonstrate low risk in
the UoA.

Scale Intensity
Consequence
Analysis (SICA)

The SICA is a qualitative analysis that aims to identify which activities lead toa significant impact on any ecosystem. A SICA is partly based on the
structured collection of qualitative information pertaining to the PI in question
from a diverse group of stakeholders.

GPF1.1.2

PIs scored using the RBF ▲Table GPF2 defines which PIs within the default tree may be scored using RBF methodologies. PIs
for which the RBF may directly be used are indicated below. PIs for which special guidance applies
when the RBF is used are indicated below.
Table GPF2: RBF methodologies available for scoring PIs and implications for non-RBF PIs
PI

RBF applicability

1.1.1

Stock status

Both CA and PSA applicable.

1.1.2

Stock rebuilding

The RBF is designed for use in cases where direct measures of stock
status, such as estimates of biomass, are not available. There is no
direct measure to determine whether the stock is actually depleted andwould need to consider rebuilding measures under PI 1.1.2. What is
known after scoring PI 1.1.1 using the RBF is the risk of the stock being
fished such that recruitment would be impaired. Rather than requiring a
UoA that scores less than 80 on PI 1.1.1 to use the RBF to score PI
1.1.2, Section PF6 shall apply.

1.2.1

Harvest strategy

RBF not applicable.

1.2.2

Harvest control
tools and rules

RBF not applicable.

1.2.3

Information /Monitoring

RBF not applicable.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PI

RBF applicability

1.2.4

Assessment ofstock status

If RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, a default score of 80 shall be awarded
to this PI. For data-limited fisheries the application of the RBF may be
the only “assessment of stock status” available.

2.1.1

Primary species
outcomeOnly PSA applicable.

2.1.2

Primary species
management
strategy

RBF not applicable.

2.1.3

Primary species
information

RBF not applicable, but there is an RBF specific scoring issue, which
has to be scored. This additional scoring issue has been included since
the information required to meet default scoring issues would not be
expected to be available in data-limited situations applicable to the RBF.
If the RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1, it is recognised that the information
is not sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically
based limits. For this reason, the alternative scoring issue (a) is scoredinstead of the default assessment tree scoring issue (a).

2.2.1

SecondaryspeciesoutcomeOnly PSA applicable.

2.2.2

Secondaryspeciesmanagement
strategy

RBF not applicable.

2.2.3

Secondaryspecies
information

RBF not applicable, but there is an RBF specific scoring issue, which
has to be scored. This additional scoring issue has been included since
the information required to meet default scoring issues would not be
expected to be available in data-limited situations applicable to the RBF.
If the RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 it is recognised that the information
is not sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically
based limits. For this reason, the alternative scoring issue (a) is scoredinstead of the default assessment tree scoring issue (a).

2.3.1

ETP species
outcomeOnly PSA applicable.

2.3.2

ETP species
management
strategy

RBF not applicable.

2.3.3

ETP species
information

RBF not applicable, but there is an RBF specific scoring issue, which
has to be scored. This additional scoring issue have been included since
the information required to meet default scoring issues would not be
expected to be available in data-limited situations applicable to the RBF.
If the RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 it is recognised that the information
is not sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically
based limits. For this reason, the alternative scoring issue (a) is scoredinstead of the default assessment tree scoring issue (a).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

PI

RBF applicability

2.4.1

Habitats
outcomeOnly CSA applicable.

2.4.2

Habitats
management
strategy

RBF not applicable.

2.4.3

Habitats
information

RBF not applicable, but there are RBF specific scoring issues, whichhave to be scored. These additional scoring issues has been included
since the information required to meet default scoring issues would not
be expected to be available in data-limited situations applicable to the
RBF. If the RBF is used to score PI 2.4.1 it is recognised that the
information is not sufficient to identify habitats encountered by the UoAor to determine the impact of the UoA on habitats encountered. For thisreason, alternative scoring issues, (a) and (b) are scored instead of thedefault assessment tree scoring issue (a) and (b).

2.5.1

Ecosystem
outcomeOnly SICA applicable.

2.5.2

Ecosystem
management
strategy

RBF not applicable.

2.5.3

Ecosystem
information

RBF not applicable.

Principle 3

The RBF is designed to allow the CAB to determine the level of risk thata UoA is posing undue harm to a species, habitat, or ecosystem. The
RBF does not apply to Principle 3.

GPF2
GPF2.1

Stakeholder involvement in RBF
Announcing the RBF ▲If the team decide to trigger the RBF for a scoring element after the fishery assessment is announced(7.10), this will require additional communication to stakeholders prior to the site visit. If it is not clear
whether a scoring element meets criteria in Table 3, the CAB should announce the possibility of using
the RBF at the fishery announcement stage (7.10). In this case, and to improve efficiency of theassessment process, the CAB should announce use of the RBF at fishery announcement and plan
the site visit as if it were an RBF assessment as set out in the FCP. If information is found at the site
visit that indicates the RBF is not necessary, the UoA may proceed with a non-RBF assessment forthis scoring element.

GPF2.2

Information gathering ▲The team should use existing data and reports, if available, to identify target species, primary species,
secondary species, habitats and ecosystems that may be impacted by the UoA.
The team may use expert judgement and anecdotal evidence to compile preliminary lists of
information. The team should then consult with stakeholders, either individually or at fishery
management meetings, on the preliminary list. The team should document and justify any additions toor deletions from the preliminary list of information.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF2.2.1.aManagement arrangements ▲For example, information of management arrangements, such as quotas, limited entry, gear
restrictions, spatial closures, depth limits, etc.

GPF2.2.1.f

Information about UoA/habitats ▲If there is limited information available about habitat(s) encountered by the UoA, the team may use
local knowledge and/or participatory methods to define the habitat(s).
ExampleFor example, if there is no detailed understanding of a habitat’s substratum, geomorphology, and(characteristic) biota (SGB), the team may use other sources of local information, such as datacollected by local dive operators, to support the determination of habitats. Furthermore, the team
may conduct RBF stakeholder workshops to determine, for example, biome classification or depth
ranges of habitats using participatory methods to gather stakeholder knowledge.

GPF2.3

Stakeholder consultation

GPF2.3.2

Text to inform stakeholders ▲The MSC’s intent for the recommended text is to encourage a broad range of stakeholders to attendsite visits and to provide some advance notice on the nature of the RBF approach.

GPF2.3.3

Planning ▲The team should plan the stakeholder engagement process prior to the site visit to ensure effective
participation of stakeholders. The team should conduct background to ensure that time withstakeholders is focussed on new issues that are raised by stakeholders.

GPF2.3.3.1

Stakeholders ▲Stakeholder consultation with a suitably broad stakeholder group with a good balance of knowledge
about the fishery is critical in a risk assessment, particularly at the qualitative (CA/SICA) level of anassessment. Stakeholders provide expert judgement, local knowledge, hands-on experience, fisheryspecific and ecological knowledge and raise issues that may not be covered in material provided tothe team.
The team should ensure the stakeholder group includes at least fishers, scientists, conservationists,indigenous representatives, managers, local residents, fish processors and others as necessary.

GPF2.3.3.2

Effective consultation ▲Early identification of stakeholders is vital to ensuring effective consultation during the assessment
process. The team should identify stakeholders both through contacts made available by the fisheryclient and via active stakeholder engagement methods. The choice of which method(s) to use
depends on the circumstance of the UoA.

GPF2.3.3.3

Location ▲The location of the meetings is very important to ensure good participation of stakeholders. The teamshould consider the following when deciding the location of meetings:•

If stakeholders are spread over a wide area, it might be necessary to hold more than 1 set of
meetings to allow for participation.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

The choice of venue needs to be considered depending on the number of stakeholders
attending the meetings and the space needed for engagement.

•

Meetings can be both formal and informal.

•

Engagement can be effective in any location whether inside or outside as long as the team isprepared to run the workshop in that setting.

GPF2.3.3.4

Meetings ▲The team may organise stakeholder meetings using a number of approaches: workshops, focus
groups, separate meetings or a blended approach. The team should consider the following factors
when deciding the format and structure of meetings:•

The number of PIs that are being assessed using the RBF. It might be better to hold aseparate RBF workshop with those who have information relevant to the PIs with otherstakeholders attending a different meeting(s).

•Stakeholder dynamics within the group, which will affect who should meet together and whoshould meet separately.

•

There may be conflicting opinions among group members. It might be useful to allow these
opinions to be shared to help the team draw conclusions from the stakeholders.

GPF2.3.3.7

Background information ▲The objective of providing materials and background information is to ensure that stakeholders can bebrought up to the same level of understanding ahead of the meeting.

GPF3
GPF3.1

Conducting a Consequence Analysis (CA)Preparation

GPF3.1.1 ▲The team may do this by defining each species as a separate UoA or by scoring the species as
separate scoring elements within a combined UoA.

GPF3.1.3

CA scoring template ▲Table GPF3 shows an example of how to complete a CA template.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF3: Example of CA score and justification
PRINCIPLE 1:
Stock status outcome
XXX scallop fishery

Justification for most vulnerable
subcomponent
Justification for consequence scorei.

Scoring element

Consequence subcomponents

Consequence score

Population size
60
Reproductive capacity
Placopecten magellanicus
Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range
Population size was considered the most vulnerable subcomponent based in the impact of exploitation patterns
on biomass.
Information on fleet structure, fishing area and exploitation rates indicate that the stock is exploited at full
exploitation rate. However, trends in exploitation rates, biomass and recruitment indicate that fishing is notadversely damaging recruitment in the long term. As the fishery is defined as fully developed and operating atfull capacity it cannot be concluded that its impact on population size is minimal or its impact on dynamics isnone.
Indicators used are:
Fleet structure: There are 3 scallop fleets operating in the area: the AAA, BBB and CCC fleets. The AAA fleet,of which scallop fishing is the primary activity, has access to the whole area and is subject to quota limits andseasons. The BBB and CCC fleets have access to a portion of the area.
Exploitation rates: Management aims for exploitation rates of 15%, considered as the exploitation rate that will
not pose a risk on the productivity of the scallop population. Exploitation rates have been maintained generally
at consistent levels with this management target.
Fishing area and seasonality: Detailed distributional information of the AAA fleet’s fishing effort is collected on aroutine basis.
Overall approach to scoring the AAA stock/biological unit: The scallop biological unit/stock was defined as area
XXX. Therefore PI 1.1.1 was scored by considering scallops in the area XXX as a single stock. This approach
was considered appropriate due to the biology of scallops.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF3.2

Stakeholder involvement within CA ▲See guidance GPF2.1, GPF2.2 and GPF2.3.

GPF3.3.2

Examples of indicator (proxy) data to score consequence ▲Table GPF4 provides some examples of indicator (proxy) trend data that the team may use to scoreconsequence.
The list is not exhaustive but seeks to give an indication of the types of indicator data needed to scorethe subcomponents.
The team may support the interpretation of indicator and trend data with other information known
about the UoA and the expert judgment of the team.

Table GPF4: Examples of indicator (proxy) data to score consequence
Subcomponent

Indicator/Proxies

Population size

Catch, effort and catch per unit effort (CPUE)
time-series.
Sex ratio in male-only fisheries.

Reproductive capacity

Size class indexes.
Catch composition time-series (sex ratio).

Age/Size/Sex structure

Catch length/age index or time-series.
Catch composition (sex ratio) time-series.

Geographic range

Time-series species distribution.

Where judgements about risk are uncertain, the team should score the consequence category withthe lowest score (highest risk) that is still regarded as plausible.
In the application of the Consequence Analysis, the team should determine the risk that the UoA
poses on stock status without the use of reference points. Measures and trends of fishing effort,
landings, exploitation rates, biomass and recruitment estimates and spawning events before recruiting
to the fishery are examples of indicators that the team may use to determine the risk associated withthe fishing activity. The Consequence Analysis is intended to be a measure of the risk that fishingactivity poses to long-term recruitment dynamics.
UoAs operating at full exploitation levels (the so-called large-scale fisheries) will likely score below 80.
The team should only score above 60 if available indicators provide evidence of recruitment not being
adversely damaged. The team may score higher if the UoA is operating at low exploitation levels in
relation to the size of the stock and biology of the species. The team should only score a higher CA
score, of up to 100, if the impact of the fishing activity cannot be differentiated from the naturalvariability for this population.
The team should score 80 if available information shows changes in the population subcomponent
that can be reasonably attributable to the fishing activity, but these are of such a low magnitude thatthe impact of the UoA is considered to be minimal on the population size and dynamics.
The team should score 60 if available information shows changes to the population subcomponent
attributed to the fishing activity and these changes are of such magnitude that they cannot be
considered as minimal.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Examples of consequence score rationales for each subcomponent are shown below:
Examples:Population size justification

CA
Score

Information on CPUE trends show stability over the last 20 years. Fishing mortality
trends indicates that the fishery has occurred under low or very low exploitation
rates relative to stock biomass. Recruitment indices showed no major changes in
the last 10 years. It can be reasonably concluded that changes in the population
due to fishing are of low magnitude that cannot be detectable against the naturalvariability of the population.
Annual production is estimated to be higher than the removals by the fishery.
Analysis of CPUE time-series suggests that the fishery over 23 years has not hada significant detrimental impact on the stock, which is estimated to be still near thevirgin biomass level.
Trends in catches indicate that biomass removed has been kept below any levels
that could have an effect on population dynamics. Exploitation rates are estimatednot to pose a risk on population size or population dynamics. The stock is
considered to be above the point where recruitment could be impaired. The current
catches are lower than they were 10-20 years ago.
Information on landings and CPUE trends show stability over the last 10 years.
Year
CPU
E

2003
978

2004
900

2005
950

2006
925

2007
1000

2008
1010

2009
975

2010
1023

2011
1099

ii.

100

iii. 8
0
80
iv.
80

v.

2012
1050
80

Fishing mortality trends indicate that the fishery has occurred under low
exploitation rates with catch and effort decreasing over the last 10 years (due tolow prices and high fuel). Recruitment indices showed no major changes in the
period 2004–2012. The stock has recently increased. It cannot be concluded thatchanges in population due to fishing are not detectable against the naturalvariability of the population.
Information on fleet structure, fishing area and exploitation rates indicate that thestock is exploited at full exploitation rate. However, trends in exploitation rates,
biomass and recruitment indicate that fishing is not adversely damaging
recruitment in the long term. Surveys are used to estimate the abundance anddistribution of commercial and pre-recruits. In addition to surveys, the status of theresource is evaluated from trends in CPUE from logbook and observer data. As thefishery is defined as fully developed and operating at full capacity it cannot be
concluded that its impact on population size is minimal or its impact on dynamics is
none.
Information on landing, effort, and fishing mortality indicates that the crab fishing isa fully developed fishery likely to be occurring at full exploitation rates. CPUE on
fully recruit crab indicates a decreasing trend in abundance. However, CPUE forper recruit show that long-term recruitment dynamics are not adversely damaged.
Stock indicators on biomass show that biomass has decreased in recent years
from peak levels reached in year 2005. The biomass level seems to be higher thanthe lowest level experienced at which recruitment was not impaired. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the fishery has not adversely damaged the long-term
recruitment dynamics.
Available evidence indicates that recruitment dynamics are adversely affected.
Therefore, consequence is higher risk than 60. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) has
continuously declined since 2001. The 2013 SSB is the lowest observed in thetime-series. The fishing mortality has shown a declining trend since the mid-1980s;
it has been relatively stable in recent years, but still is considered to remain highDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

6
0
g

vi.

60

vii.
60
viii.
60

ix.
Fail

Page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

given current SSB levels. Recent recruitments have been lower than earlier in thetime- series, with the 2011 recruitment being the lowest.
Reproductive capacity justifications

CA
score

A slow-growing, long-lived species (more than 40 years of age). The estimated age
at 50% selectivity (22 years) is well above the age at 50% maturity (5.3 years).
Individuals should therefore have more than 17 years of spawning before they
enter the fishery, therefore ensuring the protection of a significant part of the adult
population (survival of discards is assumed to be high). It can be concluded thatthe fishery has minimal impact on population size and no impact on dynamics.
The moderate to low exploitation rates, together with minimum landing size (MLS)
that allows multiple spawning events indicates that the fishery has minimal impact
on population dynamics. The status of the stock of crab in the area, informed bystock indicators on biomass and fishing mortality, is considered good.
The cockle stock is intensively fished (33% of the estimated biomass). Available
evidence suggests that there may be a detectable change in reproductive capacity
as cockles are caught in their second year of growth. The MLS implemented forthis fishery allows for catching individuals in their second year of growth. A retained
cockle is defined as one that is retained by a gauge having a square opening of 20mm measured across each side. Cockles of this length are in their second year of
growth and will have spawned at least once before being caught. The harvest
strategy ensures that long-term recruitment dynamics is not adversely damaged byfishing.
Age/Size/sex structure justifications

Geographic range justifications

80

xi. 8
0
80
xii. 6060xiii. 6060
xiv. 6
0
60

CA
score

With only 2 or 3 boats fishing, fishing effort is very low, with exploitation rates of
only 1 - 2% per year, and, in some years, considerably less. Since the fisherybegan in 1989, it has been calculated that 1,132km2 have been swept by the gear,with most of that in the period 1990–1998. This represents only 2% of the known
stock distribution area (i.e. surveyed area). During the last 5 years, fishing effort
has been very low with an average annual swept area of only about 26km2, andthere is no evidenceof serial depletion of grounds.
xvi.

xv. 8
0
80

The differences between terms ▲Changes in population size/ intrinsic growth rate (r) are assessed in the CA. The team should review
biological indicator data to assess trends. The team should assess change in relation to whether orDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

8
0

CA
score

Size frequency distribution of the species is available from a fully developed
fishery, showing that recruitment is not being adversely damaged. However, thelevel of catch and the fleet structure do not enable a qualitative assessment todetermine that the impact on population dynamics is minimal.
In a crab fishery, available evidence indicates that there is a detectable change insize/sex structure. However, information on abundance and recruitment indicatesthat long-term recruitment dynamics have not been adversely damaged. Thereappears to be a reduced number of large males of sufficient size to mate with thelargest females, and that has the potential effect of reducing the reproductive
capacity of these largest females. There is concern that reduced abundance oflarge male crabs may lead to sperm limitation and reduced levels of egg
production if there are no males left in the population to mate with the larger
females.

GPF3.3.3x.

Page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

not such change is both detectable over and above natural variability and can be attributed to theimpact of the fishing activity. If the trend is beyond natural variability, the team should reflect this thescoring and rationale.

GPF4
GPF4.1.4

Conducting a Productivity-Susceptibility
Analysis (PSA)
Assessment of main ▲The team should refer to the MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance to the MSC Fisheries Standard
for more information on “main” species.

GPF4.1.5

Grouping species ▲The team may interpret the term “large number of species” as more than 15 species. The team may
decide to conduct a PSA on all species as it may allow for a score that is above 80 for a particular PI(as per PF4.1.5.6 and PF5.3.2.2).

GPF4.1.5.1.aExample of grouping by species ▲The team should determine the taxonomic level at which species may be grouped based on the
Principle 2 species characteristics. The team should not group higher than the family taxonomic level.
Table GPF5 below represents a list of Principle 2 species in a fictional UoA. Before the site visit, theteam determined that there is 1 group (with 15 species) and 8 separate species needing to be scoredusing the RBF for PI 2.1.1.

Table GPF5: Example of grouping by species
Example: Grouping by Species
SpeciesTaxonomy (Order/Family)Group

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Cod (Gadus morhua)

Gadiformes/Gadidae

n/aEuropean anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)

Clupeiformes/Engraulidae

n/aFlying fish (Exocoetus obtusirostris)

Beloniformes/Excoetidae

n/aFlying halfbeak (Euleptorhamphus velox)

Beloniformes/Hemiramphidae

n/aGrouper (Epinephelus striatus)

Perciformes/Serrandidaen/aPorcupinefish (Diodon hystrix)

Tetraodontiformes/Diodontidae

n/aDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata)

Perciformes/Carangidae

n/aRemora (Remora remora)

Perciformes/Echeneidae

n/aAtlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Pacific sierra (Scomberomorus sierra)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Leaping bonito (Cybiosarda elegans)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Butterfly kingfish (Gasterochisma melampus)

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda)
xvii.

Perciformes/Scrombridae

Group 1

GPF4.1.5.1.b

Scoring groups ▲The team may identify the same species that is the most vulnerable according to a high-risk
productivity score and through a qualitative process with stakeholders.
The team may score productivity attributes ahead of the stakeholder meetings using information
sources such as FishBase (fishbase.org).
The team should determine which species is most at risk qualitatively based on knowledge of inherent
species vulnerability, as well as frequency of interaction with the fishery, and level of damage done(e.g. released alive vs. always killed).

GPF4.1.5.1.c

Scoring 2 species ▲The team may score more than 2 species as appropriate.

GPF4.1.5.5

Determining PSA - MSC score for species groups ▲The RBF worksheet in Table GPF6 shows the results of the above-mentioned example.
The RBF worksheet automatically combines multiple scoring elements using the rules in Table PF7. If
there are multiple scoring elements, the team should either use the results from the RBF worksheet orlook at the rules in Table PF7.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF6: Example of scoring most at-risk species
Speciesgroup
Scrombridae

Representative species

Bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus)
Wahoo (Acanthocybium
xviii.solandri)

PSA
score

MSC
score

2.70

78.0

2.89

71.7

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Number of
species ingroup

Final group
score

15

75

Page 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF7: Scoring elements and grouping species into the RBF worksheet

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF4.1.5.6 ▲Species grouping is optional, but it also implies that the score will be capped at 80. In order to achievea score of above 80, the team should assess all of the species using the PSA.

GPF4.3

PSA Step 1: Score the productivity attributes ▲The level of fishing impact a species can sustain depends on the inherent productivity of the species.
The productivity determines how rapidly a species can recover from depletion or impact due tofishing. The productivity of a species is determined by species attributes such as longevity, growthrate, fecundity, recruitment and natural mortality. Information about productivity attributes can befound in scientific literature and websites like FishBase (fishbase.org).

GPF4.3.1 ▲The team should review various sources of information to determine correct productivity
characteristics for scoring elements being assessed under the PSA.

Guidance to Table PF4

Productivity attributes and scores – density dependence▲

Depensatory effects (Allee effects) can arise from the reduced probability of fertilisation, and the teamshould therefore take them into account when scoring species productivity.
Depensatory effects may have a profound effect on the resilience of marine invertebrates to fishingmortality, as shown in some crabs and lobsters, and often also sedentary bivalves.
The team should score the density-dependent attribute as 3 (high risk, low productivity) if the species
slow down the rate of population growth at low densities (depensatory dynamics). The team mayscore the density-dependent attribute as 1 (low risk, high productivity) if species show compensatory
dynamics at low densities because density dependence acts to stabilise the populations.

GPF4.4

PSA Step 2: Score the susceptibility attributes ▲The level of fishing impact that a scoring species can sustain depends on its vulnerability orsusceptibility to capture or damage by the fishery activities. The susceptibility of a species isdetermined by attributes such as the degree of overlap between the distribution of the fishery and the
distribution of the species; and whether the species occurs at the same depth in the water column as
the fishing gear.
Susceptibility is estimated as the product of 4 independent aspects; Areal overlap (availability),
encounterability, selectivity and post-capture mortality (PCM).

GPF4.4.3.a ▲In the ‘MSC RBF worksheet’ the team should manually input data on catch per gear/fishery affecting
the stock (for PI 1.1.1 column W, for PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.2.1, column Y).

GPF4.4.3.d and e

Catch percentages ▲Where catch percentages are unknown or too uncertain to make a determination on which species
are ‘main’ see MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.

GPF4.4.4.1.a ▲This could be tonnage of total catch for each of the fisheries being considered.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF4.4.5 ▲ExampleCatch data indicates that the UoA (longline fishery) catches approximately 1000t of the target
species Atlantic cod. The catch data of the gillnet fishery that also retains Atlantic cod from thesame stock cannot be estimated. During the RBF stakeholder workshop stakeholders agreed thatthe longline catch of 1000t comprises approximately 40% of the total catch while the gillnet fisherycontributes about 10% of total catch. The weighting score for the longline fishery will be 2 and theweighting score for the gillnet fishery will be 1.

GPF4.4.6 ▲The areal overlap is the sum of the total percentage overlap of all fishery activity with the areal
concentration of a stock. For example, if there are 2 fisheries both affecting 20% of the distribution of
the species, the result would be 40% overlap, and a high-risk score awarded.

Example: Areal overlap
A demersal species has a wide stock distribution. However, due to its preferred habitat, the species
is found in the area shaded in grey for 95% of the time. Such behavioural patterns reduce theoverlap between the species and the fishing activity (from 40% to ~20%) of fishery A and B (ifconsidering the susceptibility cumulatively and this should be considered in scoring) (Figure GPF1).
If the species in the example showed migratory behaviour the situation would be different.
Figure GPF1: Scoring areal overlap
Stock distribution

Fishery A

20%

20%

Fishery B

This introduces appropriate precaution in the case where neither qualitative nor quantitative data isavailable.
Where a fishery overlaps a large proportion of a stock distribution range the risk is high because
the species has no refuge, and the potential for impact is high.

GPF4.4.6.d ▲The team should consider and document any uneven distribution or concentration of the stock into
account, including consideration of core and marginal ranges when estimating areal overlap.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

ExampleFor example, for species that are known to school, and when the gear interacts with the schools, ahigh-risk score should be awarded for this attribute.

GPF4.4.6.g.i

Key LTL species and areal overlap ▲The team should score fisheries that are estimated to operate at full exploitation rates or maximum
sustainable levels (as defined in PF3.3.4.1) as high risk for areal overlap (> 30%) due to the schoolingbehaviour of LTL species which increases the catchability of the gear.

GPF4.4.7 ▲The team should interpret low, medium and high risk based on the likelihood of a gear encountering a
species.
If a fishery overlaps a large proportion of a stock distribution range, the team should consider the risk
as high because the species has no refuge, and the potential for impact is high. Table GPF8 below
shows an example of how to score encounterability.
The team should score encounterability as the sum of the depth range of gear types, so if 2 gear
types are deployed at depth ranges where more than 30% of the concentration of a species are likely
to occur, this should be scored as high risk.
Each fishery will have the same encounterability score as it is an aggregate of all gear types affecting
the stock. It is assumed that encounterability would be scored as high-risk for a targeted species.
For pelagic gears the team should take a percentage overlap approach to determine theencounterability of the scoring element. For demersal gears, particularly static ones set on theseabed, the team should consider the likelihood of encounter of the scoring element on the seabedrather than the percentage overlap of the gear (on the slope) and concentration of the species. The
team should consider gears set on the seabed such as pots and bottom gillnets to have highencounterability for their target species. The overlap of the spatial distributions of the scoring element
and the gear may be affected by the depth and slope, but the team should consider this under areal
overlap rather than encounterability.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF8: Example of scoring encounterability
Scenario

Encounterability
score

Pelagic species has a total depth range of 0-100m, and the depth rangeof the gear is 0-10m.

Low

Pelagic species has a total depth range of 0-100m, and the depth rangeof the gear is 0-10m. If the diurnal behavioural patterns are targeted by afishery that operates at night this greatly increases the overlap of thegear with the species. See Figure GPF2.

High

The species is known to migrate diurnally, and the gear interacts with ahigh concentration of the species at a particular time of the day.

High

If the fishery uses a gillnet, the chances of encounter for lobsters living increvices is low.

Low

If a pot fishery uses attractive bait, the chance of encounter for lobsters is
high.

High

A species occurring principally near the bottom will have low
encounterability from a gear fishing in mid-water.

Low

A pot fishery would have high encounterability even in a highly rugged
environment if it uses bait as an attractant.

High

Target species

High

Pelagic species has a total depth range of 0–100m, and the depth rangeof the gear is 0–50m.

Medium

A benthopelagic species inhabits both the sea floor and the area justabove it (e.g. up to 50m from the sea bottom). The species has a total
depth range of 200–400m. A mid-water gear with a depth range of 50–
250m will have medium encounterability with this species.
xix.

MediumDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Figure GPF2: Example of scoring encounterability

Diurnal depth range offictional species: 2m
Depth range offictional gear: 10m

Depth range offictional species: 100m

GPF4.4.8 ▲Selectivity provides an estimate of retention by the fishing gear and is scored based on the risk thatthe gear operation retains individuals smaller than the size at maturity.
The team should base the assessment of risk on a review of empirical or analogous catch profile dataor the team should consider and document the risk unlikely (or improbable) based on information forthe species, fishing gear and operation of the UoA.

GPF4.4.8.d ▲The team should score the selectivity of the gear type considering its potential to retain immature fish.
2 elements have been defined in order to adequately assess the selectivity attribute.
When scoring the element (a), the team should determine the frequency of deployments in which
immature fish are caught. The team should only consider the frequency and not the number or
proportion of juveniles caught. For example:•

If juveniles are caught in 70% of gear deployments, susceptibility score for element (a) is 3
(high susceptibility).

•

If juveniles are caught in 70% of gear deployments but the proportion of juveniles in each
deployment is very low, susceptibility score is still 3 (high susceptibility).

•

If juveniles are caught in only 1% of gear deployments, but when it occurs the proportion ofjuveniles is very high (e.g. 80%), susceptibility score is still 1 (low susceptibility).

When scoring the element (b) the team should focus on determining the potential of the gear/fishingmethod to retain juveniles or, in other words the ability of the juveniles to escape or avoid thatparticular gear.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF4.4.9.a ▲In assessing the probability that if a species is captured it would be released in a condition that would
permit subsequent survival, the team may consider for example: biological factors that may limit thepotential of a species to be captured alive; handling practices of the fishery or fisheries being
considered; the time taken to clear discards from the deck, etc.
If possible, the team should verify observer data in face-to-face observer meetings to make sure thatthe observer is qualified to identify the species concerned.

GPF4.5

PSA Step 3: Determine the PSA score and equivalent MSC score

GPF4.5.1 ▲This is done automatically using the ‘MSC RBF worksheet’ for RBF assessments.
PSA score is automatically rounded to 2 decimal points and MSC score per scoring element isrounded to the nearest whole number.

Box GPF1: Calculation of the overall risk score
Calculation of Euclidean distance:
For each component unit (e.g. species) the attributes for productivity are scored [1 3] (high,medium, low productivity). These attribute scores are averaged to provide an overall productivity
score in the interval [1 3]. Similarly, for each unit the attributes within the 4 aspects of susceptibility
are also scored [1 3] (low, medium, and high susceptibility). These aspects are multiplied andrescaled to the interval [1 3] to provide a susceptibility score. These 2 scores are then plotted on
the PSA diagnostic plot. A single risk score is calculated as the Euclidean distance from thenominal origin (0.5, 0.7), calculated as R = ( P 2 + S 2 ) ; where R is the risk score, P is the
productivity score, and S the susceptibility score. This single risk score allows a ranking of all units
considered.
The divisions between risk categories and hence Scoring Guideposts are based on dividing thearea of the PSA plots into equal thirds, as shown in Figure GPF3.

Figure GPF3: Examples of diagnostic charts for displaying PSA values for each species

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Left chart: Low-risk species have high productivity and low susceptibility, while high-risk species
have low productivity and high susceptibility. The curved lines divide the potential risk scores into
thirds on the basis of the Euclidean distance from the origin (0, 0).
Right chart: Example PSA plot for a set of target species. Note the curved lines that divide the risk
space into equal thirds.

When assessing PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 using the RBF, the quadratic equation used for the PSA
is:
MSC Score = -11.965(PSA)2 + 32.28(PSA) + 78.259
There is a direct quadratic relationship (R2=1) between overall PSA scores and MSC scoreequivalents. This has been derived by setting the lowest possible risk score (i.e. all attributes score
low risk) as equivalent to an MSC score of 100 and setting the lower and upper bounds of the“medium risk” range as equivalent to MSC scores of 60 and 80, respectively. A curve through thesepoints is described by the conversion equation above.
However, when scoring data-deficient scoring elements in PI 2.2.1, a different quadratic equation isused in order to reflect the precautionary levels expected for this PI, as outlined in Section GPF1.
MSC Score = -5.8(PSA)2 + 6.9(PSA) + 105.0

GPF5

Scoring the UoA using the RBF for species
Performance Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and2.3.1)

GPF5.1.1.1 ▲In the ‘MSC RBF worksheet’ the CA score can be manually inputted. This generates the MSC scorefor each PI 1.1.1 scoring element automatically using rules set out in Table PF7.

GPF5.2.2 ▲In the MSC RBF worksheet, where there are multiple scoring elements and they are all data-deficientthe final PI score is automatically calculated in the ‘automated scoring’ tab.

GPF5.3.1.1 ▲The team should interpret the term “additional information” as any other relevant information not
specifically addressed in PF3.3 (determining the CA score), PF4.3 (scoring productivity attributes) or
PF4.4 (scoring susceptibility attributes). The use of additional information does not exempt the teamfrom the requirement of assessing all required information in the sections above. The team should
assign the more precautionary score if the required information is limited.

GPF6

Setting conditions using the RBF for species
Performance Indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and2.3.1)

GPF6.1.2 ▲The team may test whether the proposed Client Action Plan will have the desired effect at the time ofaccepting the Client Action Plan by re-running the PSA.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

The team may use PSA results to assist with condition setting by identifying the set of productivity andsusceptibility attributes that have contributed to a high risk score. The fishery client could include
actions to reduce the risk, for example by implementing changes in the attributes identified as highrisk (i.e. by reducing susceptibility).
Since productivity attributes are inherent to the species, these attributes cannot be changed through
Client Action Plans. Where individual productivity attributes have been scored high risk because oflack of information, these risk scores could be reduced if additional studies were conducted andprovided information that indicated a lower risk score. For example, if the risk score for a particularsecondary species was due to high encounterability and high PCM, then the Client Action Plan may
include actions to restrict fishing to night time or reduce the mortality when that species is captured.
The team may test these actions by simulating changing the PSA attribute scores and observing
whether the risk category changes.
The team should consider whether actions proposed in the Client Action Plan (e.g. alternative gear)
could have negative consequences on other scoring elements.

Example:Fishery X assessed its target species using the RBF, because they had 5 years of CPUE data had
not used the indicator to develop reference points. Target species scored 80 with the CA on
population size (using CPUE data) and 80 with the PSA, an MSC score of 80 was assigned. Once
MSC certified, the fishery implemented a detailed on-board logbook system which allowed detailed
data on length/age and catch composition to be collected that was then used to develop reference
points for the stock. At reassessment Fishery X had developed both outcome and trigger(empirical) reference points which allowed it to score PI 1.1.1 using the default assessment tree.

GPF7

Conducting the Consequence Spatial Analysis(CSA) ▲

Background
The CSA was structured around a set of attributes that describe gear impacts (consequence) and thehabitat (spatial) for each habitat being affected by different fishing gears. The CSA methodology andattributes were based on the ‘Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing’ methodology(Hobday et al., 20076, Williams et al., 20117), which was derived from images, expert opinion, andscientific literature. Both the method and attributes were modified to enable their application to MSC
assessments.
The CSA consists of the following steps:•

CSA Step 1: Define the habitat(s).

•CSA Step 2: Score the consequence attributes.

•

CSA Step 3: Score the spatial attributes.

•

CSA Step 4: Determine the CSA score and equivalent MSC score.

The CSA examines attributes of each habitat associated with the UoA in order to provide a relative
measure of the risk on the scoring element (habitat) from fishing activities.

6 Hobday, A. J., Smith, A., Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M.,

Dambacher, J., Fuller, M. and Walker, T., 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing:methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
7 Williams, A., Dowdney, J., Smith, A.D.M., Hobday, A.J., and Fuller, M., 2011. Evaluating impacts of fishing on
benthic habitats: A risk assessment framework applied to Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research 112(3):154167.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

GPF7.1

Preparation

GPF7.1.4 ▲Refer to MSC Fisheries Standard SA3.13.3, the subclauses, and the associated guidance for
information about “commonly encountered” habitats and VMEs.

GPF7.1.6 ▲In the absence of detailed scientific information, to the team should assess the UoA’s impacts basedon the extent to which fishing activity is demonstrably ‘precautionary’ or of ‘less risk’. to the teamshould consider the worst-case scenario. For example, if fishing takes place on both the outer
continental shelf and slope, the natural disturbance score should be 3 and not 2, reflecting the higher
potential risk of impact on the slope. Another example is that the team should score removability ofbiota score should be 2 if a Danish seine UoA affects both low, robust biota and erect, medium biota.
The team should also consider UoA specifics in the absence of credible evidence, information, or
logical reasoning to the contrary. For example, the addition of rockhoppers to trawl gear allows the
UoA to contact previously inaccessible areas, which may contain more complex habitats. The teamshould consider the impacts on these more complex habitats when scoring the attributes. Conversely,some modifications may lessen the gear’s impact on the habitat, which the team should also consider.

GPF7.2

Stakeholder involvement within the CSA ▲See Section PF2.3 for more information on stakeholder involvement within the RBF.

GPF7.3

CSA Step 1: Define the habitat(s)GPF7.3.2 ▲For example, 1 habitat may be defined as “Medium-Outcrop-Large erect”.

GPF7.3.3 ▲The examples of biomes, sub-biomes, and features and their associated depths in Table PF9 areprovided to emphasise the large differences that exist in the fauna and their life-history characteristics
between depth zones and to provide a way to estimate the spatial extent of habitats (refer to thespatial overlap attribute below). For example, the extent of sediment plains on the outer shelf could beroughly estimated and differentiated from sediment plains on the slope.

GPF7.4

CSA Step 2: Score the consequence attributes ▲The 2 habitat-productivity attributes’ scores are multiplied by 2 to reflect the increased importance of
these 2 attributes. The consequence score is then the average of all habitat-productivity and gearhabitat interaction attribute scores.

GPF7.4.1 ▲Biotas have different intrinsic rates of growth, reproduction, and regeneration, which are also variablein different conditions of temperature, nutrients, and productivity (Williams et al., 20108). Habitat depth
is an appropriate proxy for regeneration of biota because rates of growth and reproduction will
typically be slower in deeper water where temperature and nutrient availability are lower (Hobday et

8 Williams, A., Schlacher, T.A., Rowden, A.A., Althaus, F., Clark, M.R., Bowden, D.A., Stewart, R., Bax, N.J.,

Consalvey, M. and Kloser, R.J., 2010. ‘Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling
impacts’. Marine Ecology 31: 183-199.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

al., 2007). Further, the type of biota may be relevant since some (e.g. corals, crinoids, large sponges)
grow at a very slow rate compared to others (e.g. encrusting species).

GPF7.4.2.1 ▲Biotas subject to greater natural disturbances have a greater intrinsic ability to recover from impacts.
Common natural disturbances result from wave action and tidal movements, but other factors, suchas local currents, storm surge, flooding, temperature fluctuations, and predation, may also be
relevant. Habitat depth is considered a suitable proxy for natural disturbance because deeper habitats
typically experience fewer or no natural disturbances.

GPF7.4.4 ▲Removability of biota is influenced by the size, height, robustness, flexibility, and structural complexityof the attached biota. Large, erect, inflexible, or delicate biota is more vulnerable to physical damage
or removal than small, low, flexible, robust, or deep-burrowing biota. Rugosity refers to the ridged
nature of the organism. In general, more rugose (i.e. complex) organisms are more vulnerable to theimpacts of fishing. The interactions between a high diversity of biota types and non-standardisedfishing gear can make this attribute difficult to score. For example, demersal trawls can have a range
of factors influencing removability, such as footrope weight, use of chains, roller or bobbin size, bridle
configuration, and door weight. The team should consider the full range of possible interactions.

GPF7.4.5 ▲For example, intermediate-sized rock fragments (6 cm to 3 m) that form attachment sites for sessile
fauna can be permanently removed. While soft sediment is less resistant to impact, it is generally
more resilient because it accumulates relatively rapidly and is altered by burrowing fauna.

GPF7.4.6 ▲The substratum hardness attribute considers whether or not the seabed will be degraded by contact
with fishing gear. For example, hard rocky bottom is intrinsically more resistant to impact.

GPF7.4.7 ▲Substratum ruggedness is scored based on the concept that the access of gear to the habitat is
related to the ruggedness of the substratum. For example, large rocks and steep slopes make anarea less accessible to mobile gear.

GPF7.4.8 ▲For example, fishing impact can be greater on steep slopes because they are more prone to landslide
damage.

GPF7.5

CSA Step 3: Score the spatial attributes ▲The spatial score is the geometric mean of the spatial attributes.

GPF7.5.1 ▲The team should consider the gear footprint in terms of gear size, weight, and mobility. This attributemeasures the level of impact by considering the frequency and intensity of gear disturbance on the
habitat. The gear footprint scores are based on the number of encounters needed to have an impact
on structural biota in a unit area.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Table GPF9: Number of encounters needed to cause impact (modified from Williams et al.,
2011)
Gear type

Many encountersneeded to cause
impactHand collection✓

Handline✓

Some encountersneeded to cause
impactDemersal longline✓

Bottom gill net or otherentangling net✓

Danish seine✓

Single encounter
needed to cause
impactDemersal trawl(including pair, otter
twin-rig, and otter multirig)✓

Dredge✓GPF7.5.4 ▲The spatial overlap attribute is the overlap of a habitat’s range in the “managed area” with the UoA’s
fishing area. It is calculated as the UoA’s fishing area (Z) divided by the habitat’s range within the“managed area” (X) (Figure GPF4). Refer to GPF7.3.3 and Table PF9 for details on estimating the
spatial extent of habitats.

Figure GPF4: Visualising the spatial overlap attributeManaged area
UoA fishing area (Z)Habitat range (X)Spatial overlap (S) = proportion of X overlapped by Z

GPF7.5.6 ▲The encounterability attribute is a measure of how likely the UoA is to encounter the habitat within the“managed area”.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Example:For example, a UoA using semi-pelagic gear that rarely affects a benthic habitat would likely havean encounterability score of 0.5 for that habitat. Similarly, a demersal trawl will have low
encounterability with a habitat that is confined to heavy reef areas because the trawl cannot
operate in such areas. Conversely, a UoA that uses a gear that targets a certain habitat will havehigh encounterability with that habitat.

GPF7.5.4-7

Additional guidance on spatial overlap and encounterability ▲The team should estimate the spatial overlap and encounterability attributes based on the most recent
spatial distribution of fishing by the UoA. The team should modify the assessed fishing area of the
UoA according to the gear being used.
For example, if longlines can be used only in part of the “managed area” (e.g. due to habitat
characteristics that do not allow for longline usage throughout the entire area), this part is what should
be assessed here.

GPF7.6

CSA Step 4: Determine the CSA score and equivalent MSC score ▲Calculation of Euclidean distanceFor each scoring element (i.e. habitat), the attributes for consequence are scored 1-3 (low, medium,and high). Both of the habitat-productivity attributes’ scores are doubled, and then all habitatproductivity and gear-habitat interaction attribute scores are averaged to provide an overall
consequence score in the interval. Similarly, the spatial attributes are also scored 1-3 (low, medium,and high) though half scores are possible. The spatial score is derived as a geometric mean of the 3
spatial scores. The consequence and spatial scores then produce a single risk score calculated as
the Euclidean distance from the nominal origin [0,0]: R =(C 2 + S 2 ) ;where R is the risk score, C isthe consequence score, and S the spatial score.

Conversion of the CSA score
The CSA score is converted to an MSC score using the quadratic equation:
MSC Score = -9.1(CSA)2 + 22.4(CSA) + 86.8
There is a direct quadratic relationship (R2=1) between overall CSA scores and MSC scoreequivalents. This has been derived setting the highest possible risk score (i.e. all attributes score highrisk) as equivalent to an MSC score of 0; setting the lowest possible risk score (i.e. all attributes score
low risk) as equivalent to an MSC score of 100; and setting the lower and upper bounds of themedium risk range as equivalent to MSC scores of 60 and 80, respectively.

GPF7.6.4.1 ▲Examples of information the team may not have previously considered within the CSA may, include
gear footprint modifications that lessen the gear’s impact by lessening the gear’s size, weight, or
mobility.
If MSC score adjustments are made, the team should base them on the attributes scored and on how
the UoA varies from the scores provided within the scoring tables for each attribute. Examples ofthese score adjustments are as follows:

Example:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

The UoA is fishing with a Danish seine that has been modified to be lighter and have lessbottom contact. The weight of the gear is relevant to the gear footprint attribute, and thelessened bottom contact could be relevant to the removability of biota, removability of
substratum, and/or encounterability attributes; therefore, it is likely appropriate to increase
the final MSC score.

•

A demersal trawl UoA with the addition of rockhoppers will have an increased impact(given the increased ability to access previously untrawlable areas) when compared to
trawls without such additions. It would likely be appropriate to adjust the final MSC score
downwards since this type of gear has increased impact on the removability of biota andremovability of substratum attributes as well as increased spatial overlap and/or
encounterability attribute scores.

GPF7.7

Setting conditions using the CSA

GPF7.7.1 ▲Since some of the CSA attributes are inherent to the habitat (i.e. consequence attributes), these
attributes are not likely to be changed through Client Action Plans. If attributes have been scored as“high risk” because of a lack of information, these risk scores could be reduced if additional studies
were conducted and provided information that indicated a lower risk score.
However, implementation of the Client Action Plan may lead to changes within the spatial attributes.
For example, fishery clients can implement gear modifications that lessen their habitat impacts,
fishery clients may change their spatial footprint by avoiding high-score scoring elements (e.g. corals),
and/or fishery clients may make other spatial changes that will result in lower-risk impacts.
The team may elect to test whether the proposed Client Action Plan will have the desired effect at thetime of accepting the Client Action Plan by re-running the CSA. The team should consider whether
actions proposed in the Client Actin Plan (e.g. alternative gear) could have negative consequences onother scoring elements.

GPF8
GPF8.1

Conducting a Scale Intensity Consequence
Analysis (SICA)
Preparation ▲The 5 MSC SICA steps are summarised below:•

SICA Step 1: Prepare a SICA scoring template for each ecosystem.

•

SICA Step 2: Score spatial scale of the fishing activity.

•

SICA Step 3: Score temporal scale of the fishing activity.

•

SICA Step 4: Score the intensity of the fishing activity.

•

SICA Step 5: Score the consequence resulting from the scale and intensity of the fishingactivity for the most vulnerable subcomponent of the ecosystem.

GPF8.4

SICA Step 2: Score spatial scale of fishing activity potentially having
an impact on the ecosystem

GPF8.4.2 ▲The scale score is not used to mathematically determine the consequence score. It is used in theprocess of making judgements about the level of intensity at SICA Step 4. 2 different activities thatscored the same for spatial scale might have quite different outcomes for the intensity score.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3

Example of use of Table PF19:
If fishing activity (e.g. capture by longline) takes place within 20% of the overall distribution of theecosystem, then the spatial scale is scored as 3. This needs to be the overlap of the fishing activityof the Unit of Assessment with the ecosystem distribution.

GPF8.5

SICA Step 3: Score temporal scale of fishing activity potentiallyhaving an impact on the ecosystem

GPF8.5.2 ▲Examples of scoring temporal scale:•If the fishing activity occurs daily, the temporal scale is scored as 6.

•

If fishing activity occurs once per year, then the temporal scale is scored as 3.

•

It may be more logical for some activities to consider the aggregate number of days that an
activity occurs. For example, if the activity “fishing” was undertaken by 10 boats during thesame 150 days of the year, the score is 4. If the same 10 boats each spend 30 nonoverlapping days fishing, the temporal scale of the activity is a sum of 300 days, indicatingthat a score of 6 is appropriate.

•

In the case where the activity occurs over many days, but only every 10 years, the numberof days divided by the number of years in the cycle is used to determine the score. For
example, 100 days of an activity every 10 years averages 10 days every year, so a scoreof 3 is appropriate.

GPF8.6

SICA Step 4: Score the intensity of the relevant activity

GPF8.6.1 ▲The team should ensure the intensity score is consistent with the spatial and temporal scores.

Example of scoring intensity:
For example, if spatial and temporal scales are scored as high-risk, the same would be expected
when scoring intensity. The overall intensity of fishing activity depends upon the distribution anddynamics of the stock being exploited.

GPF8.6.1.2 ▲The team should ensure that the intensity score reflects the frequency and extent of fishing activity.
Scale scores are not used to mathematically determine the consequence score, they are used in theprocess of making judgements about level of intensity. 2 different activities that scored the same forscale score might have quite different outcomes for the intensity score.

Examples of intensity scores:

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process v2.3•

Spatial scale score = low, and temporal scale score = low.

Intensity score = low
Justification: The spatial overlap between the fishing activity and the ecosystem distribution isextremely low and the fishing activity occurs very rarely. This combination of scale scores indicatesthat the intensity of this UoA is negligible.
•

Spatial scale score = high, and temporal scale score = high.

Intensity score = highJustification: The fishing activity covers almost half of the spatial distribution of the stock and thefishing activity occurs frequently. This combination of scale scores indicates that the intensity of thisUoA is severe.
•

Spatial scale score = low, and temporal scale score = high.

Intensity score = highJustification: The spatial overlap between the fishing activity and the stock distribution is extremely
low, and the fishing activity occurs frequently. This combination of scale scores indicates that theintensity of this UoA is severe as the fishing activity has frequent impacts on a small part of thestock.

GPF8.7

SICA Step 5: Identify the most vulnerable subcomponent of theecosystem, and score the consequence of the activity on thesubcomponent

GPF8.7.1 ▲Subcomponents are indicators of health.

GPF8.7.4.1 ▲If the scale and intensity are scored as medium or high risk, the team should provide additional
information to justify a low or medium risk score for consequence.
The team should consider stakeholder perception in combination with additional qualitative andquantitative information to support the consequence score. Without such information, the team should
score consequence score as high risk and fail the UoA.

GPF8.8.2.2 ▲The team may reduce default high risk scores (due to a lack of information) if studies revealed the risk
level was actually lower. For example, if the SICA results in a consequence score of 80 but additional
information is available and presented that justifies raising this score, the team may give a final MSC
score of 85.

End of Annex GPF Guidance

End of Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process 2.3
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2022