MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Fisheries Standard

Version 3.0, 26 October, 2022
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 1© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

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

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

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

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

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

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

Versions published
Version no.

Date

Description of amendment

1.0

15 August 2011

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

1.1

24 October 2011

Version issued incorporating revised Group Chain of Custodyrequirements and correcting typos, page numbering, wrong
and missing referencing, and unreadable flowcharts.

1.2

10 January 2012

Version issued incorporating Technical Advisory Board 20
agreed changes regarding reassessment, objections
procedure, modifications to the default assessment tree toassess bivalves, implementation timeframes, and Aquaculture
Stewardship Council requirements.
Minor edits, wrong and missing referencing, typos, andunreadable figures were corrected.

1.3

14 January 2013

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

2.0

1 October 2014

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

2.01

31 August 2018

Version issued incorporating updated cross-references inalignment with revision to the ‘MSC Fisheries Certification
Process’.

3.0

26 October 2022

Version issued incorporating changes to the Standard as aresult of the Fisheries Standard review.

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

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

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

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

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

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

General introduction
Fisheries certification
With international consultation with stakeholders, the MSC has developed standards for sustainablefishing and seafood traceability. These standards ensure that MSC labelled seafood comes from, andcan be traced back to, a sustainable fishery.
The MSC standards and requirements meet global best practice guidelines for certification andecolabelling programs.
The MSC Fisheries Standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim thatits fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source.
Throughout the world, fisheries are using good management practices to safeguard jobs, secure fishstocks for the future, and help protect the marine environment. The science-based MSC
environmental standard for sustainable fishing offers fisheries a way to confirm sustainability, using acredible, independent, third-party assessment process. It means sustainable fisheries can berecognised and rewarded in the marketplace, and gives an assurance to consumers that theirseafood comes from a well-managed and sustainable source.
The MSC Fisheries Standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements
provided in Section 1.
The MSC Fisheries Standard is comprised 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 Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Implementation timeframes
Effective dates of the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
This section outlines the circumstances under which the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 shall be used.
It is the intent of the MSC to ensure that all:•Initial assessments are against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 as soon as possible.

•

Existing Units of Certification are given a period of at least 3 years to come into compliance withthe revised Standard, as per Essential Component A.3.22 of the ‘GSSI Global Benchmark Tool’.

•

Units of Certification are assessed against the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 within 6 years of the
publication of MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.

Publication date: 26 October 2022.
CABs shall conduct any initial assessment that is announced on or after 1 May 2023 in conformity
with the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.
CABs shall conduct any reassessment that is announced on or after 1 November 2025 in conformity
with the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0.
CABs may elect to use the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 as of the publication date (26 October2022).
For fisheries that are certified against a version of the MSC Fisheries Standard published before the
MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0, CABs shall apply the MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0 by 1 November
2028 as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v3.0 7.32.

Review
The MSC welcomes comments on the MSC Fisheries Standard. Comments will be considered as partof the next review process. The next review will start within 5 years of the publication of thisdocument. Please submit comments for this review to standards@msc.org.
More information about the MSC policy-development process and the MSC Standard Setting
Procedure can be found on the MSC website (msc.org).

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

Page vi© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Introduction to this document
The MSC Fisheries Standard is composed of 3 core Principles and has 4 associated modifications foruse in different types of fishery: SB, SC, SD, and SE.

Guidance
Guidance is provided in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard to help CABs interpret the MSC
Fisheries Standard. The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is maintained as a separate
document.
The headings and numbering in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard, when included, match
those in the MSC Fisheries Standard exactly, with numbers prefaced with the letter “G” to indicate
guidance.
The MSC recommends that CABs read the MSC Fisheries Standard in conjunction with the MSC
Guidance to the Fisheries Standard. Text in the MSC Fisheries Standard is not repeated in the MSC
Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.
Where general guidance is provided that relates to the subject of a major heading, or relates to thecontent of a specific clause, this icon ◙ appears at the end of the title or clause in the MSC Fisheries
Standard. These icons provide hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the MSC Guidance to theFisheries Standard.
In the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink to the corresponding
section or clause in the MSC Fisheries Standard.

Auditability of guidance
The guidance in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard 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.

•

In response to force majeure, where intent is no longer fit for purpose and threatens MSC
credibility.

•

As a provision to test a policy change or modify the implementation timeframe when publishing arevised version of the normative document.

Derogations are posted on a public log. The MSC requires CABs to follow relevant derogations.

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

Page vii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Table of contents
1

Scope .............................................................................................................. 9

SA: The default assessment tree – normative.......................................................... 13
SA1

General .......................................................................................................... 13

SA2

Principle 1 ...................................................................................................... 14

SA3

Principle 2 ◙................................................................................................... 28

SA4

Principle 3 ...................................................................................................... 53

Section SB: Modifications to the default assessment tree for enhanced bivalves –normative ◙.................................................................................................... 66
SB1

General .......................................................................................................... 66

SB2

Principle 1 ...................................................................................................... 66

SB3

Principle 2 ...................................................................................................... 69

SB4

Principle 3 ...................................................................................................... 72

Section SC: Modifications to the default assessment tree for salmon fisheries –normative ....................................................................................................... 73
SC1

General .......................................................................................................... 73

SC2

Principle 1 ...................................................................................................... 75

SC3

Principle 2 ...................................................................................................... 89

SC4

Principle 3 .................................................................................................... 101

SC5

Allowances for inseparable or practicably inseparable catches in salmon
fisheries ....................................................................................................... 107

Section SD: Introduced species-based fisheries – normative ................................ 108
Section SE: Principle 1 for stocks managed by Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations .............................................................................................. 110

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

Page viii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

1

Scope

1.1

Scope requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard

1.1.1

The Unit of Assessment (UoA) shall not target species of the following taxa underPrinciple 1:a. Amphibians.
b. Reptiles.
c.

Birds.

d. Mammals.
1.1.2

The UoA shall not use poisons or explosives.

Enhanced fisheries
1.1.3

If a fishery is enhanced, the UoA shall conform to all the criteria in Table 1. ◙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 and shellfish
from the wild environment. Such fish and shellfish 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 fishery and the natural production
areas from which the fishery’s catch originates.

iii

There are natural reproductive components of the stock from which the fishery’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 not form amajor part of a current rebuilding plan for depleted stocks.

v

The UoA shall incorporate some element of harvest of a wild population.

vi

The UoA shall be managed so that the natural productivity and genetic biodiversity of the wild
population is not undermined with respect to any impacts on long-term sustainability.

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 in mussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenanceof 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.

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

Page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

C

Habitat and ecosystem impactsiAny 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. Modified habitats include
fish aggregating devices (FADs).
Note: Habitat modifications that are not reversible, are already in place, and are not createdspecifically for the fishery 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
1.1.4

If the target species under Principle 1 is an introduced species, the UoA shall conform to
all the criteria in Table 2.
a. If the fishery targets an introduced species, the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)
shall apply Section SD.

Table 2: Scope criteria for Introduced Species Based FisheriesA

Irreversibility of the introduction in the new locationi

The introduced species has a large population size that is 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 be inscope 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.

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

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Conviction for a serious crime
1.1.5

The client or client group shall not include any vessel that has been implicated in theconviction of a “serious crime” for an offence listed in Table 3 whilst undertaking fishing
operations in the last 2 years. ◙a. The term “serious crime” means conduct constituting an offence punishable by adeprivation of liberty for at least 4 years.
1.1.5.1

If a vessel has been implicated in the conviction of a “serious crime" listed in Table
3 whilst undertaking fishing operations, the client or client group shall exclude thevessel from the UoA, UoC, and fishery certificate for 2 years. ◙a. The client or client group shall inform their CAB immediately if a vessel has
been excluded.
b. The client or client group shall provide all relevant information to their CAB todemonstrate that the vessel has been excluded. ◙Table 3: List of offences
Category

Offence

Recognition

Illegal fishing•Non-compliance with regulations
specific to governing sustainablefishing practices

Relevant legal and/or customary
framework frameworks

Transnationalorganised crime

•
•
•
•
•

Participation in an organised
criminal group
Laundering of proceeds of crime
Corruption
Obstruction of justice
Smuggling of migrants

United Nations (UN) Convention
against Transnational Organized
Crime
Protocol against the Smuggling of
Migrants by Land, Sea and Air

Trafficking ofpeople••Human trafficking
Prostitution and sex trafficking

Forced Labour Convention
Maritime Labour Convention
UN Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime

Trafficking ofunauthorised
goods

•
•

Drug trafficking
Trafficking of protected species
or their parts

UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances of 1988
Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora

Piracy••Engagement in piracy
Supporting piracy to occur

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Customary international law

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

Page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Conviction for shark finning
1.1.6

The client or client group shall not include any vessel that has been implicated in aconviction for a shark-finning violation in the last 2 years. ◙1.1.6.1

If a vessel is implicated in a conviction for a shark-finning violation, the client orclient group shall exclude the vessel from the UoA, Unit of Certification (UoC), andthe certificate for 2 years. ◙a. If a vessel has been excluded, the client or client group shall inform their CAB
immediately.
b. The client or client group shall provide all relevant information to their CAB todemonstrate that the vessel has been excluded. ◙Conviction for forced or child labour
1.1.7

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

Normative documents
The documents listed below contain provisions that, through reference in this text, become part of the
MSC Fisheries Standard.
For documents listed, the latest published edition of the document applies.
The documents are:MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.
MSC Fisheries Certification Process.
MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process.
‘MSC-MSCI Vocabulary’.
MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox.

Terms and definitions
All definitions are in the ‘MSC-MSCI Vocabulary’.
Concepts, terms, or phrases used in the MSC Fisheries Standard that have more than 1 definition are
defined within the text where such terms or phrases appear.

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

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA: The default assessment tree – normative
Scope
To be eligible for certification against the MSC Fisheries Standard, a fishery shall meet the scope
criteria in Section 1.

SA1

GeneralSA1.1

General requirements ◙SA1.1.1

CABs shall focus all assessments of fisheries against the MSC Fisheries Standard on:a. The outcomes of the fisheries management process.
b. The management strategies implemented that aim to achieve those outcomes.

SA1.1.2

When using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF), CABs shall apply requirements set out inTool A of the ‘MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox’.

SA1.1.3

CABs shall follow subsequent standard sections for species that require the use of amodified default assessment tree.

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

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA2

Principle 1

Figure SA1: Principle 1 default assessment tree

SA2.1

General requirements for Principle 1 ◙SA2.1.1

In Principle 1 (P1), the team shall score the whole of the target stock(s) selected forinclusion in the UoA.

SA2.1.1.1
SA2.1.2

In P1, the terms “likely”, “highly likely”, and “high degree of certainty” are used to allow for
either qualitative or quantitative evaluation.

SA2.1.2.1

SA2.1.3

The team shall apply the decision tree in Figure SA3 and the supporting
requirements (SA3.1.4) to determine the Principle 1 stock. ◙In a probabilistic context and in relation to scoring issue (a):a.

“Likely” means greater than or equal to the 70th percentile of a distribution (i.e.
there shall be at least a 70% probability that the true status of the stock ishigher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk of recruitment being
impaired).

b.

“Highly likely” means greater than or equal to the 80th percentile.

c.

“High degree of certainty” means greater than or equal to the 95th percentile.

When considering the effectiveness of a management strategy and its ability to meet P1
outcomes, the CAB shall take into account any impacts of fishing overcapacity and otherissues resulting from subsidies. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA2.1.3.1

If overcapacity exists as a result of subsidies, the management system should berobust enough to deal with this issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery as per
Principle 1.

SA2.1.3.2

If the management system is not robust enough to deal with overcapacity causedby subsidies, a condition should be set as per the MSC Fisheries Certification
Process (FCP) 7.16 against the relevant management PI.

SA2.2

Stock status Performance Indicator (PI 1.1.1) ◙Table SA1: PI 1.1.1 stock status Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Outcome

Stock status(a)
Stock status
relative torecruitment
impairment.

It is likely thatthe stock isabove thepoint ofrecruitment
impairment(PRI).

It is highly
likely that thestock is above
the PRI.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the stock
is above the
PRI.

The stock is
at orfluctuatingaround a levelconsistent
with MSY.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the stock
has been
fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent
with MSY or
has been
above thislevel overrecent years.

1.1.1
The stock is
at a level thatmaintainshighproductivity
and has a low
probability ofrecruitment
overfishing.

(b)
Stock status
in relation toachievementof maximum
sustainable
yield (MSY).

Scoring stock status
SA2.2.1

All management systems shall have reference points, as confirmed in Performance
Indicator (PI) 1.2.4 scoring issue (b).

SA2.2.1.1
SA2.2.2

Where these are not stated explicitly, they should be implicit within the decisionrules or management procedures (MPs). ◙When scoring PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the team shall consider: ◙a. The biology of the species and stock status in recent years.
b. The scale and intensity of both the UoA and management system.
c.

Other relevant issues in determining time periods over which to judge fluctuations.

SA2.2.2.1

The team shall provide a clear rationale as to why the Scoring Guidepost (SG) 80 or
100 levels are met.

SA2.2.2.2

The rationale shall include details of the time period over which this is assessed.

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

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA2.2.3

If information is not available on the stock status relative to the PRI or MSY levels, theteam shall use proxy indicators and reference points to score Performance Indicator (PI)1.1.1. ◙SA2.2.3.1

If the team uses proxy indicators and reference points to score PI 1.1.1, the teamshall justify their use as proxies of stock biomass for the PRI and/or MSY.

SA2.2.3.2

If the team uses proxy reference points to score the stock biomass status, the teamshall assign higher scores where greater confidence is provided by the proxyinformation. ◙SA2.2.4

If the team uses recent trends in fishing mortality to score stock status, the team shalldemonstrate that the fishing mortality rate (F) has been low enough for long enough toensure that the required biomass levels are now “likely” to be met. ◙Stock complexes ◙SA2.2.5

If several species or stocks are fished as stock complexes, the team shall treat them as
either:a. Separate UoAs, orb. Separate scoring elements within a single UoA, as in the case of multiple in-scope
species considered under PI 2.1.1.

SA2.2.5.1

SA2.2.6

In either case, the team shall seek evidence for each SG that, as an outcome, thelevels of “likelihood” meet the levels of “likelihood” specified in SA2.1.2 for eachseparate stock.

For species or stocks fished as stock complexes, the overall target reference points(TRPs) shall:a. Be consistent with the intent of the PI andb. Maintain the high productivity of the stock complex.

Consideration of environmental variability ◙SA2.2.7

The team shall verify that reference points are consistent with ecosystem productivity.

SA2.2.7.1

If changes in fishery productivity are due to natural environmental fluctuations, theteam shall accept adjustments to the reference points in scoring PI 1.1.1.

Treatment of key low trophic level stocks
SA2.2.8

The team shall consider the trophic position of target stocks to ensure precaution in
relation to their ecological role, in particular for species low in the food chain. ◙SA2.2.9

The team shall treat a stock under assessment against Principle 1 as a key low trophic
level (LTL) stock if either a or b below are met: ◙a. It is one of the species types listed in Box SA1, and in its adult life-cycle phase thestock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least 2 of the following
sub-criteria:i.

A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock,leading to significant predator dependency. ◙ii.

A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes
through this stock. ◙iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can betransmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of thetotal energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through thisstock: i.e. it is a “wasp-waisted” ecosystem. ◙b. It is not one of the species types listed in Box SA1, but in its adult life-cycle phase it
meets at least 2 of the sub criteria in SA2.2.9a.i–iii, and the species:

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

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

i.

Feeds predominantly on plankton,ii.

Is characterised by small body size, early maturity, high fecundity, and short life
span: default values: < 30cm long as adults, mean age at maturity <= 2, > 10,000
eggs/spawning, maximum age < 10 years, respectively, andiii. Forms dense schools.
SA2.2.10 The team shall provide evidence specifically addressing each of the sub-criteria in SA2.2.9
to justify any decision not to define the stock as a key LTL species in the ecosystem underassessment.
SA2.2.10.1 If information is unavailable on a sub-criterion in SA2.2.9, the team shall assume
that the stock meets that sub-criterion.
SA2.2.10.2 When formulating rationales against the key LTL sub-criteria (SA2.2.9a.i–iii), theteam shall:a. Document the choice of spatial scale.
b. Provide reasonable justification for the choice.
SA2.2.11 The team shall determine whether a species is to be considered a key LTL species basedon its status at the time of assessment.
Box SA1: Species types defined by default as key LTL stocks for the purposes of an MSC
assessment
See ‘ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes’ for species included in different families
and orders (FAO, 2022)1.
•

Family Ammodytidae (sandeels, sandlances)•

Family Clupeidae (herrings, menhaden, pilchards, sardines, sardinellas, sprats)•

Family Engraulidae (anchovies)•

Family Euphausiidae (krill)•

Genus Calanus (copepods)•

Family Myctophidae (lanternfish)•

Family Osmeridae (smelts, capelin)•

Genus Scomber (mackerels)•

Order Atheriniformes (silversides, sand smelts)•

Species Trisopterus esmarkii (Norway pout)

1 FAO 2022. ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division. Rome.

https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/collection/asfis/en [accessed on 12 August 2022].
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring of key LTL stocks
Table SA2: PI 1.1.1A stock status PISGs applicable to key LTL stocks
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Outcome

Stock status(a)
Stock status
relative toecosystem
impairment.

It is likely thatthe stock isabove thepoint whereseriousecosystem
impacts could
occur.

It is highly
likely that thestock is above
the pointwhere serious
ecosystem
impacts could
occur.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the stock
is above thepoint whereseriousecosystem
impacts could
occur.

The stock is
at orfluctuatingaround a levelconsistent
withecosystemneeds.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the stock
has been
fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent
withecosystemneeds or has
been above
this level overrecent years.

1.1.1AThe stock is
at a level thathas a low
probability ofseriousecosystem
impacts.

(b)
Stock status
in relation to
ecosystemneeds.

SA2.2.12 The team shall score stocks identified as key LTL stocks against PI 1.1.1A instead of PI
1.1.1. ◙a. The team shall use Table SA2 and associated requirements SA2.2.13 to SA2.2.17
below.
SA2.2.13 When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the team shall interpret ‘the point where serious
ecosystem impacts could occur’ as being substantially higher than the PRI. ◙a. Such a reference point shall not be less than 20% of the total biomass (B 0) or the
spawning stock level (SSB0) that would be expected in the absence of fishing.
SA2.2.14 The team shall expect the following of key LTL species when scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring
issue (b): ◙a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs shall be 75% of theB0 or SSB0 that would be expected in the absence of fishing.
b. However, a higher or lower target level, down to a minimum 40% of the B0 or SSB0
that would be expected in the absence of fishing, may still achieve an 80-level score if
it can be demonstrated, using a credible ecosystem model or robust empirical data for
the UoA/ecosystem being assessed, that the level adopted:i.

Does not impact the abundance levels of more than 15% of the other species andtrophic groups by more than 40% compared to their state in the absence of fishingon the target LTL species.

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

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ii.

Does not reduce the abundance level of any single ecosystem group (species or
trophic group) by more than 70% (compared to its biomass level in the absence offishing on the target LTL species).

SA2.2.15 At SG100 in scoring issue (b), the team shall require a higher degree of certainty when
considering the ecological impact of the UoA on the stock.
SA2.2.15.1 For key LTL species to score 100, the team shall demonstrate that biomass levels
are fluctuating “above” the ‘level consistent with ecosystem needs’ at SG80.
SA2.2.16 If the team uses proxy indicators and reference points to score key LTL species at PI
1.1.1A, the team shall justify their use as reasonable proxies of stock biomass for the
points where serious ecosystem impacts could occur and the level consistent withecosystem needs. ◙SA2.2.16.1 Where the team uses fishing mortality rate to score stock status, the default fishingmortality required to maintain a stock fluctuating around the level consistent withecosystem needs shall take the value of:a. 0.5M, where M is the natural mortality of the species, orb. 0.5FMSY, where the maximum rate of fishing mortality (FMSY) has been
determined in a single-species context.
SA2.2.16.2 Proxy fishing mortalities required to maintain the stock above the point whereserious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be lower than assumed to be able tokeep the population above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
SA2.2.16.3 Departures from these default levels may be justified if the team can demonstratethat SA2.2.14.b is met.
SA2.2.17 The team shall judge performance against these reference points in the context ofrecruitment variability typical for the given species in its ecosystem. ◙SA2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ◙Table SA3: PI 1.1.2 stock rebuilding PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

OutcomeStockrebuilding(a)Rebuilding
timeframes

A rebuilding
timeframe isspecified forthe stock thatis the shorterof 20 years
or 2 times its
generation
time. Forcases where
2 generations
is less than 5
years, therebuilding
timeframe is
up to 5 years.
◙(b)
Rebuilding
evaluation

Monitoring isin place todeterminewhether the

1.1.2
Where thestock isreduced,there isevidence ofstockrebuilding
within a
specified
timeframe.

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

SG80

SG100

The shortest
practicablerebuilding
timeframe isspecified that
does notexceed one
generation
time for thestock.

There isevidence thatthe rebuilding
strategies are

There isstrongevidence thatthe rebuilding

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

rebuilding
strategies are
effective inrebuilding thestock within
the specified
timeframe.

rebuilding
stocks, or it islikely basedon simulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates, orprevious
performancethat they will
be able torebuild thestock within
the specified
timeframe.

strategies arerebuilding
stocks, or it ishighly likely
based onsimulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates, orprevious
performancethat they will
be able torebuild thestock within
the specified
timeframe.

SA2.3.1

If PI 1.1.1/PI 1.1.1.A score less than SG80, the team shall score PI 1.1.2.

SA2.3.2

If the score for PI 1.1.1/PI 1.1.1A changes during a certification cycle, the team shallupdate PI 1.1.2 as follows:a. If the score is increased from below SG80 to SG80 or above, the team shall remove
PI 1.1.2 from the scoring of P1 and consider the condition to be closed.
b. If the score is reduced to less than SG80, the team shall score PI 1.1.2 within 12
months of becoming aware of the reduced status.

SA2.3.3

The team shall require that where a score of between SG60 and SG80 is awarded, thesubsequent conditions are fulfilled within 1 certification period. ◙SA2.3.4

In scoring issue (b), unless there is clear evidence that the stocks are rebuilding, where
fishing mortality rate is available for the UoA: ◙a. Current F shall be “likely” to be less than FMSY to justify an SG80 score.
b. Current F shall be “highly likely” to be less than FMSY to justify an SG100 score.

SA2.3.5

In UoAs that use assessments and reference points that are regarded as proxies of F MSY
and/or biomass at MSY (BMSY), the team shall, in their scoring, take account of any
differences between the proxy reference levels and MSY levels.

SA2.4

Harvest strategy PI (PI 1.2.1)

Table SA4: PI 1.2.1 harvest strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy(management)

Harveststrategy(a)Harveststrategy
design ◙The harvest
strategy is
expected toachieve stock
management
objectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of
the stock andthe elementsof the harvest
strategy work

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of
the stock andis designed
to achieve
stock

1.2.1
There is arobust andprecautionary
harvestDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

PI 1.1.1A
SG80.

together
towards
achievingstock
management
objectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/
PI 1.1.1A
SG80.

management
objectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/
PI 1.1.1A
SG80.

(b)
Harveststrategy
evaluation

The harvest
strategy islikely to work
based on priorexperience orplausible
argument.

The harvest
strategy has
been tested
and isexpected tomeet theobjectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/
PI 1.1.1A
SG80 or thereis evidence
that theharveststrategy isachieving its
objectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/
PI 1.1.1A
SG80.

The
performanceof the harvest
strategy has
beenevaluatedand evidence
exists to showthat it isachieving theobjectives
reflected in
PI 1.1.1/
PI 1.1.1A
SG80,
includingbeing clearlyable tomaintainstocks attarget levels.

(c)
Harveststrategy
monitoring

Monitoring isin place that is
expected todeterminewhether the
harveststrategy is
working.

strategy inplace.

(d)Harveststrategyreview(e)
Shark finning

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

The harvest
strategy isperiodicallyreviewed andimproved asnecessary.
There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Component

SA2.4.1

PI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(f)
Review ofalternative
measures

There hasbeen a review
of alternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock.

There is areview every
5 years ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stockand they are
implemented
asappropriate.

There is areview that
happens
every 2 yearsof alternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock,and they are
implemented,
asappropriate.

The team shall interpret: ◙a. “Responsive” at SG80 and SG100 scoring issue (a) to mean that the harvest strategy
allows management to be adaptive to the development and implementation of thediffering elements of the harvest strategy and action has been taken by management,
when required.
b. “Designed” at SG100 scoring issue (a) to mean a harvest strategy that includes amanagement procedure (MP) that has been developed through management strategy
evaluation (MSE).
c.

“Tested” at SG80 scoring issue (b) to mean the involvement of some sort of structured
logical argument and analysis that supports the choice of strategy.

d. “Evaluated” at SG100 scoring issue (b) to mean “tested for robustness to uncertainty,
appropriate to the scale and intensity of the UoA”.
SA2.4.2

When setting conditions, if new harvest control rules (HCRs) or assessment methods
require different or additional information, the team shall ensure that: ◙a. The information is already available, orb. The information is made part of the condition.

Shark finning ◙SA2.4.3

If the target species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (e).

SA2.4.3.1

The team shall interpret the term “shark” to refer to any species within thetaxonomic groups Selachimorpha and Rhinopristiformes.
a. If the UoA is part of a management agency whose definition of “shark” includes
additional species, the management agency’s definition shall apply.

SA2.4.4

At scoring issue (e) at SG60, the team shall:a. Determine that a fins naturally attached (FNA) policy is in place for all retained sharks.
b. Apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in Tool B of the MSC Fisheries
Standard Toolbox to establish that the information used to determine that an FNA or
non-retention policy is in place and enforced has a very high degree of accuracy.

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

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

“Unwanted catch”
SA2.4.5

If there is “unwanted catch” of the target P1 stock, the team shall score scoring issue (f).

SA2.4.5.1

When applying scoring issue (f) to target stocks in P1, the team shall note SA3.1.1.f(including GSA3.1.1.f), SA3.1.6 and SA3.6.1.

SA2.4.5.2

When applying scoring issue (f) to target stocks in P1, the team shall include
consideration of “alternative measures” directed at minimising mortality of“unwanted catch” from ghost gear.

SA2.5

Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ◙Table SA5: PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

Harvestcontrol rules
and tools(a)
HCRs design
andapplication ◙Generally
understood
HCRs are inplace that are
expected toreduce theexploitation
rate as the
PRI isapproached.

Well-defined
HCRs are inplace that
ensure theexploitation
rate isreduced as
the PRI is
approached,
and areexpected tokeep thestock
fluctuatingaround atarget levelconsistent
with (orabove) MSY,or for key LTL
species atlevelsconsistent
withecosystemneeds.

The HCRs are
expected tokeep thestock
fluctuating at
or above atarget levelconsistent
with MSY, oranother more
appropriate
level most of
the time,taking into
account theecological roleof the stock.

The HCRs arelikely to berobust to themainuncertainties.

The HCRs
take accountof a wide
range ofuncertainties
including theecological roleof the stock,and there isevidence thatthe HCRs arerobust to themainuncertainties.

1.2.2
There arewell-definedand effective
HCRs inplace.

(b)The
robustness of
HCRs touncertainty ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(c)
Evaluation of
HCRs ◙

There issome
evidence thattools used oravailable toimplement
HCRs areappropriate
and effective
in controlling
exploitation.

Available
evidence
indicates thatthe tools in
use areappropriate
and effectivein achieving
theexploitationlevelsrequiredunder the
HCRs.

Evidence
clearlyshows thatthe tools in
use areeffective inachieving the
exploitationlevelsrequiredunder theHCRs.

SA2.5.1

The team should require additional precaution to be built into the HCR at SG100 so thatthe HCR keeps stocks well above limit reference points (LRPs).

SA2.5.2

The team shall interpret:a. “Generally understood” at SG60 to mean HCRs that can be shown to have been
applied in some way in the past but have not been explicitly defined or agreed.
b. “Well defined” at SG80 to mean HCRs exist in some written form that has been
agreed by the management agency, ideally with stakeholders and state what actions
will be taken at what specific TRP levels.
c.

“In place” at SG60 and SG80 to mean the HCR has been adopted by the
management agency, and/or there is evidence or documentation that management
actions have been taken where required.

Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs ◙SA2.5.3

In scoring issue (c), for “evidence” the team shall use the current levels of exploitation in
the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available.

SA2.5.3.1

SA2.6

If information is not available on the exploitation rate consistent with achieving along-term MSY, the team shall provide justification where available proxy indicatorsand reference points are used as reasonable proxies of the exploitation rate.

Information and monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3)

Table SA6: PI 1.2.3 information and monitoring PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

Information
andmonitoring(a)
Range ofinformationSome
relevant
information
related tostock
structure,stock
productivity,and fleetcomposition

Sufficient
relevant
information
related to stock
structure, stock
productivity,
fleet
composition
and, other data
are available toAcomprehensive
range ofinformation (onstock structure,stock
productivity,
fleet
composition,
stock

1.2.3
Relevant
information iscollected tosupport theDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoring issues

harveststrategy.

(b)
Monitoring ◙(c)Comprehensive
ness ofinformation ◙

SG60

SG80

SG100

is available
to support
the harvest
strategy.

support theharveststrategy.

abundance,
UoA removals,
and other
information suchasenvironmental
information),including somethat may not bedirectly relevantto the current
harvest strategy,
is available.

Stockabundanceand UoA
removalsaremonitored
and at least
1 indicator
is available
andmonitoredwithsufficientfrequency
to support
the harvest
strategy.

Stockabundance andUoA removals
are regularly
monitored at alevel ofaccuracy andcoverageconsistent
with theharveststrategy, and 1
or moreindicators areavailable andmonitored with
sufficientfrequency tosupport theharveststrategy.

All information
required by theharvest strategy
is monitoredwith highfrequency and ahigh degree ofcertainty, andthere is a goodunderstandingof the inherent
uncertainties in
the information(data) and therobustness ofassessment andmanagement indealing with thisuncertainty.

There is good
information on
all other fisheryremovals fromthe stock.

SA2.6.1

In considering the status of the stock in P1, the team shall consider information about
mortality that is observed and mortality that is unobserved.

SA2.6.2

The team shall identify which information from the information categories in SA2.6.3 isrelevant to both the design and effective operational phases of the harvest strategy. ◙SA2.6.2.1
SA2.6.3

The team should base its evaluation on this information.

The team shall determine a combined score for this PI on the quality of data available,
weighted by information category on the relevance to the harvest strategy, HCR, andmanagement tools. Information categories include: ◙a. Stock structure.
b. Stock productivity.
c.

Fleet composition.

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

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

d. Stock abundance.
e. UoA removals.
f.

Other data.

SA2.6.4

The team shall interpret “sufficient” information at the SG80 level to mean that all
information required to implement the harvest strategy is available at a quality and quantity
necessary to demonstrate achievement of the SG80 outcome PI 1.1.1.

SA2.6.5

The team shall interpret a “comprehensive range of information” and “all information” atthe SG100 level to include information provided by a strategic research plan.

SA2.6.5.1

This information shall go beyond the immediate short-term management needs tocreate a strategic body of research relevant to the long-term UoA-specificmanagement system.

SA2.6.6

The team shall assess the veracity of information.

SA2.7

Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ◙Table SA7: PI 1.2.4 assessment of stock status PISGs
ComponentPI

ScoringissuesHarveststrategy

Assessmentof stock status(a)
Appropriatene
ss of
assessment
to stock underconsideration

1.2.4
There is anassessmentof the stock
status.

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

SG60

SG80

SG100

The
assessment isappropriate
for the stockand for the
harveststrategy.

Theassessment
takes into
account the
major features
relevant to the
biology of thespecies andthe nature of
the UoA.

(b)
Assessment
approachThe
assessment
estimates
stock status
relative togeneric
referencepointsappropriate to
the species
category.

The
assessment
estimates
stock status
relative toreferencepoints that areappropriate to
the stock andcan beestimated.

(c)
Uncertainty intheassessment

The
assessment
identifies
major
sources of
uncertainty.

The
assessment
takes
uncertainty
into account.

The
assessment
evaluates
stock status
relative toreferencepoints in aprobabilistic
way.

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

(d)
Evaluation ofassessment(e)Peer review ofassessment

SA2.7.1

SG100

The
assessment
has beentested andshown to berobust.
Alternative
hypotheses
andassessment
approaches
have been
rigorously
explored.
The
assessmentof stock statusis subject topeer review.

The
assessment
has beeninternallyandexternallypeerreviewed.

For SG80, if considering an assessment that covers stock complexes (see SA2.2.5) theteam shall take into account that the level of assessment required for individual stocks or
species within the complex should reflect their ecological importance.

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

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3

Principle 2 ◙Figure SA2: Principle 2 assessment tree structure

SA3.1

General requirements for Principle 2 ◙SA3.1.1

The team shall interpret the following terms used in Principle 2 as follows:a. “Does not hinder recovery” means the impact of the UoA is low enough that if thestatus of the species can improve, the UoA will not hinder that improvement.
b. “If necessary”, in the management PIs, excludes:c.

i.

The assessment of UoAs that do not have scoring elements at these SG levels.

ii.

Scoring elements with impacts determined to be “negligible”.

“In place” means the measure, partial strategy, strategy, or comprehensive strategy
has been fully implemented in the UoA.

d. “Minimise” means reduce to lowest achievable level.
i.

In determining the lowest achievable level, the team shall consider therequirements of each component.

e. “Negligible” means not material or significant.
i.
f.

In determining whether an impact is “negligible”, the team shall consider the
relevant requirements of each component.

“Unwanted catch” is the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could
not avoid and did not want or chose not to use. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Designation of Principle 2 species
SA3.1.2

The team shall identify and categorise all Principle 2 (P2) species under the following
Principle 2 components: ◙a. In-scope species.
b. Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) and out-of-scope (OOS) species (hereafter
ETP/OOS).
c. Habitats.

SA3.1.2.1 The team shall apply SA3.1.4–SA3.1.5 and the supporting decision tree in Figure
SA3 to determine SA3.1.2.a and SA3.1.2.b.
SA3.1.2.2 The team shall assign any invertebrate identified as a benthic habitat-forming species(e.g. coral species), to the habitats scoring component.
SA3.1.2.3 The team shall provide a rationale for the categorisation of all Principle 2 species.
SA3.1.2.4 The team shall provide the common and the scientific name for each species
assessed under P2.
SA3.1.2.5 If applicable, the team shall outline in the assessment report the stock component
that each species belongs to.
SA3.1.2.6 The team shall score each Principle 2 species as a scoring element under thecomponent to which it is assigned.
SA3.1.3

If the team determines that there are no scoring elements in a particular component, theteam shall award a score of SG100 under the Outcome PI.

SA3.1.3.1
SA3.1.4

The team shall still score the Management and Information PIs.

The team shall assign species as ETP/OOS in P2 as follows:a. Species impacted by the UoA that are classified as amphibians, reptiles, birds, ormammals (hereafter known as OOS species).
b. Species impacted by the UoA that are classified as fish or invertebrates and are listed
in any of the following, subject to modifications if relevant as per SA3.1.4.1–4: ◙i.

Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES).

ii.

Appendix 2 of CITES.

iii. Appendix 1 of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS).
iv. Appendix 2 of CMS.
v.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species and classified globally as “Critically Endangered (Cr)”.

vi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and classified globally as “Endangered(En)”.
vii. National ETP legislation.
SA3.1.4.1

The team shall make and document modifications to the species list created by theapplication of SA3.1.4.b for the purposes of component reclassification (e.g. to inscope or Principle 1 components). The team shall base modifications on theapplication of a and b below:a. Species taxonomy and associated ETP listing (SA3.1.4.2).
b. Whether the species meets modification criteria based on life history
characteristics, management status, and stock status (SA3.1.4.3).

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

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.1.4.2

The team shall make modifications based on species taxonomy and associated
ETP listing following the application of SA3.1.4.b, as follows: ◙a. The team shall only make modifications to Chondrichthyan species listed on
CMS Appendix 2 or CITES Appendix 2.
b. The team shall only make modifications to non-Chondrichthyan species listedon CMS Appendix 2, CITES Appendix 2, the IUCN Red List of Threatened
species classified globally as “En” or listed in National ETP Legislation.
i.

c.

The team shall make modifications to non-Chondrichthyan species globally
listed as IUCN “Cr” as per SA3.1.4.3 in cases where the IUCN assessment isdetermined to be “needing update” as defined by the IUCN.
i.

SA3.1.4.3

For a and b, the team shall only make modifications to species listed on
CITES Appendix 2 in cases where the species concerned are permitted to
be exported and traded by the relevant management authority/authorities.

The team shall only implement modifications as per SA3.1.4.3. when theinformation supporting the modification criteria is more recent than the
IUCN assessment.

The team shall only make modifications to the species list resulting from applicationof SA3.1.4.2 when at least 2 of the following modification criteria are met:a. Life history characteristics: the species is inherently resilient to exploitation asdemonstrated by high productivity attributes.
i.

The team shall determine this criterion is met if the stock/species achieves
an overall average productivity score of less than 2, using Table A8 in the
MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox (PSA productivity attributes and scoresfor fish and invertebrates).

b. Management status: the stock is subject to measures or management tools,
reflected in either LRPs or TRPs (or equivalent), intended to achieve stock
management objectives in response to directed exploitation.
c.

SA3.1.4.4

Stock status: the stock is at a level that maintains high productivity.
i.

The team shall determine this criterion is met if the stock is at or fluctuatingaround a level consistent with achieving SG80 for PI 1.1.1, scoring issue
(b).

ii.

The team shall make determinations as per SA3.1.4.3.c.i using informationfrom stock assessment(s) that have been subject to peer review, consistent
with achieving SG80 for PI 1.2.4, scoring issue (e).

The team shall only apply the modifications once per certification cycle at the
beginning of each assessment (e.g. initial assessment; reassessment; transitionassessment; scope extension assessment). ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Figure SA3: Decision tree for species categorisation
SA3.1.5

The team shall assign species as In-scope in P2 as follows:a. Species that are not assessed under Principle 1.
b. Species that are not classified as ETP/OOS.
c.

Species used as bait in the UoA, whether caught by the UoA or purchased from
elsewhere. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.1.6

When assessing the impact of the UoA on all components within P2, including “unwanted
catch”, the team shall assess mortality that is observed and mortality that is unobserved,
including that from ghost fishing.

SA3.1.6.1
SA3.1.7

The team shall document the assessment of observed and unobserved mortality inscoring rationales. ◙When considering the effectiveness of a management strategy and its ability to meet P2
outcomes, the team shall take into account any impacts of fishing overcapacity and otherissues resulting from subsidies.

SA3.1.7.1

If overcapacity exists as a result of subsidies, the management system should berobust enough to deal with this issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery as per
Principle 2.

SA3.2

General requirements for outcome PIs ◙SA3.2.1

The team shall interpret definitions of required probability in Principle 2 as per Table SA8.
◙

Table SA8: Probability required at different scoring guideposts
Performanceindicator

SG60 probability
requirement

SG80 probability
requirement

SG100 probability
requirement

PI 2.1.1“Likely” = > 70th %ile

“Highly likely” = > 80th%ile*“High degree of certainty”= > 90th %ile

PI 2.2.1“Unlikely” = > 70th %ile

“Highly unlikely” = > 80th%ile*“High degree of certainty”= > 95th %ile

PI 2.3.1 andPI 2.4.1“Unlikely” = < 40th %ile

“Highly unlikely” = < 30th%ile

Evidence of “highly
unlikely” = < 20th %ile

PI 2.1.2d andPI 2.2.2d“High degree of certainty”= > 95th %ile*

SA3.3

General requirements for management PIs ◙SA3.3.1

The team shall interpret:a. “Measures” to mean actions or tools that explicitly manage impacts on the component
or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having
been designed to manage impacts elsewhere.
b. “Partial strategy” to mean a cohesive arrangement that may comprise 1 or moremeasures, an understanding of how the measures work to achieve an outcome andan awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective.
A “partial strategy” may not have been designed to manage the impact on thatcomponent specifically.
c.

“Strategy” to mean a cohesive and strategic arrangement that may comprise 1 ormore measures and an understanding of how the measures work to achieve an
outcome. A “strategy” should be designed to manage impact on that component
specifically, it needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity, and cultural context ofthe fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices if
unacceptable impacts are identified.

d. “Comprehensive strategy” to mean a complete and tested strategy made up of linked
monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses. The term is only
applicable to the ETP/OOS component.

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

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.4

General requirements for information PIs ◙SA3.4.1

The team shall interpret the SG100 level relating to “information adequate to support a
strategy” to include information provided by a strategic research plan that addresses theinformation needs of management.

SA3.4.1.1

SA3.5

This information shall go beyond the immediate short-term management needs tocreate a strategic body of research relevant to the long-term fishery-specificmanagement system.

In-scope species outcome PI (PI 2.1.1)

Table SA9: PI 2.1.1 in-scope species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

In-scope
species

Outcomestatus(a)
Main in-scope
species stock
statusMain in-scope
species arelikely to be
above thePRI.

Main in-scope
species arehighly likely
to be above
the PRI.

oror

If the species
is below the
PRI, it islikely that theUoA does nothinderrecovery andrebuilding.

If the species
is below the
PRI, there isevidence ofrecovery, or itis highly
likely that theUoA does nothinderrecovery andrebuilding.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that main inscope species
are fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent
with MSY.

2.1.1
The UoA aims
to maintain inscope species
above the PRI
and does nothinderrecovery of inscope species
if they are
below thePRI.

(b)
Minor inscope species
stock status

Minor inscope species
are highly
likely to be
above thePRI.
or
If below the
PRI, there isevidence that
the UoA does
not hinder therecovery andrebuilding ofminor inscope
species.

SA3.5.1

If information is not available on the stock status relative to the PRI or MSY levels, theteam shall use proxy indicators and reference points as per SA2.2.3. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.5.2

The team shall determine and justify which in-scope species are considered “main” andwhich are “minor”. ◙SA3.5.2.1

The team shall consider a species “main” if: ◙a. The catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total
catch of all species by the UoA, or
b. The species is classified as “less resilient” and the catch of the species by the
UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the
UoA, or:i.

The team shall classify a species as “less resilient” if:
A. The productivity of the species indicates that it is intrinsically of low
resilience, and/or
B. Its intrinsic resilience is high and existing knowledge of the species
indicates that its resilience has been lowered because ofanthropogenic or natural changes to its life history.

c.

The species is a shark and the fishery trades in shark fins.

SA3.5.2.2

If a species does not meet the designated weight thresholds of 5% or 2% asdefined in SA3.5.2.1, the team shall still classify a species as “main” if the total
catch of the UoA is exceptionally large, such that even small catch proportions of a
P2 species significantly impact the affected stocks/populations.

SA3.5.2.3

The team shall consider all other in-scope species that are not considered “main” as“minor” species.

SA3.5.3

The team shall consider UoA impact as “negligible” for “minor species” that make up < 2%of total UoA catch, except in cases where SA3.5.2.2 applies.

SA3.5.4

If there are no “main” species scoring elements, the team shall award a score of 100 forscoring issue (a).

SA3.5.5

At the SG80 level, if a species is below the level at which recruitment could be impaired,
the team shall recognise “evidence of recovery” using at least 1 of the following as
rationale: ◙a. Direct evidence from time-series estimates of stock status.
b. Indirect evidence from time-series of indicators or proxies of stock status that are
indicative of the state of the whole stock.
c.

Indicators, proxies, or absolute estimates of exploitation rate that show that fishingmortality experienced by the stock is lower than FMSY.

d. Direct evidence that the proportion of catch by the UoA relative to the total catch of thestock does not hinder recovery.

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

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.6

In-scope species management strategy PI (PI 2.1.2)

Table SA10: PI 2.1.2 in-scope species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

In-scope
speciesManagement
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace ◙

There aremeasures inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that areexpected tomaintain or to
not hinder
rebuilding of
the main inscope species
at/to the inscope species
outcome
SG60 level.

There is apartialstrategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tomaintain or to
not hinder
rebuilding of
the main inscope species
at/to the inscope species
outcome
SG80 level.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA formanaging
main andminor inscope species
to achieve thein-scope
speciesoutcome
SG80 level of
performance.

2.1.2
There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned tomaintain or to
not hinder
rebuilding ofin-scope
species.

orWhere inscope species
outcome fails
to meet theSG80, ademonstrably
effective
strategy is inplace
between all
MSC UoAs
that
categorise
this species
as main Inscope toensure thattheycollectively do
not hinder
recovery andrebuilding.
(b)Management
strategy
effectiveness

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022The
measures, if
necessary,areconsidered
likely to workfor the main
in-scope
species,based on

There is someevidence thatthe measures/
partialstrategy, if
necessary, isachieving theobjectives formain in-scope
species set

There isevidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy isachieving theobjectives set
out in scoring
issue (a),based on

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

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

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

plausible
argument.

out in scoring
issue (a),based onsome
information
directly about
the UoA
and/orspecies
involved.

information
directly about
the UoA
and/orspecies
involved.

(c)
Review ofalternative
measures

There is areview ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of main
in-scope
species.

There is areview atleast once
every 5 yearsof alternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of main
in-scope
species andthey areimplemented, asappropriate.

There is areview that
happens
every 2 yearsof alternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of all inscope
species, andthey areimplemented, asappropriate.

(d)
Shark finning

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

(e)
Ghost gear
management
strategy

There aremeasures inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that areexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on all inscope
species.

There is apartialstrategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on all inscope
species.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on all inscope
species.

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Reviewing “alternative measures” for “unwanted catch”
SA3.6.1

If there is “unwanted catch”, the team shall score scoring issue (c).

SA3.6.1.1

The team shall interpret “alternative measures” as alternative fishing gear and/or
practices (i.e. those not already used in the UoA prior to the review) that have beenshown to minimise incidental mortality of the species or species type to the lowest
achievable levels. ◙a. The team shall only consider “alternative measures” directed at minimisingmortality of “unwanted catch” from ghost gear within scoring issue (e).

SA3.6.1.2

The team shall verify that a “review” includes consideration of the potential
effectiveness and practicality of “alternative measures”. ◙SA3.6.1.3

The team shall interpret “implemented as appropriate” as situations where potential“alternative measures” reviewed are: ◙a. Determined to be more effective at minimising the mortality of “unwanted catch”
than current fishing gear and practices.
b. Determined to be comparable to existing measures in terms of effect on target
species catch and impacts on vessel and crew safety.
c.

Determined to not negatively impact other species or habitats.

d. Not cost prohibitive to implement.

Shark finningSA3.6.2

If the in-scope species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (d) following
SA2.4.3–SA2.4.4.

Ghost gear management strategy ◙SA3.6.3

The team shall score scoring issue (e) where the corresponding ghost gear management
scoring issue, PI 2.2.2 scoring issue (e), is not scored (i.e. in scoring scenarios where
there are no ETP/OOS scoring elements):
a. The term “if necessary” is used at SG60, SG80, and SG100 referring to whether therisk of ghost fishing or ghost gear impacts are either demonstrably absent or“negligible” (as defined in SA3.6.4.1). ◙SA3.6.4

The team shall interpret “minimise” in scoring issue (e) as a reduction of ghost gear and its
impact to the point where the risk of ghost fishing or ghost gear impacts are either
demonstrably absent or “negligible”.

SA3.6.4.1

The team shall use its expert judgement in determining what is “negligible”.
a. In making this determination, the team shall consider:i.

The significance of the ghost gear risk in relation to the prevalence of ghost
gear and vulnerability of species (for in-scope and/or ETP/OOS scoring
components).

ii.

The significance of ghost gear risk in relation to the prevalence of ghost
gear and the sensitivity/and or vulnerability of habitats (for habitats scoring
component) at risk of ghost gear impact.

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

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.7

In-scope species information PI (PI 2.1.3)

Table SA11: PI 2.1.3 in-scope species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

In-scope
species

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
main in-scope
species

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe impact of
the UoA on
the stockstatus of main
in-scope
species.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on thestock status ofmain in-scope
species with ahigh degreeof accuracy.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on thestock status ofmain in-scope
species with avery highdegree ofaccuracy.

2.1.3
Information isadequate todetermine theimpact of the
UoA on inscope species
and theeffectivenessofmanagement
measures or
strategies inplace.

(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
minor inscope species(c)Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

SA3.7.1

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on thestock status ofminor inscope species
with a highdegree ofaccuracy.
Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage main
in-scope
species.

Information isadequate tosupport apartialstrategy tomanage main
in-scope
species.

Informationis adequate
to support a
strategy tomanage all inscope species
and evaluatewith a highdegree ofcertainty
whether the
strategy isachieving its
objective.

The team shall report the catch- and UoA-related mortality of all “main” species taken by
the UoA.

SA3.7.1.1

If the team has assessed a species or proportion of the catch of a species as“unwanted catch”, the team shall indicate the proportion of the catch that is
unwanted for each of these species.

SA3.7.2

In scoring issues (a) and (b), the team shall apply the Evidence Requirements Frameworkin Tool B of the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine which guidepost is met.

SA3.7.3

In scoring issue (c), the team shall use its expert judgement to consider the adequacy of
information in relation to supporting the management measures, partial strategy, or
strategy, including the ability to detect any changes in risk level to in-scope species. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.8

ETP/OOS species outcome PI (PI 2.2.1)

Table SA12 : PI 2.2.1 ETP/OOS species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
species

Outcomestatus(a)Direct effects◙

The direct
effects of the
UoA areunlikely tohinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

The direct
effects of the
UoA arehighlyunlikely tohinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the direct
effects of the
UoA do nothinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

2.2.1
The direct
effects of the
UoA do nothinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

SA3.8.1

The team shall identify the ETP/OOS unit(s). ◙SA3.8.1.1

The team shall identify the ETP/OOS unit(s) on the basis of either:a. Biological distinctiveness (defined by any genetic, life history, behavioural, or
morphological characteristics), orb. Conservation and management purposes (defined based on geographic
boundaries but drawing on biological information).

SA3.8.1.2

In making relevant determinations, the team shall consider biology and distributionof the ETP/OOS unit relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA, as per
SA3.8.1.1.

SA3.8.1.3

Where organisations responsible for assessing status of species have identified
specific ETP/OOS units in order to assess impacts of the UoA or wider fleet thatmeet the requirements in SA3.8.1.1 and SA3.8.1.2, the team shall select these units
as the ETP/OOS unit.

SA3.8.1.4

Where organisations responsible for assessing status of species have not identified
specific ETP/OOS units in order to assess impacts of the UoA or wider fleet, or
those units do not meet the requirements in SA3.8.1.1 and SA3.8.1.2, the teamshall select the most relevant unit for assessing the impacts of the UoA on the
population, following SA3.8.1.1 and SA3.8.1.2.

SA3.8.1.5

The team shall treat each ETP/OOS unit selected as a separate scoring element.

SA3.8.1.6

The team shall justify the selection of each ETP/OOS unit.

SA3.8.2

The team shall evaluate the likelihood that the UoA does not hinder recovery of the
ETP/OOS unit to favourable conservation status through:a. Review of quantitative assessment(s) that determine the impact of the UoA withrespect to favourable conservation status, orb. Review of evidence that the UoA impact is “negligible”.

SA3.8.2.1

The team shall consider favourable conservation status to be a level equivalent toat least 50% carrying capacity unless the team has defined a higher level based on
the life history characteristics of the ETP/OOS unit.

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

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.8.2.2

Where the following reference points are specified and are set at a level of at least
50% carrying capacity, the team shall consider the reference point equivalent tofavourable conservation status:
a. Optimum Sustainable Population.
b. Maximum Net Productivity Level.
c.

Maximum Sustained Fishing Mortality.

d. Fishing Mortality or Biomass-based reference points.
SA3.8.2.3

The team shall evaluate whether the UoA would hinder recovery (as defined inSA3.1.1) of the ETP/OOS unit to favourable conservation status within a timeframeof 3 generations or 100 years, whichever is shorter.

SA3.8.2.4

Where the UoA impact on the ETP/OOS unit is “negligible” (as defined inSA3.8.2.5), the team shall also consider this as evidence that the UoA is nothindering recovery at all SG levels.

SA3.8.2.5

The team shall define the UoA impact as “negligible” when the following
requirements are met:a. The UoA has achieved at least a score of 80 for PI 2.2.3 scoring issue (a), and:SA3.8.2.6
SA3.8.3i.

For OOS species, based on the information in (a), the average estimates ofmortality from the UoA are less than 10 individuals per year, and the lower
bound of estimated breeding population size is equal to or greater than
5,000 individuals, orii.

For fish or invertebrate species, UoA mortalities represent less than 2% of
total UoA catch.

The team shall identify in the report all ETP/OOS species on which the UoA has a“negligible” impact and provide a rationale for considering them as such.

At the SG80 level for scoring issue (a), if the ETP/OOS unit is a marine mammal andintentional harassment or intentional killing of that ETP/OOS unit is an integral part of thefishing operation, the team shall verify that it is estimated to be at or above favourable
conservation status with a “high degree of certainty” (as per Table SA8).

SA3.8.3.1

The team shall verify the status of the ETP/OOS unit using a quantitative estimateof the population size within the last 5 years that has been:a. Produced by an independent research organisation or has been independently
verified, andb. Made publicly available.

SA3.8.3.2“Intentional” shall mean any action that is not deemed to be “incidental” to fishing
operations. ◙a. The term “incidental” describes consequences or results that were neither
intended nor anticipated.

SA3.8.3.3“Harassment” shall mean any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has thepotential to:a. Injure a marine mammal, or
b. Disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioural patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.

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

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.8.3.4“Integral part” shall mean a tactical or necessary part of the fishing operation of any
vessel within the UoA.
a. The term “tactical” describes actions instituted by the UoA whilst undertaking
fishing operations (e.g. deploying or hauling fishing gear) that either make useof (e.g. used to help facilitate capture of target species), or target (e.g. pursue
or encircle) marine mammals.
b. The term “necessary” describes actions required, or expected, to maximise
catch or its efficiency.

SA3.8.3.5

Where the team trigger SA3.8.3 for an ETP/OOS unit, the maximum score the teamshall award for that unit is 80.

SA3.8.3.6

The team shall apply SA3.8.3 irrespective of:a. Whether the UoA impact on the ETP/OOS unit is determined to be negligible asper SA3.8.2.5.
b. Whether the RBF is triggered for the relevant ETP/OOS unit.
c.

SA3.9

Whether the client, or entities within the client group, are permitted tointentionally kill or harass marine mammals (i.e. through permits or other typesof allowances).

ETP/OOS species management strategy PI (PI 2.2.2) ◙Table SA13: PI 2.2.2 ETP/OOS species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
speciesManagement
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace ◙

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,that areexpected tominimise the
UoA-related
mortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit andachieve the
ETP/OOSoutcome
SG80 level of
performance.

There is a
strategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimise the
UoA-related
mortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit andachieve the
ETP/OOSoutcome
SG80 level of
performance.

There is acomprehensi
ve strategy inplace that is
expected tominimise the
UoA-related
mortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit andachieve the
ETP outcome
SG80 level of
performance.

2.2.2
The UoA has
precautionary
management
strategies in
place
designed to:– Ensure thatincidental
catches of the
ETP/OOS unit
areminimised
and where
possible
eliminated– Ensure that
the UoA does
not hinder
recovery to
Favourable
Conservation
Status.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022(b)
Management
strategy
effectiveness◙Evidence
indicates thatthemeasures,strategy, or
comprehensi
ve strategy
have reducedor minimised
the mortalityof theETP/OOSunit.

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(c)
Review ofalternative
measures tominimisemortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit ◙

SA3.9.1(d)Shark finning

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

(e)
Ghost gear
management
strategy

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,for the UoA
that areexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on theETP/OOS
unit.

SG80

SG100

There is areview atleast once
every 5 yearsof thealternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit and theyare
implemented
as appropriate
for theETP/OOSunit.

There is areview that
happens
every 2 yearsof alternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit, and theyare
implemented,
as appropriate
for theETP/OOSunit.

There is apartialstrategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on theETP/OOSunit.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on theETP/OOSunit.

In scoring issue (a), the team shall interpret “measures”/“strategy”/“comprehensive
strategy” in place that is/are expected to minimise mortality as including “measures” thathave been shown to minimise mortalities through:a. Spatial and/or temporal gear restrictions or closures, orb. Modification of fishing gears and practices, orc.

SA3.9.1.1

Maximising the live release of individuals while ensuring the safety of the fishing crew.
The team shall justify how these measures are expected to minimise the UoArelated mortality based on at least 1 of the following:a. The use of best practice mitigation “measures”, where these havedemonstrably achieved minimisation of mortalities of a species with a specificgear type.

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

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

b. Comparison with similar fisheries and species (similar gear, area of operation,and interactions with the ETP/OOS unit).
c.
SA3.9.2

From trials or application in the UoA itself.

In scoring issue (b), the team shall review evidence and provide rationale on theeffectiveness of the “measures”, “strategy”, or “comprehensive strategy” in achieving theobjective of minimising mortality of the ETP/OOS unit.

SA3.9.2.1

Within the rationale, the team shall include evidence of “demonstratable reductions
in ETP/OOS unit mortalities” since implementation of the“measures”/”strategy”/”comprehensive strategy”, unless ETP/OOS mortalities are“negligible”, as per SA3.8.2.5, or “minimised”.
a. The team shall interpret ETP/OOS unit mortalities as “minimised” when both of
the following are met:i.

The ETP/OOS unit score meets at least the SG80 for ETP outcome (PI2.2.1) scoring issue (a) or achieves a score of 80 or above when applying
the RBF in the ‘MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox’.

ii.

The ETP/OOS unit score meets the SG100 for ETP Management (PI 2.2.2)
scoring issue (a).

b. The team shall interpret “Demonstrable reductions in ETP/OOS unit mortalities”
as a clear trend showing a decline in mortalities due to the implementation of“measures” described in SA3.9.1 since the “measures” were introduced.

Reviewing “alternative measures” for ETP/OOS species
SA3.9.3

The CAB shall assess scoring issue (c) unless ETP mortalities are zero or “negligible”.

SA3.9.3.1“Alternative measures” shall be interpreted as alternative fishing gear and practices(i.e. those not already used in the UoA prior to the review) that meet the criteria for“measures” that are expected to minimise mortality as per SA3.9.1.1.

SA3.9.3.2“Implemented as appropriate for the ETP/OOS unit” shall be interpreted as
situations where potential “alternative measures” reviewed are:a. Determined to be more effective at minimising the mortality of the ETP/OOS
unit than the current fishing gear and practices.
b. Determined to be comparable to existing measures in terms of effect on target
species catch, and impacts on vessel and crew safety.
c.

Determined to not negatively impact other species or habitats.

Shark finning
SA3.9.4

If the ETP species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (d) following SA2.4.3–
SA2.4.4.

Ghost gear management strategy
SA3.9.5

In assessing scoring issue (e), the team shall apply SA3.6.3–4.
a. The team shall only assess scoring issue (e) when there are ETP/OOS scoring
elements.
b. The term “if necessary”, used at SG60, SG80, and SG100, refers to whether the riskof ghost fishing or ghost gear impacts are either demonstrably absent or “negligible”.

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

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.10 ETP/OOS species information PI (PI 2.2.3)
Table SA14: PI 2.2.3 ETP/OOS species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
species

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe impact of
the UoA on
the ETP/OOS
unit.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on the
ETP/OOSunit, and to
estimate
whether the
UoA may bea threat to its
recovery, witha highdegree ofaccuracy.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on the
ETP/OOS unit,
and to estimate
whether the
UoA may be athreat to its
recovery, with avery highdegree ofaccuracy.

(b)
Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanageimpacts on
the ETP/OOS
unit.

Informationis adequate
to support a
strategy tomanageimpacts on
the ETP/OOS
unit, and tomeasuretrends toevaluate theeffectivenessof themeasures tominimisemortality.

Information isadequate tosupport acomprehensive
strategy tomanage impacts
on theETP/OOS unit,
and to evaluatetheeffectiveness ofthe measures
to minimisemortality with ahigh degree ofcertainty.

2.2.3
Information isadequate todetermine theimpact of the
UoA on the
ETP/OOSunit and theeffectivenessofmanagement
measures or
strategies inplace.

SA3.10.1 In scoring issue (a), the team shall apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in Tool Bof the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine which scoring guidepost is met.
SA3.10.2 In scoring issue (b), the team shall use its expert judgement to consider the adequacy of
information in relation to supporting the management “measures”, “strategy”, or“comprehensive strategy”.

SA3.11 Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.3.1) ◙Table SA15: PI 2.3.1 habitats outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Outcomestatus(a)
Less

The UoA is
unlikely to
reduceThe UoA is
highlyunlikely to

There isevidence that
the UoA is

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

Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

2.3.1

sensitive
habitats

structure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

reducestructure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

(b)
More
sensitive
habitats

The UoA is
unlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA does
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm tohabitatstructure andfunction,
considered on
the basis of
the areacovered bythegovernancebody(ies)
responsible
for fisheries
managementin the area(s)where theUoA operates.

SA3.11.1 The team shall assess the habitats component in relation to the effects of the UoA on the
structure and function of the habitats impacted by the UoA. ◙a. Each different habitat shall be scored as a separate element.
b.

If there is insufficient information for assessment of PI 2.3.1, the team shall use the
RBF Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) (as defined by A2.1.2 in the MSC Fisheries
Standard Toolbox).

c.

The team may use the RBF CSA even if there is sufficient information to assess PI
2.3.1.

SA3.11.2 If a benthic habitat is being assessed, the team shall recognise habitats based on thefollowing habitat characteristics: ◙a. Substratum – sediment type.
b. Geomorphology – seafloor topography.
c.

Biota – characteristic floral and/or faunal group(s).

SA3.11.3 The team shall determine and justify which habitats impacted by the UoA are lesssensitive or more sensitive, as follows: ◙a. The team shall define a less sensitive habitat as a habitat that would be able torecover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure and function within 20 years if
fishing were to cease entirely.

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

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

b. The team shall define a more sensitive habitat as a habitat that would be unable torecover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure and function within 20 years if
fishing were to cease entirely.
SA3.11.3.1 The team shall recognise habitats designated as FAO Vulnerable Marine
Ecosystems (VMEs) as “more” sensitive habitats. ◙SA3.11.3.2 The team shall determine whether a habitat is “less” or “more” sensitive,
irrespective of its protection status.
SA3.11.4 In the case of “less” sensitive habitats, the team shall interpret “serious or irreversibleharm” as reductions in habitat structure and function, such that the habitat would beunable to recover at least 80% of its hypothetical climax state within 20 years if fishing on
the habitat were to cease entirely. ◙SA3.11.5 In the case of “more” sensitive habitats, the team shall interpret “serious or irreversibleharm” as reductions in habitat structure and function below 80% of the unimpacted state.
◙SA3.11.6 When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, the team shall consider
the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international body(ies)
responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates, otherwise
known as the “managed area”. ◙SA3.11.6.1 The team shall use all available information (e.g. bioregional information) to
determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration.
SA3.11.6.2 The team shall use all available information to determine whether this distribution isentirely within the “managed area” or extends beyond the “managed area”.
SA3.11.6.3 If a habitat’s range falls entirely within the “managed area”, the team shall consider
the habitat’s range inside the “managed area”.
SA3.11.6.4 If a habitat’s range extends beyond the “managed area”, the team shall consider thehabitat’s range both inside and outside the “managed area”. ◙SA3.12 Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ◙Table SA16: PI 2.3.2 habitats management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,that areexpected toachieve thehabitatoutcome
SG80 level.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected toachieve thehabitatoutcome
SG80 level orabove.

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging theimpact of all
MSC
UoAs/nonMSC fisheries
on habitats.

2.3.2
There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned toensure the
UoA does notpose a risk ofserious or
irreversible
harm to thehabitats.

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

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

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

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(b)
Management
strategy
effectivenessThemeasures, if
necessary,areconsidered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument.

There is someevidence thatthe measures/
partialstrategy, if
necessary, isachieving theobjectives set
out in SI (a),based oninformation
directly
about theUoA and/or
habitats
involved.

There isevidence thatthe partial
strategy/strat
egy isachieving theobjectives set
out in SI (a),based oninformation
directly
about theUoA and/or
habitats
involved.

(c)Compliancewithmanagement
requirements
and other
MSC
UoAs’/nonMSC
fisheries’
measures toprotect moresensitive
habitats

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandcompliance inthe UoA withmanagement
requirements
to protect
more
sensitive
habitats.

Information isadequate todetermine,with a highdegree ofaccuracy,
compliance inthe UoA withboth its
management
requirements
and protection
measuresafforded tomoresensitive
habitats byother MSC
UoAs/nonMSC
fisheries,
where
relevant.

Information isadequate todetermine,with a very
high degreeof accuracy,compliance inthe UoA withboth its
management
requirements
and with
protection
measuresafforded tomoresensitive
habitats byother MSC
UoAs/nonMSC
fisheries,
where
relevant.

(d)Ghost gear
management
strategy

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,for the UoA
that areexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on allhabitats.

There is apartialstrategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on allhabitats.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that isexpected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on allhabitats.

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.12.1 The team shall consider the differences between “measures”, “partial strategy”, and“strategy” as they apply to habitat management. ◙SA3.12.1.1 In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 and SG80 levels, the “measures” or “partial
strategy” respectively, for a UoA that encounters more sensitive habitats shall
include, at a minimum: ◙a. Requirements to comply with management “measures” to protect “more”
sensitive habitats.
b. Implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid encounters with“more” sensitive habitats and avoid potential serious or irreversible harm.
SA3.12.1.2 In scoring issue (a) at the SG100 level: ◙a. The “strategy” for a UoA that encounters “more” sensitive habitats shall include
a comprehensive management plan that is supported by a comprehensive
impact assessment that determines that all fishing activities will not cause
serious or irreversible harm to “more” sensitive habitats.
b. A management “strategy” shall be in place for all UoAs, including those that do
not regularly contact benthic habitats, because gear loss or unexpected benthic
impact could occur.
SA3.12.2 The team shall score scoring issue (c) if:
a. The UoA impacts a “more” sensitive habitat, and/or
b. Another MSC UoA or non-MSC fishery, where relevant, impacts a “more” sensitive
habitat within the UoA’s “managed area” (as defined in SA3.11.6).
SA3.12.2.1 For scoring issue (c), to avoid the possibility that the cumulative impact of MSC
UoAs could cause serious or irreversible harm to “more” sensitive habitats, theteam shall assess the extent to which the UoA:
a. Takes into account and implements, “where relevant”, precautionary protection
measures implemented by other MSC UoAs.
b. Takes into account information from non-MSC fisheries, where available and“where relevant”.
SA3.12.2.2 In determining “where relevant”, the team shall include: ◙a. Consideration only of areas where closure is clearly aimed at precautionary
protection of more sensitive habitats, based on scientific rationale and bestpractice. The team shall not include closures that are designed for otherpurposes.
b. Avoidance of closed areas arising from move-on rules and consideration ofother “measures” implemented by all MSC UoAs.
c.

Avoidance of any relevant move-on areas implemented by non-MSC fisheries if
the area coordinates are available.

SA3.12.3 In scoring issue (c), the team shall apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in Tool Bof the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine which guidepost is met.

Ghost gear management strategy
SA3.12.4 In assessing (d), the team shall apply SA3.6.3 and SA3.6.4.
SA3.12.4.1 The term “if necessary” used at SG60, SG80, and SG100 refers to whether the riskof ghost fishing or ghost gear impacts are either demonstrably absent or“negligible”.

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

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.13 Habitats information PI (PI 2.3.3) ◙Table SA17: PI 2.3.3 habitats information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Information(a)
Information
quality

The types anddistribution of
habitats arebroadly
understood.

The nature,
distribution,andvulnerabilityof habitats in
the UoA area
are known at
a level ofdetail relevantto the scale
and intensityof the UoA.

The
distribution of
habitats is
known overtheir range,
with particularattention
given to theoccurrence ofvulnerable
habitats.

(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe impacts ofgear use on
habitats.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpacts of the
UoA onhabitats with ahigh degreeof accuracy.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpacts of the
UoA onhabitats with avery highdegree ofaccuracy.

Adequate
information
continues tobe collected
to detect any
increase inrisk tohabitats.

Changes inhabitatdistributions
over time aremeasured.

2.3.3
Information isadequate todetermine theimpact of the
UoA onhabitats,
includingchanges in
the risk posedby the UoA
over time.

(c)Monitoring ◙SA3.13.1 The team shall interpret “vulnerability” for the SG80 and SG100 levels to mean the
combination of:a. The likelihood that the gear would encounter the habitat.
b. The likelihood that the habitat would be altered were an encounter between the gearand the habitat to occur.
SA3.13.2 In scoring issue (b), the team shall apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in Tool Bof the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine which guidepost is met.

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

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.14 Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.4.1)
Table SA18: PI 2.4.1 ecosystem outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Outcomestatus(a)
Ecosystem
statusThe UoA is
unlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

2.4.1
The UoA does
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm to the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction.

SA3.14.1 This PI considers the wider ecosystem structure and function. The team shall score thedirect effects of the UoA on other components of the assessment (i.e. P1 target species,
in-scope species, ETP/OOS species, and habitats) separately to this PI.
SA3.14.2 The team shall identify and describe the assessed ecosystem in relation to the spatial andtemporal scale of the UoA and its intensity.
SA3.14.3 The team shall identify and assess all relevant key ecosystem elements on which the UoA
has an impact.
SA3.14.4 The team shall interpret “key” ecosystem elements as: ◙a. The features of an ecosystem considered most crucial to the ecosystem’s
characteristic nature and dynamics.
b. The features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions andthe key determinants of its resilience and productivity.
SA3.14.5 The team shall identify whether the UoA impact on key ecosystem element(s) includes
indirect effects on ETP/OOS units. ◙SA3.14.5.1 The team shall evaluate whether any identified indirect impacts are “likely” to hinder
the recovery of the ETP/OOS unit.
SA3.14.5.2 Where it is determined that indirect impacts are “likely” to hinder recovery of
ETP/OOS units, the team shall consider this to be evidence that the UoA is “likely”
to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point
where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
SA3.14.6 The team shall ensure that any qualitative analysis and/or expert judgements used toscore a UoA at SG60 and SG80 are approximately equivalent to the quantitative
probability interpretation in SA3.2.1 and Table SA8.
SA3.14.6.1 The team shall provide justification for equivalence.
SA3.14.6.2 The team shall use a range of informed viewpoints or alternative hypotheses tomake qualitative judgements about the probability interpretation of the SG.

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

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.15 Ecosystem management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2)
Table SA19: PI 2.4.2 ecosystem management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace ◙

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,which
considers thepotential
impacts of the
UoA on the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected toachieve the
Ecosystem
outcome
SG80 level.

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging theimpact of the
UoA on the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction.

(b)
Management
strategy
effectivenessThemeasures, if
necessary,areconsidered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument.

There issome
evidence thatthemeasures/partialstrategy, if
necessary, isachieving theobjectives set
out in scoring
issue (a)based onsome
information
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
ecosystem
involved.

There isevidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy isachieving theobjectives set
out in scoring
issue (a)based oninformation
directly about
the UoA
and/orecosystem
involved.

2.4.2
There aremeasures inplace toensure the
UoA does notpose a risk ofserious or
irreversible
harm toecosystem
structure andfunction.

SA3.15.1 In scoring issue (a), the team shall consider whether the management is capable ofadapting to environmental changes.
SA3.15.2 In scoring issue (a) the team shall interpret “strategy” to include well-understood functional
relationships between the UoA and the “key” elements of the ecosystem. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA3.16 Ecosystem information PI (PI 2.4.3)
Table SA20: PI 2.4.3 ecosystem information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Ecosystem

Information(a)
Information
quality

Informationis adequate
to identify the
key elementsof theecosystem.

Informationis adequate
to broadly
understandthe key
elements oftheecosystem.

(b)
Investigationof UoAimpacts

Main impactsof the UoA on
the key
ecosystem
elements canbe inferredfrom existing
information.

Main impactsof the UoA on
the key
elements oftheecosystem
have been
investigatedin detail.

Maininteractions
between the
UoA and the
key
ecosystem
elements
have been
investigatedin detail.

(c)
Understanding ofcomponent(i.e. P1 target
species, inscope and
ETP/OOS
species, andhabitats)
functions

The mainfunctions of
thecomponents
in theecosystem
are known.

The impactsof the UoA on
thecomponents
are identified
and the mainfunctions ofthese
components
in theecosystem
areunderstood.

(d)Monitoring

Adequate
data continue
to becollected todetect any
increase inrisk level.

Informationis adequate
to support thedevelopmentof strategies
to manage
ecosystem
impacts.

2.4.3
There isadequateknowledge oftheecosystemand the main
impacts of the
UoA on key
ecosystem
elements.

SG100

SA3.16.1 In scoring issue (d) the team shall interpret “information is adequate” to include anunderstanding of the effects of climate change on the natural productivity of the UoAs. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA4

Principle 3

Figure SA4: Principle 3 default assessment tree

SA4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ◙SA4.1.1

The team shall determine and document which jurisdictional category or combination ofjurisdictional categories apply to the management system of the UoA, including: ◙a. Single jurisdiction.
b. Single jurisdiction with indigenous component.
c.

Shared stocks.

d. Straddling stocks.
e. Stocks of highly migratory species (HMS).
f.
SA4.1.1.1

Stocks of discrete high seas non-HMS
The team shall consider formal, informal, and/or traditional management systems
when assessing performance of UoAs under Principle 3.

SA4.1.2

The team shall evaluate all UoAs under P3 PIs, regardless of whether or not the UoA is
subject to international cooperation to manage stocks.

SA4.1.3

The team shall not individually assess the performance of other fisheries’ management
bodies where they are also subject to international cooperation to manage the stock,
except where they impact directly on P1 and P2 outcomes and/or P3 implementation. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA4.1.4

The team shall provide, in the rationale, evidence demonstrating the validity androbustness of the conclusions for scores that are based on the consideration of informal or
traditional management systems.

SA4.1.4.1

The team shall obtain this evidence by: ◙a. Using different methods to collect information.
b. Cross-checking opinions and views from different segments of the stakeholder
community.

SA4.1.5

The team shall consider the scale and intensity of the UoA in determining theappropriateness of the management system.

SA4.2

Principle 3 terminology

SA4.2.1

The term “explicit” as used in P3 scoring guideposts shall refer to:a. Formally codified or documented management “measures” and mechanisms, and/or
b. Informal management “measures” and mechanisms that are well established andeffective.

SA4.2.1.1

In scoring management performance in the continuum from implicit to “explicit”, theteam shall consider:a. The extent to which such management “measures”, whether formal or informal,
are established in the UoA.
b. How well they are understood and applied by users within the UoA.
c.

SA4.3

The extent to which such measures are considered durable and unambiguous.

Legal and/or customary framework PI (PI 3.1.1) ◙Table SA21: PI 3.1.1 legal and/or customary framework PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policy

Legal and/or
customaryframework(a)Compatibilityof laws or
standards
with effective
management◙

There is aneffective
national legal
system and aframeworkforcooperation
with otherparties, where
necessary, todelivermanagement
outcomesconsistent
with MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

There is aneffective
national legal
system andorganisedand effective
cooperation
with otherparties, where
necessary, todelivermanagement
outcomesconsistent
with MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

There is aneffective
national legal
system andbinding
procedures
governingcooperation
with otherparties thatdelivermanagement
outcomesconsistent
with MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

(b)
Resolution of
disputes◙The
management
systemincorporates
or is subject

The
management
systemincorporates
or is subject

The
management
systemincorporates
or is subject

3.1.1
The
management
system exists
within an
appropriate
and effective
legal and/or
customaryframeworkthat ensuresthat it:– Is capableof delivering
sustainability
in the UoA(s).
– Observes
the legal

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

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissuesrights createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing forfood orlivelihood.

SG60

SG80

SG100

by law to amechanism
for theresolution oflegal disputes
arising within
the system.

by law to atransparent
mechanism
for theresolution oflegal disputes,
which isconsideredto beeffective indealing withmost issues
and that is
appropriate to
the context of
the UoA.

by law to atransparent
mechanism
for theresolution oflegal disputes,
which isappropriate to
the context ofthe fisheryand has beentested andproven to beeffective.

The
management
system has amechanism togenerally
respect thelegal rights
createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing forfood orlivelihood in amannerconsistent
with theobjectives of
MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

The
management
system has amechanism toobserve thelegal rights
createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing forfood orlivelihood in amannerconsistent
with theobjectives of
MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

The
management
system has amechanism toformallycommit to thelegal rights
createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing forfood andlivelihood in amannerconsistent
with theobjectives of
MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

– Incorporates
anappropriate
disputeresolution
framework.
(c)
Respect forrights ◙SA4.3.1

At the SG60 level for scoring issue (a), the team shall interpret “compatibility of laws or
standards with effective management” as follows:a. For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, thismeans:i.

The existence of national laws, agreements, and policies governing the actions of
all the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA.

ii.

That these laws, agreements, and/or policies provide a framework for cooperation
between national entities on national management issues, as appropriate for thecontext, size, scale, or intensity of the UoA.

b. For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, forexample, shared, straddling, HMS, and high seas non-HMS, this means:

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

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

i.

The fishery is not conducted under a “controversial” “unilateral” “exemption” to an“international agreement”, and ◙ii.

National and international laws, arrangements, agreements, and policies exist thatgovern the actions of the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,
andiii. A framework for cooperation with other territories, sub-regional, or regional
fisheries management organisations exists, oriv. Other bilateral/multilateral arrangements exist that create the cooperation required
to deliver sustainable management under the obligations of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Articles 63(2), 64, 118, and 119,and the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) Article 8.
SA4.3.1.1

Cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating
to: ◙a. The collection and sharing of scientific data.
b. The scientific assessment of stock status.
c.

SA4.3.1.2

SA4.3.2

Development of scientific advice.

The flag state of participants in the UoA shall have at least cooperating nonmember status within a relevant sub-regional or regional fisheries management
organisation, or another bilateral/multilateral arrangement, if such exists.

At the SG80 level for scoring issue (a), the team shall interpret “compatibility of laws or
standards with effective management” as follows:a. For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, thismeans:i.

The existence of national laws, agreements, and policy governing the actions of
all the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA.

ii.

That these laws, agreements, and/or policies also provide for organised
cooperation between national entities on national management issues; forexample, between regional and national management, state and federal
management, indigenous, and other groups.

b. For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, thismeans: ◙i.

The existence of national and international laws, agreements and policies
governing the actions of the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA.

ii.

That effective regional and/or international cooperation creates a comprehensive
cooperation under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and
UNFSA Article 8.

iii. That cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs
relating to the collection, sharing, and dissemination of scientific data; thescientific assessment of stock status and development of management advice; theagreement and delivery of management actions consistent with this sustainable
management advice; and on monitoring and control.
iv. That the flag state of fishery participants in the UoA shall be members of therelevant organisation or participants in the arrangement, or agree to apply theconservation and management measures established by the organisation or
arrangement, if such organisation or arrangement exists.
SA4.3.3

At the SG100 level for scoring issue (a), the team shall interpret “compatibility of laws or
standards with effective management” as follows: ◙a. For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, thismeans:

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

Page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0i.

National laws, agreements, and policies governing the actions of all the authorities
and actors involved in managing the UoA.

ii.

That these laws, agreements, and/or policies also provide for a formal system forcooperation between national entities; for example, between regional and national
management, state and federal management, indigenous, and other groups.

b. For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, thismeans:i.

The existence of national laws, agreements, and policies governing the actions of
the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA.

ii.

That binding legislation exists governing comprehensive international cooperation
under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA
Articles 8 and 10.

iii. That cooperation under the regional fisheries management organisation(RFMO)/arrangement, and the actions of the RFMO, shall demonstrably andeffectively deliver UNFSA Article 10.
SA4.3.3.1

The team shall interpret across SGs 60, 80, and 100 that “effective national legal
system” means that the client can provide objective evidence that most of theessential features and elements needed to deliver sustainable fisheries are present
in:a. A coherent, logical set of practices or procedures, orb. Within a coherent, logical, supporting, “rule-making” structure.

SA4.3.4

At the SG60 level for scoring issue (b), the team shall expect that the UoA is not subject todisputes that overwhelm the fishery enough to prevent it from meeting the objectives of
MSC P1 and P2. ◙SA4.3.5

For scoring issue (c), the team shall not make its own judgements or unilateral decisions
about whether or not custom or national treaties relating to aboriginal or indigenous
people have conferred rights upon any particular group or individual.

SA4.3.5.1

The use of the term “treaties” shall not include international treaties, or treaties
between states or nations, and is limited in this context to national treaties relating
specifically to aboriginal or indigenous people. ◙SA4.3.6

The team shall interpret “generally respect” in scoring issue (c) at SG60 to mean that there
is some evidence that the legal and/or customary framework for managing fisheriesconsiders the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent
on fishing for food or livelihood, and their long-term interests.

SA4.3.7

The team shall interpret “observe” in scoring issue (c) at SG80 to mean that:a. There are more-formal arrangements such as bylaws or regulations that make explicit
the requirement to consider the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people
dependent on fishing for food or livelihood.
b. Those people’s long-term interests are taken into account within the legal and/or
customary framework for managing fisheries.

SA4.3.8

The team shall interpret “formally commit” in scoring issue (c) at SG100 to mean that theclient can demonstrate a mandated legal basis where rights are fully codified within thefishery management system, and/or its policies and procedures for managing fisheries
under a legal framework.

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

Page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA4.4

Consultation, roles, and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2) ◙Table SA22: PI 3.1.2 consultation, roles, and responsibilities PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policy

Consultation,
roles and
responsibilities(a)Roles and
responsibilitiesOrganisations
andindividuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles, andresponsibilitie
s aregenerally
understood.

Organisations
andindividuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles, andresponsibilitie
s areexplicitly
defined andwellunderstoodfor key areasofresponsibility
andinteraction.

Organisations
andindividuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles, andresponsibilitie
s areexplicitly
defined andwellunderstoodfor all areasofresponsibility
andinteraction.

(b)Consultation
processes ◙The
management
systemincludesconsultation
processesthat obtainrelevant
informationfrom the main
affected
parties,
includinglocal
knowledge,
to inform the
management
system.

The
management
systemincludesconsultation
processesthat regularly
seek and
acceptrelevant
information,
includinglocal
knowledge.
Themanagement
systemdemonstrates
considerationof theinformation
obtained.

Themanagement
systemincludesconsultation
processesthat regularly
seek and
acceptrelevant
information,
includinglocal
knowledge.
Themanagement
systemdemonstrates
considerationof theinformationand explains
how it isused or not
used.

The
consultation
processThe
consultation
process

3.1.2
The
management
system has
effective
consultation
processesthat are open
to interested
and affectedparties.
The roles andresponsibilitie
s oforganisations
andindividuals
who areinvolved in the
management
process areclear and
understood by
all relevant
parties.

(c)Participation

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

Page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

providesopportunity
for allinterested andaffected
parties to be
involved.

providesopportunity
andencouragem
ent for all
interested andaffected
parties to be
involved, andfacilitates
their effective
engagement.

SA4.4.1

The team shall focus scoring on the effectiveness and transparency of the consultation
processes implemented by fishery managers to obtain and consider information from awide range of sources, including local knowledge, for input into a broad range ofdecisions, policies, and practices within the management system. ◙SA4.4.2

The team shall not focus scoring under this PI on the type of information obtained, nor on
mandating for what or how it must be used.

SA4.4.3

The team shall verify that consultation processes within the management system include
consideration of consultation processes at the management system level and fisheryspecific management systems that occur within it.

SA4.4.4

The team shall consider consultation processes that exist at a multinational level and anational level, subject to SA4.1.3.

SA4.4.5

The team shall interpret “local knowledge” to mean: ◙a. Qualitative information, and/or
b. Anecdotal information, and/orc.

Quantitative information, and/or

d. Data that comes from individuals or groups local to the fisheries managed under the
UoA’s management system.

SA4.5

Long-term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3) ◙Table SA23: PI 3.1.3 long-term objective PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policyLong-term
objectives(a)
Objectives◙

Long-term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking,consistent with
the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areClear longterm
objectives that
guide
decisionmaking,consistent with
the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary

Clear longterm objectives
that guidedecisionmaking,consistent with
the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, are

3.1.3
The
management
policy has
clear long-term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking that

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

Page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissuesare consistent
with the MSC
Fisheries
Standard, andincorporates
theprecautionary
approach.

SG60

SG80

SG100

implicit withinmanagement
policy.

approach, areexplicit withinmanagement
policy.

explicit within
and requiredbymanagement
policy.

SA4.5.1

The team shall interpret “management policy” to mean outside the specific UoA, hence ata higher level or within a broader context than the fishery-specific management system.

SA4.5.2

The team shall interpret the “precautionary approach” for the purposes of scoring this PI tomean:
a. Being cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate.
b. That the absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for
postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.

SA4.6

Fishery-specific management system PIs

SA4.6.1

The team shall ensure that all aspects of the fishery-specific management system areappropriate to the scale, intensity, and cultural context of the fishery.

SA4.7

Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1)

Table SA24: PI 3.2.1 fishery-specific objectives PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemFisheryspecificobjectives(a)
Objectives ◙Objectives,
which arebroadly
consistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
MSC
Principles 1
and 2, are
implicit within
the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

Short- andlong-term
objectives,
which areconsistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
MSC
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

Well-definedandmeasurable
short- andlong-term
objectives,
which aredemonstrably
consistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
MSC
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

3.2.1
The fisheryspecificmanagement
system has
clear, specificobjectives
designed toachieve theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

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

Page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA4.7.1

The team shall verify that the individual harvest or management strategies that are scoredin PIs under P1 and P2 are consistent with the fishery-specific objectives being scoredunder P3.

SA4.7.1.1

The team shall assess objectives under this PI.

SA4.7.1.2

The team shall assess strategies that implement the objectives under P1 and P2.

SA4.7.2

The team shall interpret “measurable” at SG100 to mean that, in addition to setting fisheryspecific objectives that make broad statements, objectives are operationally defined insuch a way that performance against the objective can be measured. ◙SA4.8

Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2)

Table SA25: PI 3.2.2 decision-making processes PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemDecisionmaking
processes(a)Decisionmaking
processes ◙There aresomedecisionmaking
processes inplace that
result inmeasuresandstrategies toachieve thefisheryspecificobjectives.

There areestablisheddecisionmaking
processesthat result inmeasuresandstrategies toachieve thefisheryspecificobjectives.

(b)
Responsiveness ofdecisionmaking
processes ◙Decisionmaking
processes
respond toseriousissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake someaccount of thewider
implications ofdecisions.

Decisionmaking
processes
respond toserious andotherimportantissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake accountof the wider
implications ofdecisions.

3.2.2
The fisheryspecificmanagement
systemincludeseffective
decisionmaking
processesthat result inmeasuresandstrategies toachieve theobjectives,and has an
appropriate
approach toactualdisputes in
the fishery.

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

SG100

Decisionmaking
processes
respond to allissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake accountof the wider
implications ofdecisions.

Page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(c)
Use ofprecautionary
approach

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

SG80

SG100

Decisionmaking
processes
use theprecautionar
y approachand are basedon bestavailable
information.

(d)Accountability
andtransparencyofmanagement
system anddecisionmaking
process ◙Someinformation on
the fishery’s
performanceandmanagement
action is
generally
available on
request to
stakeholders.

Informationon thefishery’s
performanceandmanagement
action isavailable on
request, andexplanations
are provided
for any
actions or lackof action
associatedwith findings
and relevant
recommendati
ons emerging
fromresearch,monitoring,evaluation,and review
activity.

Formalreporting to allinterested
stakeholders
providescomprehensiveinformationon thefishery’s
performanceandmanagement
actions anddescribes how
themanagement
systemresponded tofindings andrelevant
recommendati
ons emerging
fromresearch,monitoring,evaluation,and review
activity.

(e)Approach todisputes ◙Although the
management
authority or
fishery may
be subject tocontinuing
court
challenges, it
is notindicating adisrespect ordefiance ofthe law by
repeatedly
violating theThemanagement
system or
UoA isattempting tocomply in atimely fashion
with judicial
decisionsarising fromany legal
challenges.

Themanagement
system or
UoA acts
proactively to
avoid legal
disputes or
rapidly
implements
judicial
decisionsarising fromlegal
challenges.

Page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

same law or
regulationnecessary forthesustainabilityof the fishery.

SA4.8.1

The team shall verify that the absence of adequate scientific information is not used as areason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.

SA4.8.2

At SG80 and SG100, the team shall interpret the “precautionary approach” in this PI tomean that decision-making processes use caution when information is uncertain,
unreliable, or inadequate.

SA4.8.3

At SG100, the team shall verify that resulting measures and strategies from decisionmaking processes involve comprehensive, integrated measures or holistic strategies,
rather than individual or single measures.

SA4.8.4

In assessing scoring issue (d), the team shall consider:a. Public access to information on the fishery’s performance and fisheries data.
b. Availability of information to stakeholders on actions taken by management that have
implications for sustainable use of fisheries resources.
c.

Transparency of the decision-making process, so that it is clear to all stakeholders
that decisions were arrived at based on available evidence and due process.

SA4.8.4.1

At the SG60 level, the team should make available to all stakeholders on request atleast a general summary of information on subsidies, allocation, compliance, andfisheries management decisions.

SA4.8.4.2

At the SG80 level, in addition to the information provided at the SG60 level, theteam should make available to all stakeholders:a. Information on decisions.
b. Fisheries data supporting decisions.
c.

SA4.8.4.3

SA4.9

The reasons for decisions.

At the SG100 level, the information listed in the SG60 and SG80 levels shall becomprehensive and available openly, publicly, and regularly to all stakeholders.

Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ◙Table SA26: PI 3.2.3 compliance and enforcement PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemComplianceandenforcement(a)
MCS system◙

MCSmechanisms
exist within
the UoA.

An MCS
system exists
within the
UoA.

A
comprehensi
ve MCS
system iswellestablishedwithin the
UoA.

3.2.3
Monitoring,
control, andDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

surveillance(MCS)
mechanisms
ensure themanagement
measures in
the UoA are
enforced andcomplied with.

(b)
Sanctions ◙Sanctions toaddress noncomplianceexist within
the UoA.

Sanctions toaddress noncomplianceexist, whichareappropriate to
the UoA, andare applied.

Comprehensive sanctions
to address
noncomplianceexist that areappropriate to
the UoA andareconsistently
applied.

(c)Compliance(information)

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandcompliance inthe UoA.

Information isadequate toestimatecompliance inthe UoA witha highdegree ofaccuracy.

Information isadequate toestimatecompliance inthe UoA witha very highdegree ofaccuracy.

(d)Compliance(outcome) ◙Systematic
noncomplianceof regulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishingpractices on
the water is
not evident
within the
UoA.

Majority of
regulations,
including all
regulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishingpractices on
the water, arelikely to becomplied with.

Majority of
regulations,
including all
regulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishingpractices on
the water, areconsistently
complied with.

SA4.9.1

The team’s judgement on this PI shall be informed, to the extent possible, by independentand credible information from relevant compliance and enforcement agencies orindividuals and/or stakeholders.

SA4.9.2

In scoring issue (d), the team shall include compliance with regulations associated with“protected habitats” and “protected species”.

SA4.9.2.1

The team shall interpret “protected habitats” to mean habitats that have beenafforded a level of protection by a competent authority.

SA4.9.2.2

The team shall interpret “protected species” to mean species, stocks, or populations
that have been listed in national ETP legislation.

SA4.9.3

The team shall, at SG100 for scoring issue (a), consider whether the MCS systems arecomprehensive in relation to their coverage, the independence of the systems, and theinternal checks and balances.

SA4.9.4

In scoring issue (c), the team shall apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in Tool Bof the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox to determine which guidepost is met.

SA4.9.5

In scoring issue (d), the team shall interpret “systematic non-compliance” to mean therecurring infringement of regulations specific to governing sustainable fishing practices on
the water.

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

Page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SA4.10 Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI
3.2.4) ◙Table SA27: PI 3.2.4 monitoring and management performance evaluation PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemMonitoring
andmanagement
performance
evaluation(a)
Evaluation
coverage

There aremechanisms
in place toevaluatesome parts ofthe fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

There aremechanisms
in place toevaluate key
parts of thefisheryspecificmanagement
system.

There aremechanisms
in place toevaluate allparts of thefisheryspecificmanagement
system.

(b)
Internal
and/orexternal
review

The fisheryspecificmanagement
system is
subject tooccasional
internal
review.

The fisheryspecificmanagement
system is
subject toregularinternal andoccasional
external
review.

The fisheryspecificmanagement
system is
subject toregularinternal andexternal
review.

3.2.4
There is asystem formonitoring
andevaluating theperformanceof the fisheryspecificmanagement
systemagainst its
objectives.
There iseffective andtimely reviewof the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

SA4.10.1 The team shall interpret “external review” at SG80 and 100 to mean external to thefishery-specific management system, but not necessarily international. ◙SA4.10.2 The team shall interpret “occasional” and “regular” relative to the intensity of the UoA.
End of Section SA

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

Page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section SB: Modifications to the default assessment tree forenhanced bivalves – normative ◙Modifications to the default assessment tree structure to be used in enhanced bivalve fisheryassessments.

SB1

General

SB1.1

General requirements

SB1.1.1

The team shall apply Section SB as a supplement to Section SA in all enhanced bivalve
fishery assessments.

SB1.1.1.1

This Section includes only additions or modifications to the default assessment
tree and requirements in Section SA.

SB1.1.1.2

Unless otherwise noted, all other Section SA PISGs and requirements apply.

SB2

Principle 1

SB2.1

General requirements for Principle 1 ◙SB2.1.1

The team shall clearly define in the Announcement Comment Draft Report (FCP 7.8) thetype of enhanced bivalve fishery that will be assessed.

SB2.1.2

The team shall make an initial evaluation of whether there is evidence that an enhanced
CAG bivalve fishery negatively impacts the parent stock.

SB2.1.3

The team shall make an initial evaluation of whether there is translocation. ◙SB2.1.3.1
SB2.1.4

The team shall include in the rationale whether translocation negatively impacts
the parent stock.

If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery does not involve translocations, and there is noevidence that it negatively impacts the parent stock, the team may choose not to score
Principle 1.

SB2.1.4.1

The team shall include a rationale for this decision in the ‘MSC Notification ReportForm’ and Full Assessment Report.

SB2.1.4.2

If Principle 1 is not to be scored, Row 1 in FCP Table PC3 is not applicable.

SB2.1.5

If there are translocations within an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery, the team shall score
Principle 1 PIs in accordance with the RBF requirements (Tool A of the MSC Fisheries
Standard Toolbox). ◙SB2.1.5.1

The team shall conduct the assessment on all sources of seed stock used in thefishery.

SB2.1.5.2

The team shall score enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries that involve translocations
against the genetic outcome PI 1.1.3.

SB2.1.6

The team shall score bivalve fisheries that involve hatchery enhancement and that areassessed as HAC fisheries against Principle 1 PIs as per the default assessment tree inSection SA or the RBF requirements in Tool A of the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox.

SB2.1.6.1

The team shall score enhanced HAC bivalve fisheries against the genetic
component PIs 1.1.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.6.

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

Page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SB2.2

Genetic outcome PI (PI 1.1.3)

Table SB1: PI 1.1.3 genetic outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
outcome(a)
Genetic
impact ofenhancement
activity

The fishery is
unlikely toimpactgenetic
structure ofwild
populations toa point where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The fishery ishighlyunlikely toimpactgenetic
structure ofwild
populations toa point where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

An
independentpeer-reviewed
scientificassessment
confirms witha highdegree ofcertainty that
there are no
risks to thegenetic
structure of
the wild
population
associatedwith theenhancement
activity.

1.1.3
The fisheryhas
negligible
discernible
impact on thegenetic
structure ofthepopulation.

SB2.3

Genetic management PI (PI 1.2.5)

Table SB2: PI 1.2.5 genetic management PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
management(a)Genetic
management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,
which areexpected tomaintain thegenetic
structure of
the population
at levels
compatible
with the SG80
genetic
outcome levelof
performance(PI 1.1.3).

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,
which isexpected tomaintain thegenetic
structure of
the population
at levels
compatible
with the SG80
genetic
outcome levelof
performance(PI 1.1.3).

There is a
strategy inplace tomaintain thegenetic
structure of
the population
at levels
compatible
with the SG80
genetic
outcome levelof
performance(PI 1.1.3).

1.2.5
There is a
strategy inplace formanaging
the hatcheryenhanceme
nt activity
such that it
does notpose a riskof serious or
irreversible
harm to thegenetic

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

Page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

diversity of
the wild
population.

(b)
Genetic
management
strategy
evaluation ◙Themeasures are
considered
likely to work
based onplausible
argument.

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that thepartialstrategy will
work basedon information
directly
relevant to the
population(s)involved.

The strategy
is based on
in-depthknowledge ofthe genetic
structure ofthepopulation,and testingsupports highconfidence
that thestrategy will
work.

There issome
evidence thatthe partial
strategy is
being
implemented
successfully,
if necessary.

There is clear
evidence thatthe strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

(c)Genetic
management
strategy
implementation

SB2.4

There is someevidence thatthe strategy
is achieving
its overall
objective.

Genetic information PI (PI 1.2.6)

Table SB3: PI 1.2.6 genetic information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
information(a)
Information
quality

Qualitative or
inferential
information
is available on
the genetic
structure ofthepopulation.
Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe likely
impact ofhatcheryenhancement.

Qualitative or
inferential
informationand some
quantitative
information
are available
on the genetic
structure ofthepopulation.
Information is
sufficient toestimate thelikely impactof hatcheryenhancement.

The genetic
structure of
the populationis understoodin detail.
Information is
sufficient toestimate theimpact ofhatcheryenhancementwith a highdegree ofcertainty.

1.2.6
Information on
the genetic
structure of
the populationis adequate todetermine therisk posed by
theenhancement
activity andtheeffectivenessof theDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

managementof genetic
diversity.

(b)
Information
adequacy for
genetic
management
strategy

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage main
genetic
impacts of theenhancement
activity on thestock, ifnecessary.

Information isadequate tosupport apartialstrategy tomanage themain genetic
impacts of theenhancement
activity on thestock, ifnecessary.

Information isadequate tosupport acomprehensi
ve strategy tomanage thegenetic
impacts of theenhancement
activity on thestock andevaluate witha highdegree ofcertainty
whether the
strategy isachieving its
objective.

SB3

Principle 2

SB3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

SB3.1.1

All Principle 2 PIs in Section SA are applicable to enhanced HAC bivalve fisheries.

SB3.1.2

The team shall not score enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries based solely on spat collection
for the in-scope species PIs. ◙SB3.1.2.1

The team shall score enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries involving dredging for seedagainst the in-scope species PIs as per Section SA.

SB3.1.3

For enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries, the team shall score PIs for ETP/OOS species as
per the requirements in Section SA.

SB3.1.4

For enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries, the team shall score PIs for habitats and ecosystems
as per Section SA.

SB3.1.4.1

The team shall take into account the specific habitat and ecosystem impacts
associated with enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries.

SB3.1.4.2

For suspended culture systems, the team’s scoring shall consider the habitat
impacts of bio-deposition and benthic organic enrichment, and the ecosystem andcarrying capacity impacts of localised phytoplankton depletion from bivalve
filtration. ◙SB3.1.5

If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery involves the translocation of seed or adult shellfish,
the team shall score the fishery against the translocation PISGs 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.

SB3.1.6

The team shall score Principle 2 PIs from the default assessment tree for all sources ofseed stock for CAG bivalve fisheries involving translocations, except as specified in
SB3.1.2.

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

Page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SB3.2

Translocation outcome PI (PI 2.5.1)

Table SB4: PI 2.5.1 translocation outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Translocation

Translocation
outcome(a)
Impact oftranslocation
activity ◙The
translocation
activity is
unlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species intothesurrounding
ecosystem.

The
translocation
activity ishighlyunlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species intothesurrounding
ecosystem.

There isevidence thatthetranslocation
activity ishighlyunlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species intothesurrounding
ecosystem.

2.5.1
The
translocation
activity has
negligible
discernible
impact on thesurrounding
ecosystem.

SB3.3

Translocation management PI (PI 2.5.2)

Table SB5: PI 2.5.2 translocation component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Translocation

Translocation
management(a)Translocation
management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace which
are expected
to protect thesurrounding
ecosystemfrom thetranslocation
activity atlevelscompatible
with the SG80
translocation
outcome levelof
performance(PI 2.5.1).

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected toprotect thesurrounding
ecosystemfrom thetranslocation
activity atlevelscompatible
with the SG80
translocation
outcome levelof
performance(PI 2.5.1).

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging theimpacts oftranslocationon thesurrounding
ecosystem.

(b)Translocation
management

The measuresareconsidered
likely to work

A validdocumented
risk
assessment

An
independentpeer-reviewed
scientific

2.5.2
There is a
strategy inplace formanaging
translocations
such that thefishery does
not pose arisk of serious
or irreversible
harm to thesurrounding
ecosystem.

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

Page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

strategy
evaluation ◙based onplausible
argument.

or equivalentenvironmental
impactassessment
demonstrates
that thetranslocation
activity ishighlyunlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species intothesurrounding
ecosystem.

assessment
confirms witha highdegree ofcertainty that
there are no
risks to thesurrounding
ecosystem
associatedwith thetranslocation
activity.

Contingency
measureshave been
agreed in thecase of an
accidental
introduction of
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species dueto thetranslocation.

A formalised
contingency
plan in thecase of an
accidental
introduction of
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species dueto thetranslocationisdocumented
and available.

(c)Translocation
contingency
measuresDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SB3.4

Translocation information PI (PI 2.5.3)

Table SB6: PI 2.5.3 translocation component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Translocation

Translocation
information(a)
Information
quality

Information isavailable on
the presenceor absence ofdiseases,
pests,
pathogens,and nonnative
species at thesource anddestination ofthetranslocatedstock to guidethemanagement
strategy andreduce therisks
associatedwith thetranslocation.

Information is
sufficient toadequately
inform therisk and
impactassessments
required in
the SG80
translocation
managementlevel ofperformance(PI 2.5.2).

Information fromfrequent andcomprehensive
monitoring
demonstrates
no impact fromintroduced
diseases, pests,
and non-native
species with ahigh degree ofcertainty.

2.5.3
Informationon the impactof thetranslocation
activity on theenvironmentis adequate todetermine therisk posed by
the fishery.

SB4

Principle 3

SB4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ◙SB4.1.1

The team shall score enhanced bivalve fisheries against Principle 3 PIs as per Section
SA, with the exception of CAG fisheries, where P1 is not scored.

SB4.1.2

If P1 is not scored, the team shall focus P3 scoring on whether or not the appropriate andeffective legal and/or customary framework is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries inaccordance with P2 PISGs.

End of Section SB

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

Page 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section SC: Modifications to the default assessment tree forsalmon fisheries – normative
Modifications to the default assessment tree structure, including the PISGs for each of the 3 MSC
Principles to be used in salmon fishery assessments. ◙SC1GeneralSC1.1

General requirements

SC1.1.1

The team shall apply Section SC as a supplement to Section SA in all salmon fisheryassessments. ◙SC1.1.1.1

Only additions or modifications in relevant sections of the default assessment tree
and requirements are included in this Section.

SC1.1.2

The team shall score salmon fisheries against all PIs and scoring issues in Section SC.

SC1.1.3

The team shall interpret key words or phrases used in Section SC as per Table SC1. ◙Table SC1: Terms and definitions
Term

Definition and discussion

Artificial
production

The artificial propagation of fish that are released into the natural environment.
Artificial production is commonly used to increase the number of fish available to becaught or to rebuild depleted populations. It includes hatchery operations.

Artificially
produced fish

Those fish whose parents spawned in a hatchery or artificial habitat as describedabove.

Biological
Escapement
Goal (BEG)

The escapement that provides the greatest potential for maximum sustainable yield. 2

Diversity (ofsalmon)The genetic variation and adaptations to different environments that haveaccumulated between populations of salmon.

Enhancement

Artificial intervention in the natural life cycle of salmon. This may include artificial
production as defined above or other measures such as spawning channels, andlake fertilisation.

Population

A component of a stock management unit (SMU). Population refers to the wild
production components that may occupy different locations at different times. A
population could be a group of interbreeding salmon that is relatively isolated, hence
relatively demographically uncoupled from other such groups, and is likely to beadapted to the local habitat.

Production(of salmon)

Recruits per spawner x total spawners. The total production of the population.

2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (N.d.) Alaska fisheries sonar – escapement goals.

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

Page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Term

Definition and discussion

Productivity(of salmon)

The number of recruits per spawner. The term productivity is used in Section SA tomean productivity at the stock, not individual level. The team should consider thiswhen assessing salmon fisheries.

Productivity(related to theecologicalcommunity ortheecosystem)

The rate of biomass production per unit area per time.

SMSY

Spawner abundance at maximum sustainable yield.3

Stockmanagementunit

A group of 1 or more salmon populations. Generally, fishery management goals havebeen established by the management agency at this aggregate level. SMU is a broad
management concept; not every population with a defined goal need be an individual
SMU, but may be part of an SMU. For salmon fishery assessments, “stock” inSection SA refers to the SMU level.

Wild fish

F1 generation fish whose parents spawned in the wild, regardless of parental
lineage. Wild fish are also referred to as natural-origin fish.

3 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (2013) Proceedings of the National Workshop for Technical Expertise in

Stock Assessment (TESA): Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Reference Points and the Precautionary
Approach when Productivity Varies. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2012/055
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2

Principle 1

Figure SC1: Principle 1 modified default assessment tree for salmon fisheries

SC2.1

General requirements for Principle 1

SC2.1.1

The team shall consider the unique population structure of salmon in its assessment of
Principle 1. ◙SC2.1.2

The team shall regard stock management units (SMUs) as equivalent to single stocks in
Section SA.

SC2.1.3

Where Section SA default requirements apply, this is specifically noted in that section for
Principle 1.

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

Page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.2

Stock status PI (PI 1.1.1) ◙Table SC2: PI 1.1.1 stock status PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Outcome

Stock status(a)
Stock status

It is likely that
the SMU isabove theLRP.

It is highly
likely that the
SMU is above
the LRP.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the SMU
is above the
LRP.

The SMU is at
or fluctuatingaround its
TRP.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the SMU
has been
fluctuatingaround its
TRP, or has
been above
its TRP overrecent years.

1.1.1
The SMU is at
a level which
maintainshighproduction
and has a low
probability offalling below
its LRP.

(b)
Stock status
in relation to
the TRP. ◙(c)
Status ofcomponent
populations.

The majority
of component
populations in
the SMU are
within therange ofexpected
variability.

Scoring stock status
SC2.2.1

In scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon fisheries, the level of the LRPs and TRPs shall be consistent
with the intent in SA PI 1.1.1 for the outcome PIs. ◙SC2.2.1.1

The LRP shall be a level at which the SMU has a high probability of:a. Persistence in the presence of directed fishing.
b. Recovery to high production in the absence of directed fishing.

SC2.2.1.2

SC2.2.2

The TRP, generally expressed as a target escapement goal or target harvest rate,shall be a level at which the SMU maintains high production, such as BEGs or
SMSY.

In an enhanced fishery, the team shall assess status based solely on the wild salmon in
the SMU. ◙SC2.2.2.1

The team shall not include artificially produced fish when assessing spawningescapement goals, or other surrogate reference points. ◙SC2.2.2.2

If no distinction is made between wild fish and artificially produced fish in
estimates of spawning escapements or other surrogate reference points, the teamshall score stock status lower than in cases where wild fish are enumerated
separately.

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

Page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.2.3

The team shall consider the following in scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon, reflecting the periodic
recruitment patterns of these species. ◙SC2.2.3.1

Stock status: taking into consideration the specific dynamics of salmon stocks, thefishery shall meet the SG60 requirement in PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (a) if theaverage SMU spawning stock size is above the LRP.

SC2.2.3.2

The terms “likely”, “highly likely”, and “high degree of certainty” are used to allow
for qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Where time-series data are available,
the team shall interpret:a. “Likely” to mean ≥ 60% of the 15 most recent years (≥ 9 of the 15 years).
b. “Highly likely” to mean ≥ 80% of the 15 most recent years (≥ 12 of the 15
years).
c.

SC2.2.3.3“High degree of certainty” to mean > 90% of the 15 most recent years.

Stock status in relation to TRPs: in scoring issue (b) of PI 1.1.1, where time-series
data is available, the team shall interpret:a. “Fluctuating around” at the SG80 level to mean an SMU meeting its TRP in ≥50% of the 15 most recent years (≥ 8 of the 15 years).
b. A “high degree of certainty” at the SG100 level to mean that the SMU has met
its TRP in ≥ 80% of the15 most recent years (≥ 12 of the 15 years).

SC2.2.3.4

Status of component populations: scoring issue (c) allows for qualitative and/or
quantitative analysis. If population-specific reference points are neither defined,
nor individual populations monitored, the team may make a reasoned argument
based on expert judgement and qualitative information to score this scoring issue.
a. Fishing should allow for the persistence of component populations, recognisingthat at any point in time there are “likely” to be some populations at low andhigh productivity in the absence of fishing.

SC2.2.4

SA2.2.2–SA2.2.7 shall also apply.

SC2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ◙Table SC3: PI 1.1.2 stock rebuilding PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

OutcomeStockrebuilding(a)Rebuilding
timeframes

A rebuilding
timeframe isspecified for
the SMU thatis the shorterof 20 years
or 2 times its
generation
time.

(b)
Rebuilding
evaluation

Monitoring isin place todeterminewhether thefishery-based
rebuilding
strategies
are effective

1.1.2
Where theSMU isreduced,there isevidence ofstockrebuilding
within a
specified
timeframe.

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

SG80

SG100

The shortest
practicablerebuilding
timeframe isspecified that
does notexceed 1
generation
time for the
SMU.
There isevidence thatthe fisherybased
rebuilding
strategies
are being
implemented

There isstrongevidence thatthe rebuilding
strategies
are being
implemented
effectively, orPage 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(c)
Use ofenhancement
in stockrebuilding ◙

SG60

SG80

SG100

in rebuilding
the SMU
within thespecified
timeframe.

effectively, or
it is likely
based onsimulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates, orprevious
performancethat they will
be able torebuild the
SMU within
the specified
timeframe.

it is highly
likely basedon simulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates, orprevious
performancethat they will
be able torebuild the
SMU within
the specified
timeframe.

Enhancement
activities are
not routinely
used as astock
rebuilding
strategy but
may betemporarily inplace as aconservation
measure topreserve or
restore wild
diversity
threatened byhuman ornaturalimpacts.

Enhancement
activities arevery seldom
used as astock
rebuilding
strategy.

Enhancement
activities are
not used as astock
rebuilding
strategy.

SC2.3.1

The team shall only score this PI when stock status does not meet the SG80 level in PI
1.1.1 because of low stock levels, such that the SMU needs rebuilding. ◙SC2.3.2

The team shall assess and verify that no fisheries are targeting or otherwise excessively
harvesting populations that are below biologically based limits during the SMU rebuilding
period. ◙SC2.3.3

In scoring issue (a), at the SG60 level, for cases where the time for 2 generations is lessthan 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

SC2.3.4

In scoring issue (c), the team shall interpret:a. “Routinely” as built into a long-term management strategy or used in lieu of wild
salmon population management.
b. “Very seldom” as used only for short-term emergency cases that do not form part of along-term management or rebuilding strategy.

SC2.3.5

SA2.3.2–SA2.3.5 shall also apply.

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

Page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.4

Harvest strategy PI (PI 1.2.1)

Table SC4: PI 1.2.1 harvest strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy(management)

Harveststrategy(a)Harveststrategy
designThe harvest
strategy is
expected toachieve SMU
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80,
includingmeasuresthat addresscomponent
population
status issues.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of
the SMU, andthe elementsof the harvest
strategy work
together
towards
achieving
SMU
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80,
includingmeasuresthat addresscomponent
population
status issues.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of
the SMU andis designed
to achieve
SMU
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80,
includingmeasuresthat addresscomponent
population
status issues.

(b)
Harveststrategy
evaluation

The harvest
strategy islikely to work
based on priorexperience orplausible
argument.

The harvest
strategy has
been tested
and isexpected tomeet theobjectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80 orthere isevidence thatthe harvest
strategy isachieving its
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80.

The
performanceof the harvest
strategy has
beenevaluatedand evidence
exists to showthat it isachieving its
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80,
includingbeing clearlyable tomaintain
SMUs attarget levels.

(c)
Harveststrategy
monitoring

Monitoring isin place that is
expected todeterminewhether the
harveststrategy is
working.

1.2.1
There is arobust andprecautionary
harveststrategy inplace.

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

Page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

(d)
Harveststrategyreview(e)
Review ofalternative
measures

SG100

The harvest
strategy isperiodicallyreviewed andimproved asnecessary.
There hasbeen a reviewof thepotential
effectivenessandpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock.

There is areview every
5 years ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stockand they are
implemented
asappropriate.

There is areview every
2 years of thepotential
effectivenessandpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock,and they are
implemented,
asappropriate.

SC2.4.1

In scoring issue (a), the team shall evaluate whether fishery managers attempt to minimise
harvest of any weak component population(s) within the SMU through differential harvest.
◙

SC2.4.2

In scoring issue (a), the team shall consider whether the harvest strategy of a salmon
fishery with artificial production is designed to control exploitation rates on wild stocks inorder to allow for self-sustaining, locally adapted wild populations. ◙SC2.4.3

SA2.4.1–SA2.4.5 shall also apply.

SC2.5

Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ◙Table SC5: PI 1.2.2 HCRs and tools PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

HCRs andtools(a)
HCR design
andapplication

Generally
understood
HCRs are inplace that are
expected toreduce theexploitation
rate as the
SMU LRP isapproached.

Well-defined
HCRs are inplace that
ensure thattheexploitation
rate isreduced as
the LRP isapproached
and areThe HCRs are
expected tokeep the SMU
fluctuating at
or above atarget levelconsistent
with MSY or
another more
appropriate
level, taking

1.2.2
There arewell-definedand effective
HCRs inplace.

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

Page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

(b)
HCR
robustness touncertainty

SC2.5.1

SG80

SG100

expected tokeep the SMU
fluctuatingaround atarget levelconsistent
with MSY.

into accountthe ecologicalrole of thestock, most of
the time.

The HCRs arelikely to berobust to themainuncertainties.

The HCRs
take accountof a wide
range ofuncertainties,
including theecological roleof the SMU,
and there isevidence thatthe HCRs arerobust to themainuncertainties.

(c)
HCR
evaluation

There issome
evidence thattools used oravailable toimplement
HCRs areappropriate
and effective
in controlling
exploitation.

Available
evidence
indicates thatthe tools in
use areappropriate
and effectivein achieving
theexploitationlevelsrequiredunder the
HCRs.

Evidence
clearlyshows thatthe tools in
use areeffective inachieving the
exploitationlevelsrequiredunder the
HCRs.

(d)
Maintenanceof wild
component
populations

It is likely thatthe HCRs andtools areconsistentwithmaintaining
the diversity
andproductivity of
the wildcomponent
populations.

It is highly
likely that the
HCRs andtools areconsistentwithmaintaining
the diversity
andproductivity of
the wildcomponent
populations.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the HCRs
and tools are
consistentwithmaintaining
the diversity
andproductivity of
the wildcomponent
populations.

In scoring issue (a), the team shall consider whether the HCRs and tools are capable ofmaintaining the SMU at an abundance consistent with high production.

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

Page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.5.2

In scoring issue (d), the team shall consider empirical and/or analytical evidence, such as
field evidence and/or simulations of multiple population complexes, that supports thelikelihood that the established set of HCRs and tools will result in the abundance andspatial/temporal distribution of component populations consistent with maintaining theirdiversity and productivity. ◙SC2.5.3

The following shall also apply:
a.

SC2.6

SA2.5.1–SA2.5.3.

Information and monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) ◙Table SC6: PI 1.2.3 information and monitoring PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

Information
andmonitoring(a)
Range ofinformation ◙Somerelevant
information
related to
SMU
structure,
SMU
production,and fleetcomposition isavailable tosupport theharveststrategy,
includingindirect ordirectinformation
is available
on somecomponent
populations.

Sufficient
relevant
information
related to
SMU
structure,
SMU
production,
fleet
compositionand otherdata isavailable tosupport theharveststrategy,
includingharvests andspawning
escapements
for arepresentativ
e range of
wild
component
populations.

A
comprehensive
range ofinformation,
including somethat may not be
relevant to thecurrent harvest
strategy, isavailable.

(b)
Monitoring

SMU wild
abundanceand UoA
removals aremonitored andat least 1
indicator isavailable andmonitoredwith sufficientfrequency tosupport theharveststrategy.

SMU wild
abundanceand UoA
removals are
regularly
monitored at
a level ofaccuracy andcoverageconsistent
with theharveststrategy, and
1 or moreindicators

All information
required by theharvest strategy
is monitored withhigh frequency
and a highdegree ofcertainty, andthere is a goodunderstanding of
the inherent
uncertainties in
the information(data) and therobustness of

1.2.3
Relevant
information iscollected tosupport theharveststrategy.

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

Page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(c)Comprehensi
veness of
information

SG80

SG100

are available
and monitoredwith sufficientfrequency tosupport theharveststrategy.

assessment andmanagement tothis uncertainty.

There is good
information on
all other
fishery
removals fromthe SMU.

SC2.6.1

For scoring issue (a), at the SG80 level, “sufficient relevant information” shall include
direct evidence and/or analysis and risk assessments. ◙SC2.6.2

SA2.6.1–SA2.6.6 shall also apply.

SC2.7

Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ◙Table SC7: PI 1.2.4 assessment of stock status PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoring issues

Harveststrategy

Assessmentof stockstatus(a)
Appropriatenessof assessment
to stock underconsideration

1.2.4

SG60

There is anadequate
assessmentof the stock
status of the
SMU.
(b)Assessment
approach ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

The
assessment
estimates
stock status
relative togeneric
referencepointsappropriate tosalmon.

SG80

SG100

The
assessment isappropriate
for the SMU
and for the
harveststrategy.

Theassessment
takes into
account the
major features
relevant to the
biology of thespecies andthe nature of
the UoA.

The
assessment
estimates
stock status
relative toreferencepoints that areappropriate to
the SMU andcan beestimated.

The
assessment
estimates witha high level ofconfidence
both stock
status andreferencepoints that areappropriate to
the SMU and
its wildcomponent
populations.

Page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(c)
Uncertainty inthe assessment

The
assessment
identifies
major
sources of
uncertainty.

The
assessment
takes
uncertainty
into account.

The
assessment
takes into
account
uncertainty
and isevaluatingstock status
relative toreferencepoints in aprobabilistic
way.

(d)
Evaluation ofassessment

The
assessment
has beentested andshown to berobust, andalternative
hypotheses
andassessment
approaches
have been
rigorously
explored.

(e)Peer review ofassessment(f)
Representativen
ess of indicator
stocks ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Where
indicator
stocks areused as theprimarysource ofinformation
for making

Theassessmentof SMUstatus,including the
choice ofindicator
populations
and methods
for evaluatingwild salmon inenhancedfisheries, issubject topeer review.

The
assessment,
includingdesign for
using
indicator
populations
and methods
for evaluatingwild salmon inenhancedfisheries, has
beeninternallyandexternallypeerreviewed.

Where
indicator
stocks areused as theprimarysource ofinformation formakingWhere
indicator
stocks areused as theprimarysource ofinformation formakingPage 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoring issues(g)Definition of
SMUs ◙

SC2.7.1

SG60

SG80

SG100

management
decisions on
SMUs, there
is somescientificbasis for the
choice ofindicators.

management
decisions on
SMUs, there
is someevidence ofcoherence
between thestatus of theindicator
streams andthe status of
the other
populations
they represent
within the
management
unit, including
selection ofindicator
stocks withlow
productivity tomatch thoseof therepresentative
SMU where
applicable.

management
decisions on
SMUs, thestatus of theindicator
streams are
wellcorrelatedwith otherpopulations
they represent
within the
management
unit, including
stocks withlower
productivity.

The majorityof SMUs aredefined with aclear
rationale forconservation,
fishery
management,
and stockassessment
requirements.

The SMUs
are welldefined andincludedefinitions of
the major
populations,with a clear
rationale forconservation,
fishery
management,
and stockassessment
requirements.

There is an
unambiguous
description ofeach SMU
that mayinclude thegeographic
location, run
timing,migration
patterns,
and/orgenetics ofcomponent
populations,with a clear
rationale forconservation,
fishery
management,
and stockassessment
requirements.

In scoring issue (b), the team shall assess whether reference points will maintain the SMSY
or similarly abundant levels. ◙SC2.7.1.1

In enhanced salmon fisheries, the team shall consider whether the reference
points are based only on wild fish. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.7.1.2

TRPs shall be a level at which the SMU maintains high production, such as BEGs
or SMSY.

SC2.7.2

In scoring issue (f), the team shall evaluate factors such as number, spatial distribution,and migration timing of the indicator stocks relative to the SMU. ◙SC2.7.3

In scoring issue (g), the definition of SMUs shall reflect an understanding of the population
structure, including information on the component populations. ◙SC2.7.3.1

In defining SMUs, the team shall assess whether wild and artificially influenced
components are clearly distinguished. ◙SC2.8

General requirements for enhancement PIs

SC2.8.1

The team shall score all salmon fisheries against the enhancement PIs.

SC2.8.1.1
SC2.8.2

Where there are no enhancement activities associated with the UoA, the default
score for these enhancement PIs shall be 100.

The team shall interpret key words or phrases used in the enhancement PIs in Section SC
as per Table SC8.

Table SC8: Enhancement terms and definitions ◙TermDefinition and discussion

Habitat enhancement

The team should consider any modification to habitat that increases
the production beyond the normative processes of the habitat, with
the intent of increasing fishery production, to be artificial production.
The team may consider habitat modification intended to return habitat
to its normative state to be restoration. The team does not need toconsider this under the enhancement PIs.

Hatchery enhancement

Hatchery operations, such as seeding of a lake with fish released after
being raised in a hatchery.

“Integrated” hatcheryproduction

Where a hatchery population is associated with a wild population andthe hatchery program is managed, intentionally or in practice, in sucha way that gene flow from the wild to the hatchery population is nonnegligible.

pHOS

The proportion of hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally contributing
to the natural spawning population. The team should use the simple
4-year arithmetic mean for the purpose of assessments.

pNOB

The proportion of natural-origin (wild) fish contributing to the hatcherybroodstock. The team should use the simple 4-year arithmetic mean
for the purpose of assessments.

“Segregated” hatcheryproduction

Where hatchery populations are maintained as isolated reproductive
groups and hatchery fish do not stray into and spawn with wild
populations, or do so only to a very limited extent.

Stray rate

The proportion of fish that do not home accurately and return to someother location.

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

Page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC2.9

Enhancement outcomes PI (PI 1.3.1) ◙Table SC9: PI 1.3.1 enhancement outcomes PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryenhancement

Enhancement
outcomes(a)Enhancement
impacts ◙It is likelythat theenhancement
activities do
not havesignificant
negative
impacts on
the local
adaptation,
reproductive
performance,or
productivity
and diversityof wild
stocks.

It is highly
likely thattheenhancement
activities do
not havesignificant
negative
impacts on
the local
adaptation,
reproductive
performance,or
productivity
and diversityof wild
stocks.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that theenhancement
activities do
not havesignificant
negative
impacts on
the local
adaptation,
reproductive
performance,or
productivity
and diversityof wild
stocks.

1.3.1
Enhancement
activities do
not negatively
impact thewild stock(s).

SC2.9.1

The team shall determine the method used to score this PI based on the level of available
information.

SC2.9.1.1

If relevant studies on enhancement outcomes are available, the team shall use
these to score this PI. ◙SC2.9.1.2

If there are no relevant studies on enhancement outcomes, but estimated pHOS
and proportion of natural-origin, wild fish contributing to the hatchery broodstock(pNOB) values are available, the team shall use these to score this PI in relation
to default values appropriate to the species and type of enhancement. ◙SC2.9.1.3

If neither relevant studies nor estimates of pHOS nor pNOB are available, theteam shall use expert judgement to score this PI using a precautionary approach.
◙SC2.10 Enhancement management PI (PI 1.3.2)
Table SC10: PI 1.3.2 enhancement management PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryenhancement

Enhancement
management(a)Management
strategy inplace ◙

Practices
andprotocols arein place toprotect wild
stocks fromsignificant

There is apartialstrategy inplace toprotect wild
stocks fromsignificant

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace to protect
wild stocks fromsignificant
negative

1.3.2
Effectiveenhancement
and fishery

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

Page 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

strategies arein place toaddress
effects ofenhancement
activities onwild stock(s).

Scoringissues(b)
Management
strategy
evaluation

SG60

SG80

SG100

negative
impacts ofenhancement.

negative
impacts ofenhancement.

impacts ofenhancement.

The practices
and protocols
in place areconsidered
likely to beeffective
based onplausible
argument.

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that thestrategy iseffective,
based onevidence thatthe strategy
is achieving
the outcome
metrics used
to define theminimum
detrimental
impacts.

There is clear
evidence thatthecomprehensive
strategy is
successfully
protecting wild
stocks fromsignificant
detrimental
impacts ofenhancement.

SC2.10.1 The team shall assess whether management seeks to minimise the number andproportion of hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish in natural spawning areas. ◙SC2.11 Enhancement information PI (PI 1.3.3) ◙Table SC11: PI 1.3.3 enhancement information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryenhancement

Enhancement
information(a)
Information
adequacy ◙Somerelevant
information
is available onthecontribution ofenhanced fish
to the fishery
harvest, total
escapement,
and hatcherybroodstock.

Sufficient
relevant
qualitativeandquantitative
information
is available onthecontribution ofenhanced fish
to the fishery
harvest, total
escapement,
and hatcherybroodstock.

A
comprehensi
ve range of
relevant
quantitative
information
is available onthecontribution ofenhanced fish
to the fishery
harvest, total
escapement,
and hatcherybroodstock.

(b)
Use ofinformation inassessment

The effect ofenhancement
activities on
wild-stock
status,productivity,

A moderatelevel
analysis of
relevant
information isconducted

A
comprehensive analysisof relevant
information isconducted

1.3.3
Relevant
informationis collected,
andassessments
are adequate
to determine
the effect ofenhancement
activities onwild stock(s).

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

Page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

and diversity
are taken into
account
qualitatively.

and used bydecisionmakers toquantitatively
estimate theimpact ofenhancement
activities on
wild-stock
status,productivity,and diversity.

and routinely
used bydecisionmakers todetermine,with a highdegree ofcertainty, thequantitative
impact ofenhancement
activities on
wild-stock
status,productivity,and diversity.

SC2.11.1 In scoring issue (a), “information” shall include the marking and monitoring of artificially
produced fish. ◙SC2.11.2 In its assessment, the team shall consider the methods of artificial production. ◙SC3

Principle 2

SC3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

SC3.1.1

All Principle 2 PIs in Section SA shall apply.

SC3.1.2

This section includes only additions and modifications.

SC3.1.3

The team shall explicitly consider enhancement activities that are associated with thefishery.

SC3.1.4

The team shall score all Performance Indicators and Scoring Issues even in the absenceof enhancement activities.

SC3.2–9 No modifications to Section SA

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

Page 89© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.10 ETP/OOS species outcome PI (PI 2.2.1)
Table SC12: PI 2.2.1 ETP/OOS species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
species

Outcomestatus(a)Direct effects

The direct
effects of the
UoA,
includingenhancement
activities, areunlikely tohinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

The direct
effects of the
UoA,
includingenhancement
activities, arehighlyunlikely tohinderrecovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that the direct
effect of the
UoA,
includingenhancement
activities, do
not hinder
recovery of
the ETP/OOS
unit tofavourable
conservation
status.

2.2.1
The
ETP/OOS unit
is atfavourable
conservation
status, or the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not hinder
recovery tothis level.

SC3.11 ETP/OOS species management strategy PI (PI 2.2.2)
Table SC13: PI 2.2.2 ETP/OOS species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
speciesManagement
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,that areexpected tominimise the
UoA- andenhancement
relatedmortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit andachieve the
ETP/OOSoutcome
SG80 level of
performance.

There is a
strategy inplace, ifnecessary, thatis expected tominimise the
UoA- andenhancement
related-mortalityof the ETP/OOS
unit andachieve the
ETP/OOSoutcome SG80
level ofperformance.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace that is
expected tominimise the
UoA- andenhancement
relatedmortality of the
ETP/OOS unit
and achieve the
ETP/OOSoutcome SG80
level ofperformance.

2.2.2
The UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities haveprecautionary
management
strategies
designed to:– Ensure thatincidental
catches of the
ETP/OOS unit
are minimised

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

Page 90© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissuesand where
possible
eliminated.

(b)Management
strategy
effectivenessEvidence
indicates thatthe measures,
strategy, or
comprehensiv
e strategy have
reduced orminimised themortality of the
ETP/OOS unit.

(c)
Review ofalternative
measures tominimisemortality of
the ETP/OOS
unit

There is areview every 5
years of thealternative
measures tominimise UoAand
enhancement
related-mortalityof the ETP/OOS
unit, and theyare
implemented as
appropriate for
the ETP/OOS
unit.

There is areview every 2
years ofalternative
measures tominimise UoAand
enhancement
related-mortalityof the ETP/OOS
unit, and theyare
implemented, as
appropriate, for
the ETP/OOS
unit.

There is apartial strategy
in place for the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities, if
necessary, thatis expected tominimise ghost
gear and its
impact on the
ETP/OOS unit.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities, if
necessary, thatis expected tominimise ghost
gear and its
impact on the
ETP/OOS unit.

– Ensure that
the ETP/OOS
unit is at
favourable
conservation
status, or the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not hinder
recovery tothis level.

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

SG60

(d)
Shark finning

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

(e)
Ghost gear
management
strategy

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,for the UoA
andassociatedenhancement
activities, thatare expected
to minimise
ghost gearand its impact
on theETP/OOS
unit.

SG80

SG100

Page 91© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.12 ETP/OOS species information (PI 2.2.3)
Table SC14: PI 2.2.3 ETP/OOS species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP/OOS
species

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe impact of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the ETP/OOS
unit.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the ETP/OOS
unit, and to
estimate
whether the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities may
be a threat to
its recovery,
with a highdegree ofaccuracy.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the ETP/OOS
unit, and to
estimate
whether the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities may
be a threat to
its recovery,
with a very
high degreeof accuracy.

(b)
Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage theimpacts on
the ETP/OOS
unit.

Information isadequate tosupport a
strategy tomanageimpacts on
the ETP/OOS
unit, and tomeasuretrends toevaluate theeffectivenessof themeasures tominimisemortality.

Information isadequate tosupport acomprehensi
ve strategy tomanageimpacts on
the ETP/OOS
unit, and toevaluate theeffectivenessof themeasures tominimisemortality witha highdegree ofcertainty.

2.2.3
Information isadequate todetermine theimpact of the
UoA andenhancement
activities on
the ETP/OOS
unit and theeffectivenessofmanagement
measures or
strategies inplace.

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

Page 92© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.13 Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.3.1)
Table SC15: PI 2.3.1 habitats outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Outcomestatus(a)Less sensitive
habitats

The UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities, isunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities ishighlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities ishighlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofless sensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

(b)
More
sensitive
habitats

The UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities isunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities ishighlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities ishighlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction ofmoresensitive
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

(c)
Impacts due
toenhancement
activities
within the
UoA ◙

The
enhancement
activities areunlikely tohave adverse
impacts onhabitat.

The
enhancement
activities arehighlyunlikely tohave adverse
impacts onhabitat.

There is ahigh degreeof certainty
that theenhancement
activities do
not haveadverseimpacts onhabitat.

2.3.1
The UoA and
its associatedenhancement
activities do
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm tohabitatstructure andfunction,
considered on
the basis of
the areacovered bythegovernancebody(ies)
responsible
for fisheries
managementin the area(s)where theUoA operates.

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

Page 93© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.13.1 The team shall interpret “habitat” in this PI to include, but not be limited to:a. Water quality.
b. Access for wild fish to spawning habitat.
c.

Quality of stream habitat. ◙SC3.13.2 The team shall assess impacts that result from the physical operation of the culture facility
are not necessarily evaluated in the context of some broader regional resource
consequence.
SC3.13.2.1 The enhancement-related habitat modifications shall have minimal adverse
impacts on the surrounding habitats. ◙SC3.14 Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ◙Table SC16: PI 2.3.2 habitats management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,that areexpected toachieve thehabitatoutcome
SG80 level.

There is apartial strategy
in place, if
necessary, thatis expected toachieve thehabitat outcome
SG80 level orabove.

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging theimpact of all
MSC
UoAs/nonMSC fisheries
UoAs andassociatedenhancement
activities on
habitats.

(b)
Management
strategy
effectiveness◙Themeasuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument.

There is someevidence thatthemeasures/parti
al strategy isachieving theobjectives set
out in SI (a),based oninformation
directly about
the UoA, its
enhancement
activities, and/or
habitats
involved.

There isevidence thatthe partial
strategy/strat
egy isachieving theobjectives set
out in SI (a),based oninformation
directly about
the UoA, its
enhancement
activities,
and/orhabitats
involved.

2.3.2
There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned toensure the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not pose a riskof serious or
irreversible
harm to thehabitats.

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

Page 94© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(c)
Compliancewithmanagement
requirements
and other
MSC
UoAs’/nonMSC
fisheries’
measures toprotect moresensitive
habitats

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandcompliancein the UoA
withmanagement
requirements
to protect
more
sensitive
habitats.

Information isadequate toestimate, with ahigh degree of
accuracy,
compliance inthe UoA with its
management
requirements
and protection
measuresafforded tomore sensitive
habitats byother MSC
UoAs/non-MSC
fisheries, where
relevant.

Information isadequate toestimate, witha very highdegree ofaccuracy,
compliance inthe UoA withits
management
requirements
and with
protection
measuresafforded tomoresensitive
habitats byother MSC
UoAs/nonMSC
fisheries,
where
relevant.

(d)Ghost gear
management
strategy

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,for the UoA
andassociatedenhancement activities,
that areexpected tominimiseghost gearand its
impact on all
habitats.

There is apartial strategy
in place, if
necessary, for
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities, that is
expected tominimise ghost
gear and its
impact on all
habitats.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities thatis expected tominimiseghost gearand its impact
on allhabitats.

SC3.14.1 The team shall consider whether management strategies for enhancement activities are inplace to reduce impact on: ◙a. Water quality,b. Access of natural origin fish to spawning habitat, andc.

Quality of stream habitat.

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

Page 95© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.15 Habitats information PI (PI 2.3.3)
Table SC17: PI 2. 3.3 habitats information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Information
andmonitoring(a)
Information
quality

The types anddistribution of
the habitats
are broadly
understood.

The nature,
distribution,andvulnerability of
the habitats in
the UoA area
are known at
a level ofdetail relevantto the scale
and intensityof the UoA.

The
distribution of
habitats is
known overtheir range,
with particularattention
given to theoccurrence ofvulnerable
habitats.

(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe impacts ofgear use andenhancement
activities on
habitats.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpacts of the
UoA,
includingenhancement
activities, on
habitats with ahigh degreeof accuracy.

Information isadequate toestimate theimpacts of the
UoA,
includingenhancement
activities, on
habitats with avery highdegree ofaccuracy.

Adequate
information
continues tobe collected
to detect any
increase inrisk tohabitats.

Changes in all
habitatdistributions
over time aremeasured.

2.3.3
Information isadequate todetermine therisk posed tothe habitat by
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities andtheeffectivenessof the strategy
to manage
impacts on
the habitat.

(c)Monitoring

SC3.15.1 The team shall consider whether information on enhancement facilities and activities iscollected to support the outcome in PI 2.3.1. ◙SC3.15.2 In scoring issue (b) at SG60, the team shall verify that any information legally required byoperating permits relevant to these habitat issues is collected.

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

Page 96© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.16 Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.4.1)
Table SC18: PI 2.4.1 ecosystem outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Outcomestatus(a)
Ecosystem
statusThe UoA is
unlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

(b)
Impacts due
toenhancement◙

Enhancement
activities areunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

Enhancement
activities arehighlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence thattheenhancement
activities arehighlyunlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

2.4.1
The UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm to the
key elementsof ecosystem
structure andfunction.

SC3.16.1 In scoring issue (b), the team shall consider “key elements underlying ecosystem structureand function” to include the ecological productivity and abundance of wild salmon andother components of the aquatic ecosystem as a result of predation, competition forresources, and disease transmission. ◙SC3.16.2 The team shall organise its assessment of ecological interaction risks from enhancement
programs into the following 2 categories: ◙a. Disease transmission.
b. Predation/competition.

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

Page 97© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC3.17 Ecosystem management PI (PI 2.4.2) ◙Table SC19: PI 2.4.2 ecosystem management PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,which
consider the
potential
impacts of
the UoA on
the key
elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,
which takes
into accountavailable
informationand isexpected tolimit impactsof the UoA ontheecosystem so
as to achieve
theEcosystem
outcome
SG80 level.

There is a
strategy thatconsists of aplan in placethat includes
measures toaddress all
main impactsof the UoA
on theecosystem,
and at least
some of thesemeasures arein place.

(b)Management
strategy
effectiveness◙Themeasuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument.

There issome
evidence thatthemeasures/pa
rtial strategy
are achieving
the objectives
set out inscoring issue(a), based onsomeinformation
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
ecosystem
involved.

There isevidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy isachieving theobjectives set
out in scoring
issue (a),based oninformation
directly about
the UoA
and/orecosystem
involved.

There issome
evidence thatthemeasures/pa
rtial strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/strat
egy is being
implemented
successfully
and isachieving its
objective as
set out in

2.4.2
There aremeasures inplace toensure the
UoA andenhancement
activities do
not pose a riskof serious or
irreversible
harm toecosystem
structure andfunction.

(c)Management
strategy
implementationDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 98© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

scoring issue(a).
(d)
Managementofenhancement
activities ◙There is anestablishedartificial
production
strategy inplace that is
expected toachieve the
Ecosystem
outcome
SG60 level.

There is atested andevaluated
artificial
production
strategy with
sufficientmonitoring inplace, andevidence isavailable toreasonably
ensure withhigh likelihoodthat thestrategy iseffective inachieving the
Ecosystem
outcome
SG80 level.

There is acomprehensive and fully
evaluated
artificial
production
strategy toverify withcertainty thatthe
Ecosystem
outcome
SG100 levelis achieved.

SC3.17.1 In scoring issue (d), the team shall consider whether management measures are in placethat decrease ecological risk of enhancement activities. ◙SC3.18 Ecosystem information PI (PI 2.4.3)
Table SC20: PI 2.4.3 ecosystem information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Ecosystem

Information
andmonitoring(a)
Information
quality

Information isadequate to
identify the
key elementsof theecosystem.

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe key
elements oftheecosystem.

(b)
Investigationof UoAimpacts

Main impactsof the UoA
andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the key
ecosystem
elements canbe inferred

Main impactsof the UoA
andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the key
elements oftheecosystem

2.4.3
There isadequateknowledge ofthe impacts of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities ontheecosystem.

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

SG100

Main
interactions
between the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities andthe key
ecosystem
elements

Page 99© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

from existing
information.

have been
investigatedin detail.

have been
investigatedin detail.

(c)
Understandingof component(i.e. P1 target
species, inscope and
ETP/OOS
species, andhabitats)
functions

The mainfunctions of
thecomponents
in theecosystem
are known.

The impactsof the UoA
andassociatedenhancement
activities on
thecomponents
are identified,
and the mainfunctions ofthese
components
in theecosystem
areunderstood.

(d)
Information
relevance

Adequate
information isavailable on
the impacts of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
thesecomponents
to allow someof the mainconsequences for theecosystem to
be inferred.

Adequate
information isavailable on
the impacts of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
thecomponents
and elements
to allow themainconsequences for theecosystem to
be inferred.

(e)Monitoring

Adequate
data continue
to becollected todetect any
increase inrisk level.

Information isadequate tosupport thedevelopmentof strategies
to manage
ecosystem
impacts.

SC3.18.1 The team shall assess whether relevant information is collected to understand the impactsof enhancement activities on the receiving ecosystem. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 100© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC4Principle 3

SC4.1

General requirements for Principle 3

SC4.1.1

All Principle 3 PIs in Section SA shall apply. This Section includes only additions andmodifications. ◙SC4.1.2

The team shall explicitly consider enhancement activities that are associated with thefishery. ◙SC4.2–3 No modifications to Section SA
SC4.4

Consultation, roles, and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2)

SC4.4.1

In scoring this PI, the team shall consider whether the consultation process covers boththe fishery and enhancement activities. ◙SC4.4.2

There are no modifications to Table SA18.

SC4.5

Long-term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3)

Table SC21: PI 3.1.3 long-term objective PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policyLong-term
objectives(a)
Objectives

Long-term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking,consistent
with the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, are
implicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear longterm
objectives that
guide
decisionmaking,consistent
with the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areexplicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear longterm
objectives that
guide
decisionmaking,consistent
with the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areexplicit within
and requiredbymanagement
policy.

3.1.3
Themanagement
policy for the
SMU andassociatedenhancement
activities has
clear longterm
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking thatare consistent
with the MSC
Fisheries
Standard andincorporates
theprecautionary
approach.

SC4.5.1

The team shall assess whether the fishery’s enhancement activities have explicit longterm objectives and a guiding policy context that: ◙a. Is consistent with managing for sustainable Principle 1 and Principle 2 outcomes forwild salmon.
b. Shapes short-term objectives and decision-making processes.

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

Page 101© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC4.6

No modifications to Section SA

SC4.7

Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1)

Table SC22: PI 3.2.1 fishery-specific objectives PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemFisheryspecificobjectives(a)
Objectives

Objectives,
which arebroadly
consistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
the MSC
Principles 1
and 2, are
implicit within
the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

Short- andlong-term
objectives,
which areconsistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
the MSC
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

Well definedandmeasurable
short- andlong-term
objectives,
which aredemonstrably
consistent
with achieving
the outcomes
expressed by
the MSC
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

3.2.1
The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
management
system(s)have clear,
specific
objectives
designed toachieve theoutcomes
expressed by
the MSC
Principles 1
and 2.

SC4.7.1

The team shall evaluate whether clear objectives exist for the fishery’s enhancement
activities that are consistent with achieving specific, related outcomes in Principles 1 and
2. ◙

SC4.8

Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2)

Table SC23: PI 3.2.2 decision-making processes PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemDecisionmaking
processes(a)Decisionmaking
processes

There aresomedecisionmaking
processes inplace that
result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve thefisheryspecific and

There areestablisheddecisionmaking
processesthat result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve thefisheryspecific andenhancement
objectives.

3.2.2
The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
management
systemincludeseffective

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

SG100

Page 102© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPIdecisionmaking
processesthat result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve theobjectives andhas anappropriate
approach toactualdisputes in
the fishery.

Scoringissues

SG60

SG100

Decisionmaking
processes
respond toserious andotherimportantissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake accountof the wider
implications ofdecisions.

Decisionmaking
processes
respond to allissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake accountof the wider
implications ofdecisions.

enhancement
objectives.
(b)
Responsiveness ofdecisionmaking
processes

Decisionmaking
processes
respond toseriousissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation,andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely, andadaptivemanner, andtake someaccount of thewider
implications ofdecisions.

(c)
Use ofprecautionary
approach(d)
Accountability
andtransparencyofmanagement
system anddecisionmaking
process

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

SG80

Decisionmaking
processes
use theprecautionary
approach andare based onbest available
information.
Some
information on
performanceandmanagement
action is
generally
available on
request to
stakeholders.

Information
on fisheryperformanceandmanagement
action isavailable on
request, andexplanations
are provided
for any
actions or lackof action
associatedwith findings
and relevant
recommendati
ons emerging

Formalreporting to allinterested
stakeholders
providescomprehensiveinformation
on fisheryperformanceandmanagement
actions anddescribes how
themanagement
systemresponded toPage 103© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(e)
Approach todisputes

SG60

Although the
management
authority or
fishery may
be subject tocontinuing
court
challenges, it
is notindicating adisrespect ordefiance ofthe law by
repeatedly
violating thesame law or
regulationnecessary forthesustainabilityof the fishery.

SG80

SG100

from
research,monitoring,evaluation,and review
activity.

findings andrelevant
recommendati
ons emerging
fromresearch,monitoring,evaluation,and review
activity.

The
management
system or
fishery is
attempting tocomply in atimely fashion
with judicial
decisionsarising fromany legal
challenges.

Themanagement
system or
fishery acts
proactively to
avoid legal
disputes or
rapidly
implements
judicial
decisionsarising fromlegal
challenges.

SC4.8.1

In scoring issue (a), the team shall include determination of production levels andstrategies in decision-making processes surrounding enhancement activities. ◙SC4.9Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ◙Table SC24: PI 3.2.3 compliance and enforcement PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemComplianceandenforcement(a)
MCS system

MCSmechanisms
exist within the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities.

An MCS
systemexistswithin the
UoA andassociatedenhanceme
nt activities.

A
comprehensive
MCS system iswell establishedwithin the UoA
and associatedenhancement
activities.

(b)
Sanctions

Sanctions toaddress non-

Sanctionsto deal with

Comprehensive
sanctions to

3.2.3
MCS
mechanisms
ensure themanagement
measures in
the UoA andDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 104© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

complianceexist within the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities.

noncomplianceexist thatareappropriate
to the UoA
andassociatedenhanceme
nt activities,
and areapplied.

address noncompliance exist
that areappropriate to
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities, andare consistently
applied.

(c)Compliance(information)

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandcompliance inthe UoA

Informationis adequate
to estimate
compliancein the UoA
with a highdegree ofaccuracy.

Information isadequate toestimatecompliance inthe UoA with avery high degreeof accuracy.

(d)Compliance(outcome)

Systematic
noncompliance ofregulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishingpractices on
the water is
not evident
within the UoA
andassociatedenhancement
activities.

Majority of
regulations,
including all
regulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishingpracticeson thewater, arelikely to becompliedwith.

Majority of
regulations,
including all
regulations
specific togoverningsustainablefishing practices
on the water, areconsistently
complied with.

associatedenhancement
activities are
enforced andcomplied with.

SC4.9.1

The team shall consider whether private hatchery operators cooperate with management
authorities in collection and sharing of information important to ensure that artificial
production activities are complying with legal and management system objectives andrequirements.

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

Page 105© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC4.10 Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI
3.2.4)
Table SC25: PI 3.2.4 monitoring and management performance evaluation PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemMonitoring
andmanagement
performance
evaluation(a)
Evaluation
coverage

The fisheryandassociatedenhancement
program(s)have in placemechanisms
to evaluate
some parts ofthemanagement
system.

The fisheryandassociatedenhancement
program(s)have in placemechanisms
to evaluate
key parts ofthemanagement
system.

The fisheryandassociatedenhancement
program(s)have in placemechanisms
to evaluate allparts of the
management
system.

(b)
Internal
and/orexternal
review ◙The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
program(s)management
system is
subject tooccasional
internal
review.

The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
program(s)management
system is
subject toregularinternal andoccasional
external
review.

The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
program(s)management
system is
subject toregularinternal andexternal
review.

3.2.4
There is asystem formonitoring
andevaluating theperformanceof the fisheryspecific andenhancement
management
system(s)against its
objectives.
There iseffective andtimely reviewof the fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
program(s)management
system.

SC4.10.1 The team shall evaluate whether hatchery operational plans include well-designed andsupported provisions for monitoring the fishery’s enhancement activities that areconsistent with achieving specific, related outcomes and objectives in Principles 1 and 2.
SC4.10.1.1 The team shall evaluate the impacts of enhancement activities on natural
production components and ecosystem function.

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

Page 106© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SC5Allowances for inseparable or practicably inseparable
catches in salmon fisheries

SC5.1

Inseparable or practicably inseparable catches in salmon
fisheries

SC5.1.1

The CAB shall only treat catches of salmon stock as inseparable or practicably
inseparable (IPI), as per FCP 7.5.12, if they are not certified separately and are either:a. Non-target species (scored in P2, not P1), orb. Non-local stocks of species targeted in the fishery (stocks that are caught in thefishery but do not breed within the UoA and are not therefore normally scored as partof the SMU).

SC5.1.1.1

If the proposed IPI stock is a different salmon species to the target species(SC5.1.1.a), the CAB shall:a. Only consider it not commercially feasible to separate the species when the
total catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 5% by weight of the total
combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) within the UoA.
b. Assess the proposed IPI stock under P2 in accordance with FCP Annex PA.

SC5.1.1.2

If the proposed IPI stocks are non-local stocks of the same species as the P1
target stock within the UoA (SC5.1.1.b):a. The total catches from the IPI stock(s) shall not exceed 5% by weight of thetotal combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) within the UoA.
b. FCP 7.5.12.1.d shall not apply to these stocks. However, if these stocks areoutside biologically based limits, the CAB shall demonstrate that the fishery:i.

Does not catch 30% or more of the total removal of the stock.

ii.

Is “highly likely” not to significantly hinder (consistent with GSA3.6) thestock’s recovery.

iii. Has implemented practical measures to reduce impacts on the stock.
SC5.1.2

In considering whether proposed IPI stocks meet the defined 5% upper catch limits(SC5.1.1.1 and SC5.1.1.2), the CAB shall take into account catch data from the mostrecent 2 or more years prior to the date on which the eligibility is decided, as necessary toallow for the normal age at spawning of each of the species under consideration. ◙SC5.1.3

If the CAB identifies IPI stocks that are below the level of 5% specified in SC5.1.1.1.a andSC5.1.1.2.a, the CAB shall follow IPI requirements in the FCP (7.5.13 and Annex PA).

SC5.1.3.1

The CAB shall upload an announcement to the MSC database for publication on
the MSC website, using the ‘MSC IPI Announcement Template,’ to informstakeholders and the MSC of the identification of IPI stock(s).
End of Section SC

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

Page 107© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section SD: Introduced species-based fisheries – normative
Modifications to the default assessment tree structure to be used in Introduced Species Based
Fisheries (ISBF) assessments.

SD1

General ◙SD1.1

General requirements

SD1.1.1

In all ISBF assessments, the team shall apply Section SD as a supplement to Section SA.

SD1.1.1.1“Introduced species” are defined as per Table 2.

SD1.1.1.2

This Section includes only additions and modifications in relevant sections of thedefault assessment tree and requirements.

SD2

Principle 1

SD2.1

General requirements for Principle 1

SD2.1.1

The team shall consider the ecological role of the introduced species.

SD2.1.2

The team shall assess the ISBF against default PISGs in Principle 1. ◙SD2.1.2.1

If necessary, the team shall make modifications to the scoring issues at PI 1.1.1
and PI 1.2.2 for fisheries that include setting TRPs at levels that may be lower
than MSY, to reduce biodiversity impact.
a. The team shall not accept LRPs set at levels below which there is anappreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.

SD3

Principle 2

SD3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

SD3.1.1

The team shall determine whether the introduced species is not the target species in thefishery being considered for certification but is an in-scope species that is impacted insome way by fishing activity on the target species.

SD3.1.1.1

If the in-scope introduced species is being managed for high productivity because
it is a target species in another managed fishery, the team shall evaluate thefishery to determine whether its impact on the in-scope introduced species is
acceptable.

SD3.1.1.2

If the in-scope introduced species is subject to a formal or informal eradication
policy because it is considered to have a “nuisance” status, the team shall nottake the impact of the fishery on the introduced species into consideration in theassessment.

SD3.1.2

The team shall assess measures in place in the fishery to prevent further ecosystem
impacts that may have occurred as a result of the introduction of the species to the newlocation under the ecosystem component of Principle 2. ◙SD3.1.2.1

If relevant, the team shall add an additional scoring issue and corresponding
guideposts at 60, 80, and 100 levels to the ecosystem management PI 2.4.2, toevaluate measures in the fishery to prevent progression of further ecosystem
impacts from occurring as a result of the presence of the introduced species.

SD3.1.2.2

The team shall review the following measures when assessing this additionalscoring issue:
a. Setting TRPs at levels that allow for recovery of species impacted by the
introduction.
b. Containment measures, such as fishing down at the boundaries of the stock
to prevent further spread.

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

Page 108© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

c.

Protection and/or creation of faunal refugia.

d. Provisions in legislation to prohibit further introductions of any other alien
species.
e. Other relevant mechanisms.
SD3.1.3

If relevant, the team shall add a corresponding ecosystem information scoring issue that
addresses the collection of information important to understanding and preventing further
impact of the introduced species on biodiversity.

SD3.1.4

If the fishery has no measures in place for PI 2.4.2 and corresponding information in PI
2.4.3, the team shall justify why measures are not considered necessary in that fishery to
prevent further impact on biodiversity, if applicable.
End of Section SD

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

Page 109© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

Section SE: Principle 1 for stocks managed by Regional
Fisheries Management Organisations - normative
This section contains modifications to the FCP and the default assessment tree structure for theassessment of stocks managed by RFMOs. Section SE relates to the scoring and associatedconditions of scoring issues (a) and (b) in PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2.

SE1

General requirements for Section SE

SE1.1

Modifications to the FCP and default assessment tree

SE1.1.1

The team shall apply Section SE when the target stock(s) being assessed is/are managed
by an RFMO. ◙SE1.1.2

The team may apply Section SE when the target stock(s) being assessed is/are not
managed by an RFMO.

SE1.1.2.1

Where there are overlapping UoAs, the CAB shall ensure a harmonised approachto the application of Section SE.

SE1.1.2.2

The team shall apply Section SE to UoAs that include target stocks not managed
by RFMOs only if the majority (more than half) of overlapping UoCs (i.e. UoCs
that include the same P1 target stock) agree to do so. ◙a. Where no overlapping UoCs exist, SE1.1.2.2 shall apply to UoAs.

SE1.1.3

The team shall apply Section SE only if there is evidence that the RFMO is committed tothe development of a harvest strategy that includes a management procedure (MP) tested
within a management strategy evaluation (MSE) framework. ◙SE1.1.3.1

Evidence could include:a. The adoption of a workplan with an associated timeline by the RFMO for
development and implementation of harvest strategies.
b. Letters of correspondence identifying the commitment of that RFMO or the
management strategy evaluation testing framework being outlined inmanagement measures and/or resolutions.

SE1.1.3.2

The team shall confirm the commitment of the RFMO.
a. The team shall include evidence for this in the Announcement Comment Draft
Report.

SE1.1.4

Unless specifically noted, the CAB and the team shall follow:
a. All other FCP requirements.
b. Section SA default assessment tree PISGs and requirements.

SE1.1.5

This section only includes additions or modifications to the requirements of the FCP and
the Section SA default assessment tree.

SE2

Principle 1 requirements

SE2.1

Harvest Strategy PI 1.2.1

SE2.1.1

To determine whether the harvest strategy is “evaluated”, the team shall use only
evidence from the adopted harvest strategy, either: ◙a. Through direct application of the harvest strategy, orb. From modelled predictions of the harvest strategy, if an effectiveness review has notoccurred before the end of the second phase.

SE2.1.2

If “available” HCRs are scored in PI 1.2.2 (SE2.2), PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (a) (Table SA4)
shall only meet SG60.

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

© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

SE2.2

Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ◙Table SE1: PI 1.2.2 harvest control rules and tools PISGSComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

HCRs andtools(a)
HCR design
andapplication◙

HCRs areexpected toreduce theexploitation
rate as the
PRI isapproached
and are either
generally
understoodand in place,or available.

Well-defined
HCRs are inplace that
ensure thattheexploitation
rate isreduced as
the PRI is
approached,
and areexpected tokeep thestock
fluctuatingaround atarget levelconsistent
with (orabove) MSY,or for key LTL
species at a
level
consistent
withecosystemneeds.

The HCRs are
expected tokeep thestock
fluctuating at
or above atarget levelconsistent
with MSY, oranother more
appropriate
level, taking
into accountthe ecologicalrole of thestock, mostof the time.

The HCRs arelikely to berobust to themainuncertainties.

The HCRs
take accountof a wide
range ofuncertainties
including theecological roleof the stock,and there isevidence thatthe HCRs arerobust to themainuncertainties.

Available
evidence
indicates thatthe tools in
use areappropriate
and effectivein achieving

Evidence
clearlyshows thatthe tools in
use areeffective inachieving the
exploitation

1.2.2
There arewell-definedand effective
HCRs inplace.

(b)
HCR
robustness touncertainty ◙(c)
HCR
evaluation ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

There issome
evidence thattools used oravailable toimplement
HCRs areappropriate

Page 111© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

and effective
in controlling
exploitation.

theexploitationlevelsrequiredunder theHCRs.

levelsrequiredunder theHCRs.

SE2.2.1

The team should require additional precaution to be built into the HCR at SG100 so thatthe HCR keeps stocks well above LRPs.

SE2.2.2

The team shall interpret:a. “Generally understood” at SG60 to mean HCRs that can be shown to have been
applied in some way in the past but have not been explicitly defined or agreed.
b. “Well defined” at SG80 to mean HCRs that exist in some written form that has been
agreed by the management agency, ideally with stakeholders, and that state what
actions will be taken at what specific TRP levels.
c.

“In place” at SG60 and SG80 to mean the HCR has been adopted by the
management agency and/or there is evidence or documentation that management
actions have been taken where required.

Scoring “available” HCRs at SG60 ◙SE2.2.3

In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, the team shall accept “available” HCRs instead of
HCRs that are “in place” if:a. Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level, or has been
maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within
the next 5 years, orb. In UoAs where BMSY estimates are not available, the stock has been maintained todate by the measures in use at levels that have not declined significantly over time,
nor shown any evidence of recruitment impairment.

SE2.2.4

The team shall recognise “available” HCRs as “expected to reduce the exploitation rate as
the PRI is approached” only if:
a. “Generally understood” or “well-defined” HCRs are in place for some other UoAs thatare under the control of the same management body, and of a similar size and scaleas the UoA, or
b. An agreement or framework is in place that requires the management body to adopt
HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY.

SE2.2.5

In scoring issue (a) at the SG100 level, where quantitative simulation testing is available“most of the time”, the team should interpret the stock as being maintained at or above
MSY or some ecologically more relevant target point at least 70% of the time.

SE2.2.6

In scoring issue (c) at the SG60 level, where HCRs are recognised as “available”, theteam shall include in its rationale:
a. Evidence that HCRs are being “effectively” used in other named UoAs that aremanaged by the same management body, and the basis on which they are regarded
as “effective”, orb. A description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management bodyhas defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of
HCRs.

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

Page 112© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs
SE2.2.7

In scoring issue (c) for “evidence”, the team shall use the current levels of exploitation in
the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available.

SE2.2.7.1

If information is not available on the exploitation rate consistent with achieving along-term MSY, the team shall provide justification where available proxy
indicators and reference points are used as reasonable proxies of the exploitation
rate.

SE3

Process requirements for Section SE

SE3.1

Setting conditions

SE3.1.1

The CAB shall follow SE3.2–SE3.4 when setting a condition for PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2
under Section SE. ◙SE3.1.1.1

The CAB shall not follow condition setting requirements in the FCP for PI 1.2.1
and PI 1.2.2.

SE3.2

Requirements for setting a condition for a P1 target stock thathas not been part of a certified UoA prior to effective date of the
MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0

SE3.2.1

If the UoA comprises a target stock(s) that is not part of a certified UoA, the CAB shallfollow SE3.2.2 to SE3.2.9.

SE3.2.1.1

If the target stock(s) is part of a UoA that is already certified against either v1.3,
v2.0 or v2.01 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, the CAB shall follow SE3.3.

SE3.2.1.2

If the target stock(s) is part of a UoA that is already certified against v3.0 of the
MSC Fisheries Standard, the CAB shall follow SE3.4.

SE3.2.2

If the UoA does not meet SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issues (a) and (b) and does not meet
SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (a), (b), and (c), the CAB shall set a condition to result in
improved performance sufficient to meet these SGs.

SE3.2.3

The CAB shall structure the condition in two phases and set a timeline of a maximum of
two terms of certification.

SE3.2.3.1

For phase 1 of the condition, the CAB shall:a. Set phase 1 of the condition to result in improved performance to SG100 for
PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (a) and SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a).
b. Draft phase 1 of the condition to follow the narrative form of SG100 for PI
1.2.1 scoring issue (a) and SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a) and therelevant accompanying requirements used in the assessment tree.
c.

SE3.2.3.2

Specify the deadline as a maximum of one term of certification.

For phase 2 of the condition, the CAB shall:a. Set phase 2 of the condition to result in improved performance to SG100 for
PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (b) and SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (b) and (c).
b. Draft phase 2 of the condition to follow the narrative form of SG100 for PI
1.2.1 scoring issue (b), SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (b) and (c), and therelevant accompanying requirements used in the assessment tree.
c.

Specify the deadline for phase 2 as a maximum of one term of certification.

d. Specify that the outcomes of phase 1 (SE3.2.3.1) are to be maintained duringphase 2. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 113© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

SE3.2.4

The CAB shall specify the following milestones in the condition: ◙a. Phase 1:
i.

Management objectives, performance indicators, and data needs are defined.

ii.

Operating models and candidate management procedures that include
mechanisms for catch or effort constraints are tested through management
strategy evaluation simulations.

iii. Demonstration of consultation and input from stakeholders.
iv. Preferred harvest strategy(ies) adhering to a management procedure approachwith an agreed catch or effort constraint identified.
b. Phase 2:i.

Mechanism for catch or effort constraints is agreed.

ii.

Harvest strategy adhering to a management procedure approach, with andincluding catch or effort constraints or resource-sharing mechanism that follows
scientific advice, is adopted and implemented.

iii. Effectiveness review schedule of implemented harvest strategy is determined.
SE3.2.5

The CAB shall specify the timeframes over which the milestones must be met within eachphase. ◙SE3.2.5.1

The CAB should ensure that milestone timeframes align with the plans developedby the relevant management agency of the UoA(s).

SE3.2.6

The CAB shall use the milestones and associated timeframes to evaluate progressagainst the condition at each surveillance audit. ◙SE3.2.7

The CAB shall inform the client that if they are unable to complete phase 1 within the firstterm of certification, they will not be eligible for reassessment at the end of the first term ofcertification.

SE3.2.8

If the client and the CAB cannot agree on the condition, milestones, timeframes, anddeadlines, the CAB shall not certify the UoA.

SE3.2.9

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

SE3.3

Requirements for setting a condition for a P1 target stock that ispart of a UoA previously certified against v1.3, v2.0, or v2.01 of
the MSC Fisheries Standard

SE3.3.1

If the UoA comprises a target stock(s) that is part of a UoA that is certified against either
v1.3, v2.0 or v2.01 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, including those with open conditions
on PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2, the CAB shall follow SE3.3.2 to SE3.3.9.

SE3.3.1.1
SE3.3.2

If the target stock(s) is part of a UoA that is already certified against v3.0 of the
MSC Fisheries Standard, the CAB shall follow SE3.4.

If the UoA does not meet SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issues (a) and (b) and SG80 for PI
1.2.2 scoring issues (a), (b), and (c), the CAB shall conduct a gap analysis to determine
the status of the UoA relative to the milestones in SE3.3.5. ◙SE3.3.2.1

The CAB shall complete the gap analysis during the preparation phase of theAnnouncement Comment Draft Report.

SE3.3.2.2

The CAB shall include the gap analysis as an annex to the Announcement
Comment Draft Report.

SE3.3.3

If the UoA does not meet SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issues (a) and (b) and does not meet
SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (a), (b), and (c), the CAB shall set a condition to result in
improved performance sufficient to meet these SGs.

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

Page 114© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

SE3.3.4

The CAB shall structure the condition to set a deadline of a maximum of one term ofcertification.

SE3.3.4.1
SE3.3.5

The CAB shall use the results of the gap analysis in SE3.3.2 to determine theexact condition deadline. ◙The CAB shall draft the condition to specify the following milestones within the timeline
outlined in SE3.3.4.
a. Management objectives, performance indicators, and data needs are defined.
b. Operating models and candidate management procedures that include mechanisms
for catch or effort constraints are tested through management strategy evaluation
simulations.
c.

Demonstration of consultation and input from stakeholders.

d. Preferred harvest strategy(ies) adhering to a management procedure approach withan agreed catch or effort constraint identified.
e. Mechanism for catch or effort constraints is agreed.
f.

Harvest strategy adhering to a management procedure approach, with and includingcatch or effort constraints or resource-sharing mechanism that follows scientificadvice, is adopted and implemented.

g. Effectiveness review schedule of implemented harvest strategy is determined.
SE3.3.6

The CAB shall specify the timeframes over which the milestones must be met.

SE3.3.6.1

The CAB should ensure that milestone timeframes align with the plans developedby the relevant management agency of the UoA(s).

SE3.3.7

The CAB shall use the milestones and associated timeframes to evaluate progressagainst the condition at each surveillance audit.

SE3.3.8

If the client and the CAB cannot agree on the condition, milestones, timeframes, anddeadlines, the CAB shall not certify the UoA.

SE3.3.9

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

SE3.4

Requirements for setting a condition for a P1 target stock that isalready part of a UoA that is certified against v3.0 of the MSC
Fisheries Standard

SE3.4.1

If the UoA comprises a target stock(s) that is already certified against version v3.0 of theFisheries Standard, including those that have undertaken early application of Section SE
as per Tool D of the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox, the CAB shall adopt the condition,
milestones, timeframes, and deadlines set for the UoA that is already certified.

SE3.5

Requirements for evaluating progress against the condition

SE3.5.1

The CAB shall follow SE3.5 when evaluating progress against the condition for PI 1.2.1
and PI 1.2.2 under Section SE. ◙SE3.5.1.1
SE3.5.2

At each surveillance audit, the team shall evaluate progress against the condition.

SE3.5.2.1
SE3.5.3

The CAB shall not follow requirements for evaluating progress against conditionsin the FCP.

The team shall use the milestones and associated timeframes to evaluate
progress against the condition.

The team shall document whether progress is “on target”, “ahead of target” or “behindtarget”. ◙SE3.5.3.1

The team shall justify the determination.

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

Page 115© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

SE3.5.3.2

If progress against the milestones is behind target, the team may specify remedialaction and revise milestone timeframes that are required to bring progress backon target within 12 months (and by the next surveillance audit) to achieve thecondition by the deadline.

SE3.5.3.3

The CAB shall not revise deadlines for phases or the condition deadline (seeSE3.5.5.2 and SE3.6.2).

SE3.5.4

If the CAB determines that progress against a condition is not back “on target” by the next
surveillance audit, the CAB shall: ◙a. Consider progress against the condition as inadequate.
b. Apply the requirements of GCR 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal).
c.

SE3.5.5

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 thecause for suspension has been addressed.

For conditions set for P1 target stocks under SE3.2. ◙SE3.5.5.1

By the phase 1 timeframe in SE3.2.5, the CAB shall determine whether phase 1 ofthe condition is complete.
a. The team shall confirm that all milestones in phase 1 have been achieved.
b. The team shall rescore PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (a) and PI 1.2.2 scoring issue(a).
c.

SE3.5.5.2

The CAB shall only record phase 1 as completed if:i.

The UoC meets SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (a).

ii.

The UoC meets SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a).

If phase 1 of the condition is not completed by its deadline, the CAB shall:a. Consider progress against the condition as inadequate.
b. Apply the requirements of GCR 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal).
c.

Inform the client that they cannot enter into reassessment.

d. 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.
SE3.5.5.3

By the phase 2 timeframe in SE3.2.5 the CAB shall determine whether phase 2 ofthe condition is complete.
a. The team shall confirm that all milestones in phase 2 have been completed.
b. The team shall rescore PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (b) and PI 1.2.2 scoring issues(b) and (c).
c.

The CAB shall only record phase 2 as completed if:i.

The UoC meets SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (b).

ii.

The UoC meets SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (b) and (c).

iii. The UoC continues to meet milestones completed in phase 1 in
SE3.5.5.2.
SE3.5.5.4

If phase 2 of the condition is not completed by its deadline, the CAB shall:a. Consider progress against the condition as inadequate.
b. Apply the requirements of GCR 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal).
c.

Inform the client that they cannot enter into reassessment.

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

Page 116© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

d. 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.
SE3.5.6

For conditions set for P1 target stocks under SE3.3. ◙SE3.5.6.1

By the milestone timeframes in SE.3.3.6 the CAB shall determine the condition iscomplete.
a. The team shall confirm that all milestones in SE3.3.5 have been completed.
b. The CAB shall only record the milestones as completed if:

SE3.5.6.2

i.

The UoC meets SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issues (a) and (b).

ii.

The UoC meets SG80 for PI 1.2.2 scoring issues (a), (b), and (c).

If all milestones in SE3.3.5 are not completed by the condition deadline, the CAB
shall:
a. Consider progress against the condition as inadequate.
b. Apply the requirements of GCR 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal).
c.

Inform the client that they cannot enter into reassessment.

d. 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.
SE3.5.7

The CAB shall clearly report the progress of the condition in all surveillance reports and atreassessment reporting stage. ◙SE3.6

Requirements for closing the condition

SE3.6.1

The CAB shall only confirm that the condition is closed when:a. The milestones in phase 1 and phase 2 have been achieved.
b. The UoC meets SG100 for PI 1.2.1 scoring issues (a) and (b), and SG80 for PI 1.2.2
scoring issues (a), (b), and (c).

SE3.6.2

If the condition is not closed by its deadline, the CAB shall:a. Consider progress as inadequate.
b. Apply the requirements of GCR 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal).
c.

Inform the client that they cannot enter into reassessment.

d. 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 thecause for suspension has been addressed. ◙End of Section SE
End of MSC Fisheries Standard

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

Page 117© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Standard

Version 3.0, 26 October, 2022

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

© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

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

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

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

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

Page ii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

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

Versions published
Version no.

Date

Description of amendment

2.0

15 August 2011

New document issued as part of the MSC Fisheries Standard
Review, which was completed in 2014.

2.01

31 August 2018

Version issued incorporating updated cross-references inalignment with revision to the MSC Fisheries Certification
Process.

3.0

26 October 2022

Version issued incorporating changes to the MSC Fisheries
Standard as a result of the MSC Fisheries Standard review.

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

Page iii© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Introduction to this document
The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is composed of Annexes GSA, GSB, GSC and GSD.
The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is provided to help Conformity Assessment Bodies(CABs) interpret the MSC Fisheries Standard. The MSC maintains the MSC Guidance to theFisheries Standard as a separate document.
The headings and numbering in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard, when included, match
those in the MSC Fisheries Standard. Numbers prefaced with the letter “G” indicate guidance.
The MSC recommends that CABs read the MSC Fisheries Standard in conjunction with the MSC
Guidance to the Fisheries Standard. The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard does not repeat
text in the MSC Fisheries Standard.
In the MSC Fisheries Standard, this icon ◙ at the end of the section title or clause indicates that there
is guidance that generally relates to the subject of that section or clause. These icons provide
hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.
In this document, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink to the corresponding section or clause in the MSC
Fisheries Standard.

Auditability of the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard
The guidance contained in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is not directly auditable.

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

Page iv© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Table of contents
GS1 Scope .............................................................................................................. 6
GSA The default assessment tree ........................................................................... 8
GSA2 Principle 1 ...................................................................................................... 12
GSA3 Principle 2 ...................................................................................................... 41
GSA4 Principle 3 ...................................................................................................... 92
Section GSB........... Modifications to the default tree for enhanced bivalves – guidance.................................................................................................................... 107
GSB2 Principle 1 .................................................................................................... 107
Section GSC ............. Modifications to the default assessment tree for salmon fisheries.................................................................................................................... 111
GSC3 Principle 2 .................................................................................................... 129
GSC4 Principle 3 .................................................................................................... 134
Section GSD: Introduced species-based fisheries ................................................ 134
GSD1 General ........................................................................................................ 138
GSD2 Principle 1 ................................................................................................... 138
GSE1 General requirements for section SE.......................................................... 139
GSE2 .................................................................................................................... 140

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

Page v© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

GS1

Scope

GS1.1

Scope requirements of the MSC Fisheries Standard

GS1.1.3 Enhanced fisheries ▲Categories of enhanced fisheries
Table 1 in the MSC Fisheries Standard defines the criteria by which enhanced fisheries may be
identified as being within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard. The categories of enhanced
fisheries that may be in scope are as follows:•••

Hatch and catch (HAC).
oThis production system may be considered within scope in certain circumstances, reflecting
the established case history and precedent set by hatchery-stocked salmon fisheries.

o

For these types of fishery, more-intensive culture activities may be allowed as long as they
only apply to a brief period within the species’ life cycle.

o

HAC operations that must not form the basis of a recovery and rebuilding plan. If rebuilding
has been done by stocking in the past, it shall not result in an out-of-scope determination aslong as other measures are now in place to manage wild stocks.

Catch and grow (CAG).
oThis production system’s “grow-out” and holding systems may be considered within scope
under certain conditions.

o

CAG has some features of intensive aquaculture, requiring routine inputs, such as feed,chemical, or medicinal treatments, that are out of scope.

o

CAG systems that only require limited enhancement, such as rope culture of bivalves, may beconsidered within scope for the entirety of their operation.

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

A single fishery 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 Unit of Assessment (UoA) is in or out of scope.
In some cases, distinctions are drawn 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,such as that 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 of custody and fishery traceability requirements. Operations in which no part of the catch isclearly landed are considered inseparable from any subsequent “grow-out” phase, and the scope
criteria for enhanced fisheries apply to the operation in its entirety.

Scope criteria B: feeding and husbandry
The application of criterion Bii in Table 1 specifically to CAG operations recognises that some HAC
fisheries may routinely use disease prevention and other measures to maximise survival. These
practices are allowed because the short duration of the captive-growth phase will limit the potential
environmental impacts. However, these impacts are included in the Principle 2 assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 6© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

Scope criteria C: habitat and ecosystem impacts
Habitat modifications in enhanced fisheries can include:•

Physical changes to the seabed or river course. The wide range of possible modifications include:oConstruction of simple ponds in intertidal areas.

oWatercourse management measures aimed at improving spawning habitats.

•

The use of a range of man-made structures associated with the rearing or capture of fish that are
not strictly fishing gear. For example:•

Fish attracting and/or fish aggregating devices (FADs).

•

Lobster casitas.

•

Mussel culture ropes in CAG systems.

Such artificial habitat modifications either enhance the productivity of the fishery, or facilitate thecapture or production of commercial marine species.

GS1.1.5 & GS1.1.6 Exclusion of vessels ▲The MSC’s intent is to prevent access to a certificate where there is evidence of serious crimes or
shark-finning offences whilst undertaking fishing operations. This is achieved by preventing vessels
implicated in these activities from being included on a fishery certificate.
The team should interpret implication of a vessel to mean that a person, or people, committed aserious crime or a shark-finning offence on board the vessel at some point in the “last 2 years”.
In cases where fishing operations are not vessel-based, the requirement should be interpreted tomean the exclusion of the individual fishing operator who committed a serious crime or a shark-finningoffence while undertaking fishing operations.

Two-year timeframe
The team should calculate the “last 2 years” from the date the CAB announces the fisheryassessment on the MSC website.

Location of the activity
If a vessel has been implicated in the conviction of a serious crime or a shark-finning violation in the“last 2 years” in any jurisdiction or area, not only those included in the UoA, the vessel should not be
included on a certificate.

GS1.1.5 Conviction for a serious crime ▲The definition for serious crime provided is based on that used in the United Nations (UN) Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime.

GS1.1.5.1 & GS1.1.6.1 Excluding vessels for 2 years ▲The 2-year exclusion timeframe is calculated from the date the vessel was excluded. The date of
exclusion is the date the updated certification documents were published on the MSC website.
If the vessel was excluded at the point of the initial certification, the date of its exclusion is the date
the CAB announces the fishery assessment on the MSC website.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 7© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

GS1.1.5.1.b & GS1.1.6.1.b Relevant information ▲An updated vessel list is an example of relevant information.

GSA

The default assessment tree

Background to Annex GSA guidance ▲Unless the team can show just cause for why a different tree should apply, the team should use thehierarchical structure and the prescribed default set of Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts(PISGs) in all assessments.

Structure of the default assessment tree
The default assessment tree structure is divided into 4 main levels for the purposes of scoring, assummarised below:•

Principle: the Principles represent the overarching basis for the assessment tree.

•

Component: a high-level sub-division of the Principle.

•

Performance Indicator (PI): A PI is a further sub-division of the Principle.

•

Scoring Issue (SI): a sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has one ormore SIs against which the fishery is assessed at the SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels.

Figure GSA1: Default assessment tree levels relevant to scoring fisheries
For each SI, SGs are defined at 60, 80, and 100 levels. In scoring a fishery, the CAB identifies:•

The level achieved by the fishery for each SI.

•

The overall level achieved as a result for the PI.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 8© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

In order to pass, a fishery is required to achieve:•

At least a 60 score for each PI.

•

At least an aggregate 80 score for each Principle. For a score of less than 80, a condition is
assigned.

In some fisheries, the CAB can also score multiple “scoring elements”, such as multiple bycatch
species or habitats, within a given PI.
For specific details on scoring, see FCP 7.15 and related guidance.

Default assessment trees
Section SA is designed to be applicable to most fisheries. Section SB and Section SC are default
assessment trees for bivalves and salmon respectively. The CAB may develop modified assessment
trees for fishery types that cannot be adequately assessed against existing default assessment trees(see FCP 7.10.5).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA1.1 General requirements ▲Box GSA1: Precautionary approach
International and customary law requires the use of the precautionary approach in fisheries
management. The MSC uses as its baseline definition for the precautionary approach thedefinitions included in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) International Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 4 and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement5, Article 6 of which states:
The precautionary approach shall be interpreted to mean being cautious when information is
uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and that the absence of adequate scientific information shall not
be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.
In the ‘MSC Fisheries Standard’, the application of the precautionary approach in fisheries
management systems is explicitly scored in PIs 3.1.3 and 3.2.2. However, the MSC’s intent is thatthe precautionary approach be applied implicitly throughout the Standard. To capture this intent,
the MSC system has been designed to give higher scores where there is more certainty about theoutcome, or where management systems appropriately apply precaution under conditions of
uncertainty. The team should, where limited information is available, be more precautionary in its
assessment of information adequacy to support an outcome PI score.

Box GSA2: The MSC’s intent and understanding of the standard in relation to illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing
The FAO definition of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is as follows6:
Illegal fishing refers to fishing activities:•

Conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a state, without thepermission of that state, or in contravention of its laws and regulations.

•

Conducted by vessels flying the flag of states that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries
management organisation (RFMO) but operate in contravention of the conservation andmanagement measures (CMMs) adopted by that organisation and by which the states arebound, or relevant provisions of the applicable international law.

•

In violation of national laws or international obligations, including those conducted bycooperating States to a relevant RFMO.

Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities:•

That have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, incontravention of national laws and regulations.

•

Conducted in the area of competence of a relevant RFMO that have not been reported or havebeen misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of that organisation.

Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities:

4 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.1995.
5 The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fishstocks, Sixth session, New York, 24 July – 4 August, 1995.
6 FAO (2002) Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 9. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization, FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/y3536e/y3536e00.htm [accessed on 17 July2022].
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

In the area of application of a relevant RFMO that are conducted by vessels without nationality,
or by those flying the flag of a state not party to that organisation, or by a fishing entity, in amanner that is not consistent with or contravenes the CMMs of that organisation.

•

In areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or
management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a mannerinconsistent with state responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources underinternational law.

These definitions of IUU fishing have been adopted and incorporated into action plans to deter andeliminate IUU fishing at both the national level in the case of the United States, New Zealand, andAustralia, and RFMOs, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT) and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR), as well as economic entities, such as the European Union. RFMOs publish lists ofvessels engaged in IUU fishing in their areas of responsibility.
IUU fishing can also apply at a state level; for example, where coastal nations or their subjurisdictions, such as internal states or provinces, have inadequate regulation to prevent illegal,
unreported, or unregulated catches.
In relation to IUU, the MSC’s intent is that Units of Assessment (UoAs) be harvested legally andthat IUU is non-existent; or where IUU does exist, it is at a minimum level such that management
measures, including assessments, harvest control rules (HCRs), and the estimation of IUU impacts
on harvested species and the ecosystem are capable of maintaining affected populations atsustainable levels.
Specifically:•

The team should consider unreported IUU fishing as “unobserved mortality”.

•

The UoA should be free from IUU catches of target (P1) species. The team should assess thisin P1, and in P3: compliance with national and international laws and monitoring, control, andsurveillance (MCS), such as in PIs 3.1.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3.

•

The stocks that are the source of P1 certified fish should have only minimal IUU fishing, whichshould be taken into account by management and should not have a material impact on theability of the management system to deliver a sustainable fishery. The team should consider
this in the PIs on HCRs, information, and assessment of stock status in P1, such as in PIs
1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, including documentation of “unobserved mortality”.

•

The requirement for compliance with national and international laws combined with therequirement that the UoA should not be causing serious and irreversible harm in P2 means that
the UoA should also be free from IUU fishing for P2 species. The team should document the
impact of other IUU fishing on P2 components where known. However, unlike in P1, the teamneed not introduce it into the assessment of the specific impact of the UoA, or cumulative
UoAs.

•

The MSC Chain of Custody Standard requires that neither chain of custody certificate holders
nor certified UoAs should use vessels that are listed on IUU blacklists to catch or transport fish.

•

The MSC Chain of Custody Standard is designed to ensure that MSC labelled products cannot
be mixed with products from a non-certified UoA, where there may be a risk of IUU fishing.

Specific guidance is provided in relation to local, national, and international laws as follows:•

PI 1.2.3: GSA2.6.3 on information categories to consider for fishery removals.

•

P2 general guidance: GSA3.1.6.1 on considering observed and unobserved fishing mortality,
including illegal fishing, and/or unregulated catches.

•

PI 3.2.3: GSA4.1 on considering compliance and enforcement.

When evaluating the effectiveness of MCS in UoAs where a less formalised MCS system exists,
the team may consider the role and effectiveness of a range of factors in deterring illegal activity,
as described in GSA4.9 on assessing informal and traditional approaches in PI 3.2.3. GSA4.9 also
includes additional guidance on P3 (PI 3.2.3).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA2 Principle 1
GSA2.1 General requirements for Principle 1 ▲Outcome component
Background
The team should score stock status PI (1.1.1) to reflect management behaviour that:•

Increases the probability that exploited biomass fluctuates around the biomass at maximum
sustainable yield (BMSY) target, or a higher target if this is warranted from a consideration of thetrophic inter-dependencies of the target species (see Box GSA3 below).

•

Decreases the probability that exploited biomass will drop significantly towards the point whererecruitment becomes impaired through recruitment “overfishing”, genetic effects, or imbalances insex ratio.

Stocks with a status below the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) would not achieve the necessary
pass level in PI 1.1.1, even if there were recovery plans or programmes in place that are effectively
increasing the status of the stock, until such time as the stock status again meets SG60.
The following outcomes would attract scores of 80 or higher:•

A higher likelihood of fluctuation around the target biomass level.

•

Biomass levels in excess of target levels, which imply a lower probability of being below target
levels.

•A higher probability of being above the point at which recruitment could be impaired, often used
as a biomass limit reference point (LRP).

•In PI 1.1.2, a more rapid demonstrated rebuilding of stocks from the point where they attract only
a 60 score to levels able to deliver MSY.

An explanation of the MSC’s intent and understanding in relation to MSY is provided in Box GSA3.
Box GSA3: The MSC’s intent on the achievement of MSY in P1
The MSC’s intent is that fisheries be harvested no more than is consistent with MSY, as requiredby the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and that this is achieved
through use of appropriate target reference points (TRPs) and limit reference points (LRPs), and of
harvest strategies, as required by the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) andthe UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(CCRF), where:•

A TRP reflects a management objective to be achieved; for example, performance consistent
with MSY.

•

An LRP reflects an undesirable state to be avoided with high probability; for example, impaired
recruitment.

The most basic definition of MSY is the largest long-term average annual catch that can besustained over time. The FAO Glossary defines MSY as:
The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing
environmental conditions. For species with fluctuating recruitment, the maximum might be obtainedby taking fewer fish in some years than in others.
The constant fishing mortality that gives this MSY is FMSY, where F is the fishing mortality rate. The
average population size while MSY is provided is BMSY.
MSY was originally defined in terms of simple production models. However, the concept is now
equally applicable to any model of the stock and fishery; for example, more complex production

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

models, dynamic pool models, “per-recruit” models, multi-stock/mixed stock models, ecosystemmodels, and meta-population models.
There are many ways to estimate MSY and related reference points. Many of them, particularly theolder methods common at the time UNCLOS and UNFSA were agreed, make substantial
assumptions. Therefore, there can be considerable uncertainty about the accuracy of the estimatesof MSY and related reference points.
Because the productivity, or recruitment, of many fish stocks is naturally highly variable throughtime, the biomass can vary greatly around BMSY, in some cases even with an appreciable chance ofthe stock being below the biomass LRP, when fished at the constant FMSY. This variability in stock
biomass can be mitigated by using an HCR that reduces the fishing mortality when stock biomass
is low or an LRP is approached, as recommended by UNFSA and CCRF. For some HCRs,
including the constant escapement policies common in salmon and some low small pelagic
fisheries, the fishing mortality is reduced to zero at a threshold stock biomass 7.
Reflecting the uncertainty usual in the estimation of MSY reference points and the variability of
productivity usual in fish stocks, the UNFSA guidelines and others 8 recommend that FMSY should betreated as a precautionary LRP, rather than a TRP. This is appropriate in “common practice”
application of MSY concepts, in which there is little explicit consideration of uncertainty and/or use
of approximate methods for determining MSY reference points and/or use of surrogates for fishingmortality or stock biomass.
The “best practice” current view of MSY is that it is the largest long-term average catch that resultsfrom a constant F or variable F HCR, while simultaneously giving a high chance of avoiding thebiomass LRP. MSY is determined by simulation testing, such as via management strategy
evaluation methods9, that includes realistic representation of the major likely uncertainties; forexample, observation uncertainty, estimation uncertainty, recruitment variability, model structure
uncertainty, and implementation uncertainty. FMSY determined this way could be an appropriate
TRP, because its method of calculation internalises uncertainty, variability, and the biomass LRP.
MSY stock status
The stock status consistent with MSY is fundamentally defined in the terms F MSY and BMSY. Hence,the ‘MSC Fisheries Standard’ provides default TRPs and LRPs for these. The team can use
approximations for FMSY and BMSY where they are expected to achieve performance consistent with
MSY10.
The team can use directly measurable, empirical proxies or surrogates for fishing mortality orbiomass, for example average length or length distribution, catch rate, recruitment, and

7 Mace, P.M. (2001) A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock

assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2: 2–32.
8 Mace, P.M. (2001) A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock
assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2: 2–32.
9 Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E., and Smith, A.D.M. (2000) Design of operational management strategies forachieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 731–741.
For example: Butterworth, D.S., and Punt, A.E. (1999) Experiences in the evaluation and implementation ofmanagement procedures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 985–998.
10 Witherall, D., Pautzke, C., and Fluharty, D. (2000) An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish
fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 771–7.
Clark, W.G. (2002) F35% revisited ten years later. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(1): 251–
257.
Zhou, S., Shaowu, Y., Thorson, J.T., Smith, A.D.M., and Fuller, M. (2012) Linking fishing mortality reference
points to life history traits: an empirical study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 69: 1292–1301.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

escapement, and associated empirical harvest strategies, where they are expected to achieve
performance consistent with MSY or a similar “highly productive” level11 (i.e. multispecies fisheries).

GSA 2.1.1.1 ▲It is the MSC intent that any stock proposed for assessment against Principle 1 (P1) cannot be
determined to be an Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) and out-of-scope (OOS) species(hereafter ETP/OOS). In this context the team needs to provide evidence that decision tree Figure
SA3 (and supporting requirements) has been applied to determine the P1 stock.

GSA2.1.3

Subsidies in fishing ▲The MSC does not name individual subsidy types as harmful or not harmful to fishing. However, somesubsidies may contribute to overcapacity, which may compromise the ability of a management system
to effectively control fishing effort.

GSA2.2

Stock status Performance Indicator (PI 1.1.1) ▲The terms “likely”, and “highly likely” are used to allow scoring by either qualitative or quantitative
approaches:••

Examples of qualitative interpretation include:oAnalogy with similar situations.

oPlausible argument.

oEmpirical observation of sustainability.

oQualitative risk assessment.

Examples of quantitative interpretation include:o

The use of measured data from the relevant fishery.

oStatistical analysis.

oQuantitative risk assessment.

oQuantitative modelling.

GSA2.2.1.1 Determination of status with respect to PRI and BMSY ▲The team should score PI 1.1.1 against the conceptual levels PRI and MSY. Such levels may or may
not be used as explicit reference points in a fishery.
When well-managed stocks do not have TRPs or LRPs, or their values are not consistent with theconceptual levels of PRI or MSY, the team will still need to assess the stock in terms of the overalloutcome objectives. For example, for SG80 the stock status is “highly likely” to be above the point at

11 Starr, P.J., Breen, P.A., Hilborn, R., and Kendrick, T.H. (1997) Evaluation of a management decision rule for a

New Zealand rock lobster substock. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 1093–1101.
Prince, J.D., Dowling, N.A., Davies, C.R., Campbell, R.A., and Kolody, D.S. (2011) A simple cost-effective andscale-less empirical approach to harvest strategies. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 947–960.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired and will be at or around a levelconsistent with BMSY.
The team should interpret the PRI as the point below which there is an increased risk that recruitment
may be substantially impaired. Fisheries should be managed such that the risk of stocks falling below
this level is very low. The MSC default proxies for the PRI and MSY are given in GSA2.2.3.

GSA2.2.2

Scoring fluctuations around the target MSY level – scoring issue (b) ▲Fluctuation in this context refers to the variability over time around a point, acknowledging that themagnitude of fluctuation will be influenced by the biology of the species, and that short-term trends
may be apparent in such fluctuations.
Examples of situations that may be regarded as “fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY” andthus able to achieve at least an 80 score for PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b) are given below.
The team should note that the 90%BMSY figure in the example below is given as a hypothetical levelthat may be appropriate for species types with average levels of fluctuations. Other values may beappropriate for other species types.
Examples: 80 score
Examples of situations that may be regarded as “fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY”
and thus able to achieve an 80 score for PI 1.1.1 scoring issues (b):•An instantaneous estimate of current stock status that is not less than 90%BMSY.

•

A recent series of estimates of stock size that has:•o

A median or mean value over the last one generation time that is not less than 90%B MSY.
(For a definition of generation time, see GSA2.2.4, Box GSA4)o

A trend that is consistent with an expectation that the future biomass will continue tofluctuate around BMSY. A consistent downward trend over recent years to levels below BMSY
would not be consistent with this expectation, unless accompanied by projections or otherinformation suggesting that the trend will soon be reversed; for example, due to incomingstrong recruitment or recent reductions in exploitation level. The time series may include
estimates that are less than 90%BMSY, as long as these are shown to be part of a long-term
fluctuation around BMSY.

A series of estimates showing a steady increase in stock size that has recently returned to alevel not less than 90%BMSY, and is expected to continue building to above BMSY, and thereafter
to fluctuate around BMSY.

Examples: 100 score
Examples of situations that may achieve the higher 100 score on PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b):•A recent series of estimates of stock size that has a mean or median over the last 2 generation
times that is not less than 90%BMSY.

•

A series of estimates of stock size that have been above BMSY in all years of the last one
generation time.

The team should note that, in reviewing fluctuations in stock size, a model-derived estimate of stock
size from the most recent year will often be more uncertain than a model-derived estimate from earlier
years. To avoid rapid changes in status of MSC certified stocks and consequent changes incertification status, as specified in FCP 7.30, the team should consider that model-derived estimates
may not be indicative of actual material change in stock status. The team should note that a single
estimate of stock status unsupported by an estimate of certainty, either derived from a time-series
trend or from a statistical model, should only be used to justify a material change in the score.
The MSC has chosen not to define its requirements in relation to the terms “overfishing” and“overfished”. Nevertheless, these terms are commonly used, and are referred to in some guidance asfollows:
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

“Overfishing” is fishing mortality higher than FMSY.
o•

The fishing mortality level that results, in the long term, in the stock being at MSY.

“Overfished”: biomass stock size is lower than a limit defined in relation to MSY.
o

The FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines define “overfished” as below a biomass LRP. The limit isoften taken to be 50%BMSY, which is the default assumption for the point below the PRI as
defined by the MSC.

o

The term is not commonly used internationally to relate to the PRI, and hence its use in MSC
program documents is limited.

GSA2.2.3

Use of proxy indicators and reference points for PRI and BMSY ▲In this section the term “reference point” is used in relation to determination of status.
Writing the PISGs in terms of biomass and fishing rate metrics would suggest that the ‘MSC Fisheries
Standard’ is not well suited for fisheries that do not commonly have stock assessments conducted inwhich biological reference points for biomass and/or fishing mortality are estimated. This is not theintent.
Default values for the levels of the PRI and BMSY, as used in scoring the stock status PI 1.1.1, aregiven below. They are often related to B0, the estimated “unfished biomass” that would be present in
the absence of fishing. Stock status is typically expressed as population biomass relative to BMSY, a
proxy for BMSY, or a specified management target, but in some cases may instead be expressed
relative to B0.
•

In the case where neither BMSY nor the PRI are analytically determined, the following default
reference points may be appropriate for measuring stock status depending on the species:BMSY = 40%B0.
PRI = 20%B0 = ½BMSY.

•

If either BMSY or the PRI are analytically determined, the team should preferentially use thosevalues as the reference points for measuring stock status unless additional precaution is sought.

•

In the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0, and there is no
analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This case covers situationsof low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified.

•

In the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be lower than 40%B0, as in some “highly
productive” stocks, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be
20%B0 unless BMSY < 27%B0, in which case the default PRI should be 75%BMSY.

•

For stocks with average productivity, where BMSY is not analytically determined but assumed to be
40%B0 and a management TRP is set greater than 40%B0 for precautionary reasons, the default
PRI should still be set at 20%B0 = ½BMSY unless it is analytically determined. This covers
situations where the management authority has deliberately chosen a conservative TRP, butwhere the default PRI is still appropriate.

•

In cases where the PRI is set at 20%B0, the team may assume the default value for the BMSY to
be 2 x PRI.

•

In cases where the PRI is set at the lowest historical biomass, the team cannot assume that B MSY= 2PRI. The team is expected to justify any “reference point” used as a proxy of BMSY in terms of
its consistency with BMSY.

•

Where historical estimates of stock size and resulting recruitment are available, the PRI may be
identifiable as the stock size below which reduced recruitment has been observed, and above
which recruitment appears to be more related to environmental factors than to stock size.

•

Where a biomass escapement strategy is used, the team should ensure it allows for optimised
catches while ensuring that enough spawning biomass remains to avoid recruitment impairment.
Typically, an annual escapement of around 40% is considered a pragmatic proxy for MSY.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The default PRI values given above, ½BMSY or 20%B0, apply to stocks with average productivity. Suchpoints are generally consistent with being above the point at which there is an appreciable risk that
recruitment is impaired. For some “highly productive” stocks, the actual point at which there is anappreciable risk that recruitment is impaired may be lower than 20%B 0. For some long-lived species,
it may be higher than 20%B0.
If management has defined a target range for BMSY rather than a single value, the team should scorethe stock status PI 1.1.1 against this range. The application of TRP ranges rather than a single value
may be seen in fisheries targeting “highly productive” stocks as a way of dealing with the inherent
variability in biomass. A range provides some intrinsic flexibility for determining whether the stock isfluctuating at or around BMSY. The team should:•

Provide sufficient rationale to demonstrate how the stock is indeed fluctuating at or around BMSY.

•

Consider whether different “reference points” are required for different components of the stock in
its assessment.

If proxies are used that are not expressed as percentages of B0, the team should generally ensure
that:•

Any “reference point” used as a proxy for scoring the PRI is set above the point where there is anappreciable risk of recruitment failure.

•Any “reference point” used as a proxy for the MSY level maintains the stock well above the PRI
and at levels of production and stock sizes consistent with BMSY or a similar “highly productive”
level.

If proxy “reference points” are defined in this way, the team should take account of the difference
between the “reference point” and the required PRI or MSY levels in its scoring.
The team should be cautious regarding “per-recruit” stock assessment approaches that do not include
any form of stock-recruit relationship. Levels of F0.1 or F40%SPR (where SPR is spawning potential
ration) will usually, for example, provide more reliable proxies of FMSY than Fmax when a “per-recruit”
approach is used.
The team should not assume “reference points” such as precautionary “reference points” forspawning stock biomass (BPA), that are used as a buffer to reduce the chance of declining to a limit
level such as the PRI, to be consistent with BMSY. For example, the team should regard the BMSYtrigger
approach (where BMSYtrigger is a biomass “reference point” that triggers a cautious response whenstocks fall below a trigger level) used in ICES as setting a lower limit to the likely range of values thatBMSY may take, and not as an estimated value for BMSY.
In ICES assessments, the team may regard fisheries with biomass (B) > BMSYtrigger as “fluctuatingaround BMSY”, thereby achieving an 80 score.
The team may also use proxy indicators and “reference points” for measuring stock status where theexact relationship with the PRI, BMSY, and FMSY levels are not known.
Examples: proxies and necessary consideration•

If empirical values of catch per unit effort (CPUE), not based on an explicit stock assessment,
are used as reference points for monitoring biomass, the team could provide rationales that thevalues adopted are consistent with MSY or a similar “highly productive” level. The team mayneed to check to ensure, in this case, that spatial changes in fishing, or changes in thecatchability of gear do not reduce the reliability of the proxy indicators.

•

If reference points for measuring stock status are based on some historical state, the teamshould:oConsider the position of the stock at that time relative to the unexploited level.

oConsider the likely proximity to BMSY.

oProvide evidence that the stock was not over-exploited at the historical reference time.

oProvide evidence that the catch was sustainable and “highly productive”.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

If mean fish sizes are used as reference points for the exploitation level, the team should
provide rationales that the values adopted are consistent with FMSY or similar levels.

•

In crustacean fisheries that seek to protect from harvest the complete female reproductive
capacity in the population (single sex harvest), reference points could relate to metrics such as
percent fertilised eggs and/or other female population indicators that are used in evaluating themanagement system’s effectiveness at achieving its goal.

•

Biomass escapement strategies are used for a variety of fisheries including those that target
stocks that are short-lived, semelparous, exhibit high natural mortality, and/or a weak stockrecruit relationship (e.g. salmon or squid). A target amount or percentage of individuals needed
to survive (“escape”) is determined that ensures there is sufficient spawning biomass.
Escapement can be expressed in absolute or relative terms. Provided the stock can be shown
to be fluctuating around a “highly productive” level and is above any point where recruitment
could be impaired, these proxies may be seen as being at a level consistent with MSY. The
level of escapement can be kept constant, based on average conditions, or be variable toaccount for differences in year classes (e.g. real-time management).

•

For fisheries targeting semelparous species (e.g. cephalopods), some stocks have almost full
replacement of the population during each generational cycle. Investigating the spawnerrecruitment relationship may help estimate stock size from prior data, and from that, a level ofharvest that can maintain productivity consistent with MSY.

Examples: using proxy reference points
Examples of how the team may justify SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels in these situations:•

SG60 if no decline has been observed in 1 proxy of biomass for at least one generation time ofthe species and the proxy indicates that the stock is “likely” above the PRI.

•

SG80 if no decline has been observed in 2 proxies of biomass for one generation time and at
least one proxy indicates that the stock is at a “highly productive” level.

•

SG100 if no decline has been observed in 3 proxies of biomass for one generation time and at
least 2 proxies indicate that the stock is at a “highly productive” level.

In these cases, where higher scores are justified by the use of more than one proxy indicator, suchproxies should be independent of each other and also reasonably be expected to be proxies of thequantity of interest, such as CPUE in the case of stock biomass.
In some cases, the team may argue that 1 good proxy is better than 2 or more weak proxies.

GSA2.2.3.2 ▲For example, as with a “traffic lights” approach to management.

GSA2.2.4

Scoring stock status using fishing mortality rate ▲The team should examine the history of F to determine whether the stock biomass could be assumed
to be at the required level for each SG. This will depend on the starting status for stock biomass, thetrajectory of fishing mortality, and the length of time that fishing mortality has been at a certain level.
If the starting biomass is unknown, the team should apply the following expectations:•

At least SG60 score is justified if F is “likely” to have been at or below FMSY for at least 1
generation time of the species, or for at least 2 years, if greater. This level of F is generally
expected to be able to recover, or maintain, a population likely to be above its PRI.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

At least SG80 is justified where B is “highly likely” to be above the PRI and at or “fluctuatingaround BMSY”, if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least 2 generation times, or for atleast 4 years, if greater.

•

SG100 score is justified if F is “highly likely” to have been below FMSY for at least 2 generation
times, or for at least 4 years, if greater.

These guidelines are based on the assumption that fishing mortality will in these cases be at or very
closely below FMSY. The lower the fishing mortality has been, the shorter the time interval required forrecovery. For instance, while most species require about 2 generation times to recover from the PRI
to BMSY when fishing is at FMSY, when F is reduced to 80%FMSY or 60%FMSY, the time for recovery
may be halved. The team should take these issues into account when scoring.
Box GSA4: Generation time
The MSC defines a generation time (GT) as the average age of a reproductive individual in an
unexploited stock12:𝐺=∑𝐴𝑎−1 𝑎𝐸𝑎 𝑁𝑎∑𝐴𝑎−1 𝐸𝑎 𝑁𝑎

where a is age, A is the oldest age in an unfished state, Ea is the maturity at age a, and Na is thenumber per recruit alive at age a in the absence of fishing.
𝑁𝑎 = 𝑁0 𝑒 −𝑀𝑎 where M is natural mortality and No =1 (per recruit).
The equation provided above computes GT with the parameter Ea being “maturity at age a”. The
original Goodyear formula computes GT with the parameter Ea being “mean fecundity of females atage a”, which is estimated based on the product of the fraction of mature females and the average
fecundity of mature females. The equation provided above is consistent with the original Goodyear
formula but is more accessible because the information required is less onerous. The underlying
assumption in the equation above is that fecundity is constant for all ages in the population, so that
GT can be computed using the fraction of mature females only, referred to as “maturity”.
Information about female fecundity, which requires specific equipment and expertise and thus is
more expensive than maturity information, is not necessary to compute GT.
Another reasonable approximation for GT, when 0.1 ≤ M ≤ 2 is:
1/M + Am50
where Am50 is the age at 50% maturity.
The team should use an appropriate formula considering the data available, or peerreviewed/published material for the target stock.
When several methods can be applied and it is not clear which should be chosen, the team should
apply weight of evidence and precautionary approaches for the computation of GT.

12 Goodyear, C.P. (1995) Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico: 1992 assessment update, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory. Gulf of Mexico. NMFS/SEFSC.
Cited by Restrepo, V.R., Thompson, G.G., Mace, P.M., Gabriel, W.L., Low, L.L., MacCall, A.D., Methot, R.D.,
Powers, J.E, Taylor, B.L., Wade. P.R., and Witzig, J.F. (1998) in Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary
Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–F/SPO–31, 17 July 1998.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Box GSA5: Consideration of fishing mortality rate in MSC assessments
The guidance in this section covers a specific situation: where F is being used as an indicator of thestatus of the stock when actual biomass estimates are not available.
The use of fishing mortality information is usually an indicator of the level of exploitation in a fishery.
This is particularly relevant in the scoring of the rebuilding PI, 1.1.2, and the HCR PI, 1.2.2. The
general expectations in these cases are summarised below:•

PI 1.1.2 (rebuilding) – when B is below a level at which it could be regarded as “fluctuatingaround BMSY”, then F should normally be less than FMSY, in order to achieve recovery to such alevel.

•

PI 1.2.2 (HCRs) – to be regarded as working effectively, HCRs will normally maintain F equal toor less than FMSY.

Only a few exceptions to these general “rules” are allowed. The team should support exceptions
with clear justifications, such as the special nature of a stock assessment approach or theavailability of other specific information.
For further details, see GSA2.3.4 and GSA2.5.3.
The team should note that F should be maintained at lower than MSY levels in key low trophic level(LTL) fisheries.

GSA2.2.5–2.2.6

Stock complexes ▲See comments on multi-stock and mixed stock fisheries and stock complexes in Box GSA3.

GSA2.2.7

Consideration of environmental variability, including climate change,and human-induced impacts ▲Ecosystem productivity may change naturally over time, for example under conditions of regime shift.
Where changes to stock productivity are the result of natural fluctuations in environmental conditions,the values of reference points may also change, as reflected in stock assessments. These changes
are acceptable when scoring the status of the stock in PI 1.1.1.
In situations where the productivity of the stock is affected through human-induced impacts, either
directly from the UoA (e.g. excessive fishing) or from other sources such as pollution or habitat
degradation (e.g. the clearance of mangrove swamps affecting fish nursery areas), reduction ofreference points is not justified. The fishery should receive a lower score in PI 1.1.1 until effective
management is in place and the stock returns to healthy levels.
The MSC recognises the multipurpose nature of use patterns, particularly in inland waters. Example
uses include:•

Dam construction for water supply and power.

•

Channelisation for navigation and flood control.

•

Land drainage.

•

Wetland reclamation for agricultural uses.

Such uses are generally fundamental to the functioning of modern society and outside themanagement control of the fishing sector. Where users from other, non-fishery sectors have impacts
on the fishery, management should consider these impacts when devising a strategy for achieving
management objectives.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

ExampleIf water is withdrawn for agriculture and urban supply and this has an adverse impact on fishstocks, the management of the fishery is expected to address this fact, perhaps by reducing fishingor with time/area closures.

Climate change is a human-induced impact on fishery productivity. However, the impact of climatechange is not easily resolved. Such changes are thus regarded as more similar to those arising from
regularly occurring cycles or regime shifts, as covered under SA2.2.7.1. The team should note thefurther guidance on scoring of climate change in:•

PI 1.1.2 (stock rebuilding, see GSA2.3).

•

PI 1.2.2 (harvest control rules, and the scoring of uncertainty).

•

PI 2.4.3 (ecosystem information, see SA3.16.1.

If there is evidence that productivity changes are related to the impacts of long-term climate change,
the team should note that appropriate adjustments need to be made to reference points. In such
instances, the team should use indicators to determine stock status.

GSA2.2.8

Treatment of key LTL stocks ▲LTL species, also referred to as forage fish, play a crucial role in marine food webs in many
ecosystems. For this reason, the MSC has defined specific management and outcome requirementsfor key LTL stocks. The intent of the MSC’s requirements on the treatment of LTL stocks is focusedon limiting the ecosystem impacts caused by the commercial harvest of these important species.
Box GSA6: Special management requirements for key LTL stocks
The ecological importance of LTL species such as sardines, anchovy, and krill and the control theycan exert on the rest of the food web is well established13.
Because of their significant ecological importance, unsustainable exploitation of forage fish
populations can impact the marine food web by causing declines in top marine predator, seabird
and marine mammal populations, or even threaten food security in some countries by diverting
forage fish from human consumption.
A principal distinction within the MSC requirements is the recognition of key LTL stocks as separate
from non-key LTL stocks. The intent is that the team should assess all forage fish stocks against
their potential ecosystem importance when applying for certification against the MSC Standard, but
the specific higher management requirements only apply to those stocks recognised as “key LTL”.
A species that feeds predominately on plankton and is found in the diets of many predators will
likely be a key LTL stock. The MSC guidance on this topic (GSA2.2.9) provides examples of how
these criteria can be met. Following a precautionary approach, if it is not possible to provide ajustified argument that at least 2 of the criteria are NOT met, the team should treat the stock as key
LTL.

13 Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R.J.M., Jarre, A., Quiñones, R.A., Shannon, L.J., and Verheye, H.M. (2000)

Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in ‘‘wasp-waist’’ ecosystems.
ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 603–618.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The first 2 criteria14 and the thresholds used relate directly to the levels of ecosystem impact thatthe depletion of the LTL species would have. If the team determines a species to be key LTL, theremoval of this species beyond defined precautionary reference points would likely cause acascade effect in the wider ecosystem.
The MSC defines the default precautionary reference points for management of key LTL speciesas:•

A biomass that is 75% of the unexploited level in the system, or•

A target exploitation rate of 0.5FMSY or 0.5M, the natural mortality of the species.

In fisheries where there is sufficient understanding of the system, the team can use credible
ecosystem models (as defined in SA2.2.14) to adjust these default reference points to specificlevels appropriate to the fishery, where these levels are shown not to have adverse ecosystemeffects.
The MSC’s intent is that the team should evaluate key LTL target stocks scored under PI 1.2.1
scoring issue (a), PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a), and PI 1.2.4 scoring issue (b) against management
objectives in PI 1.1.1A at the SG 80 level and not PI 1.1.1.
If an LTL stock is not key, it is assumed that the impacts of removing it are not of particularimportance to the wider ecosystem. The team should assess the stock in PI 1.1.1, using the default
requirements.

GSA2.2.9

Identification of key LTL stocks ▲The team should use the following to demonstrate whether a stock under assessment should betreated as a key LTL stock:•

The use of qualitative information on the ecosystem.

•

Diet matrices to construct food webs.

•

Ecosystem models that demonstrate the connection between species and trophic groups in theecosystem.

If the team uses ecosystem models, they must be “credible”. The team should interpret “credible” as:•Publicly available and well documented, such as peer-reviewed scientific papers.

•

Fitted to time-series data.

•

Comprehensive, dealing with the whole ecosystem, including all trophic levels15.

14 Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C, Lozano-Montes, H.,

Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Yunne-Jai, S., and Tam, J. (2011) Impacts of fishing low-trophic levelspecies on marine ecosystems. Science 333, 1147–1150.
Essington, T., and Pláganyi, E. (2013) Model and data adequacy for Marine Stewardship Council key low trophic
level species designation and criteria and a proposed new assessment index. Marine Stewardship Council
Science Series. Available at: https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/what-we-aredoing/research-and-science-series/model-and-data-adequacy-for-msc-key-ltl-species-designation-and-criteriaand-a-proposed-new-assessment-index.pdf
15 Essington, T., and Pláganyi, E. (2013) Model and data adequacy for Marine Stewardship Council key low
trophic level species designation and criteria and a proposed new assessment index. Marine StewardshipCouncil Science Series. Available at: https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/what-weare-doing/research-and-science-series/model-and-data-adequacy-for-msc-key-ltl-species-designation-andcriteria-and-a-proposed-new-assessment-index.pdf
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Where species are aggregated into trophic groups in ecosystem models, the degree of aggregation
should adhere to guidance16 that:•

Aggregations do not include serially linked groups: predators and prey.

•

Aggregations are not across species, age classes, or functional groups with rate constants thatdiffer by more than 2–3-fold. If possible, the team should base information about trophic
connection on empirical evidence of trophic dependence.

The team may also use diet matrices, which characterise the proportion of prey eaten by eachpredator, in addition to the simple linkages between predators. If diet matrices are used, the teammust construct them in adherence with the guidance 17.
ExampleIf key LTL stocks are identified by using total catch as a proxy for total biomass of the stock, theteam should scale this up to the spatial extent of the stock and its predators. For example, the CAB
should interpret a low-volume fishery in a major coastal upwelling system differently to one in asmall embayment with several locally dependent predators.

In determining key LTL status, the team should consider the spatial scale of the ecosystem that
could be affected, and from which information should be derived. This should generally correspond to
the spatial distribution of the stock being fished and could be broader in some instances; for example,
if the stock occurs within a well-defined spatial entity such as a gulf or regional sea. It will notnecessarily correspond to the jurisdictional scale of the fishery. If the spatial scale of the ecosystem isconsiderably larger than the stock distribution, the team should consider potential impacts of localised
depletion on predators.
Considering temporal scale, seasonality is not relevant to determining key LTL status. If the stock
meets two or more of the sub-criteria in SA2.2.9 during only part of the year (e.g. during spawning of
feeding aggregations but not during the rest of the year when the stock is dispersed or mixed withother stocks) the team should consider the criteria met and designate the stock as key LTL.
If the target stock or stock component under assessment is widely distributed and is present in morethan one ecosystem, the team should focus on the ecosystem containing the largest abundance ofthe species when assessing sub-criteria i, ii and iii in SA2.2.9.a.

2.2.9.a.i Key LTL criterion i – connectivity ▲This sub-criterion requires that the LTL stock is eaten by the majority of predators.
In quantitative terms, food webs can be used to investigate connectance, which can be expressed as
unweighted “proportional connectance” or the weighted SURF index, where SURF is SUpportive
Role to Fishery ecosystems. SURF has the advantage that it is less sensitive to the grouping of
predator and prey species than connectance18.
Proportional connectance (PC) is calculated from a diet matrix that has n components, and only
requires a knowledge of the interaction between groups, not the proportional diet fraction of eachgroup, as follows:

16 Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., and Johnson, C.R. (2003) Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 1–16.
17 Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., and Johnson, C.R. (2003) Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 1–16.
18 Plaganyi, E.E. and Essington, T.E. (2014) When the SURFs up, forage fish are key. Fisheries Research 159:
68–84.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

The total connectance (T) in a diet matrix is the number of all positive, non-zero, diet interactions
between components (i.e. predator-prey).

•

The connectance (C) of a component is the total number of prey interactions plus the total
number of predator interactions of that component calculated from the diet matrix.

•

Then the proportional connectance of prey i is 𝑃𝐶𝑖 = 𝑖 .

𝐶

𝑇

SURF is calculated as follows:𝑛∑(𝑝𝑗,𝑖 )2•

𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐹𝑖 =•

Where pij is the diet fraction of predator j on prey i: the proportion of the diet of predator j that is
made up of prey i.

𝑗=1

𝑇

.

Figure GSA2 shows the results, for key and non-key LTL species classified according to the MSC
definition: if, when fishing at B/B0 = 40%, no single ecosystem group is reduced by more than 70% of
its B0, and no more than 15% of ecosystem groups are perturbed by more than 40% from their B 0
using the data in Smith et al. (2011)19, of calculating connectance and SURF.

Figure GSA2: PC and SURF scores calculated from Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) ecosystemmodels presented in Smith et al. (2011)20, plotted against their impact on the ecosystem:
category 1 satisfies SA2.2.14a at B/B0 = 40% and is classified as non-key LTL; category 2 fails
SA2.2.14a and is classified as key LTL
The team should assume that based on the analyses illustrated in Figure GSA2:

19 Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C, Lozano-Montes, H.,

Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Yunne-Jai, S., and Tam, J. (2011) Impacts of fishing low-trophic levelspecies on marine ecosystems (2011) Science 333: 1147–1150.
20 Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., et al. (2011) Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine
ecosystems. Science 333, 1147–1150.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Connectance values of less than 4% will normally indicate a non-key LTL stock.

•

Connectance values of greater than 8% will indicate a key LTL stock.

•

SURF values of less than 0.001 will normally indicate a non-key LTL stock.

•

SURF values of greater than 0.001 will normally indicate a key LTL stock.

The team may take further qualitative evidence of predator dependency in the intermediate zone into
consideration, where the classification of the stock is uncertain. For example:•

If the stock is important in the diets of many higher predators for much of the year, where“importance” here might be shown by:o

The species being the preferred diet of a predator, compared to other prey species that also
occur in the diet depending on availability, oroThe species having higher calorific value or other specific fitness; for example, for thedevelopment of juveniles.

•

If land-based colonies of predators, including seals, fur seals, sea lions, penguins, and otherbirds, are considered particularly dependent on this LTL stock.

•

If large aggregations of other species are known to gather to feed on this LTL stock.

If there is no credible quantitative model, the team will require ecosystem-specific understanding of
the food web connections in the whole ecosystem in order to assess the percentage of connections.
The team should base this understanding on a comprehensive species list that identifies links for
major prey and predators, particularly dependent predators of the LTL stock in question, supported by
the considerations presented above.

2.2.9.a.ii Key LTL criterion ii – energy transfer ▲•The team may determine whether this criterion is triggered based on:oEmpirical data.

oCredible quantitative models.

o

Information about the relative abundance of the LTL stock in the ecosystem.

•

Consumer biomass ratio is calculated as the biomass of the candidate key LTL stock, divided by
the biomass of all consumers in the ecosystem: all ecosystem components that are not primary
producers or detritus: consumer biomass ratio = BLTL/Bconsumers.

•

Model-based results suggest that the team should regard any LTL stock that constitutes morethan 5% of the consumer biomass in the ecosystem as a key LTL stock.

•

The importance of the size of a key LTL stock in determining whether there is a large volume ofenergy transfer through it will depend upon the size of the total energy in the ecosystem, and in
the consumer biomass, as defined above.

•

The size of the catch of a key LTL stock is not directly indicative of its likely importance in energy
transfer. However, in approximate terms, catch size can be assumed to relate to ecosystem
importance. The team may use catch size to support a plausible argument that an LTL species
meets, or does not meet criterion SA2.2.14, as follows:o

LTL stocks that are subject to small catches by small-scale fisheries, where small catches are< 50,000t average total catch from the stock over the last 5 years, will not normally be key
LTL stocks. Catches beneath this threshold may still indicate key LTL stocks in cases where
they are taken from unusually small ecosystems.

o

It is less easy to predict the status of LTL stocks subject to large catches, where large catches
are > 100,000t total catches from the stock over the last 5 years. The CAB should not assume
that these fisheries are accessing non-key LTL stocks.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

2.2.9.a.iii Key LTL criterion iii – “wasp-waistedness” ▲This sub-criterion requires that there are few other species at this trophic level through which energy
can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy
passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock.
•

Simple food webs will be sufficient to determine whether there are significant other functionallysimilar species at a similar trophic level to the candidate LTL stock.
o•

Although for the candidate LTL species, the focus is on the adult component of the stock(SA2.2.9.a, SA2.2.9.b), the team should consider all life stages (including juveniles) of otherspecies at the same trophic level.

The team may examine catch statistics of other species of the types listed in Box SA1 orSA2.2.9.b within the same ecosystem to determine whether there are few significant catches ofother species at this trophic level.
o

In ecosystems where the catches of the candidate LTL stock are less than those of all otherspecies at the same trophic level, the team may regard the ecosystem as not “wasp-waisted”
and the candidate stock will not normally be a key LTL stock.

ExampleSardine would be considered a key LTL species in the southern Benguela current system but not in
the northern Humboldt system in its current state, as of 2010. If the Humboldt system were to shift
to a sardine-based rather than an anchovy-based system, sardine would once again become a key
LTL species in that ecosystem.
As with other MSC guidance on ecosystem change, for instance relating to climate change and multidecadal environmental cycles, the CAB needs to:•

Be aware of changes in ecosystem structure and productivity.

•

Assess in surveillance reports, or in assessment/reassessment, the extent to which the fishery
has taken these into account. For instance:o

In the case of productivity, by adjusting TRPs and LRPs.

o

In the case of ecosystem regime shifts such as above, by reconsidering the species against
the key LTL species definition.

GSA2.2.12–GSA2.2.15 Scoring stock status for key LTL stocks ▲Estimates for B0 referred to in SA2.2.13 and SA2.2.14 can be determined using credible single
species or ecosystem models or robust empirical data (such as fishery independent surveys).
See Smith et al.21 for the justification of impact levels required in SA2.2.14.b and the use of a default
75%B0 target level for their achievement.

21 Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C, Lozano-Montes, H.,

Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Yunne-Jai, S., and Tam, J. (2011) Impacts of fishing low-trophic levelspecies on marine ecosystems. Science 333, 1147–1150.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA2.2.16

Scoring key LTL stocks based on fishing mortality rate ▲In the absence of robust estimates for B0, target F values that would achieve the appropriate target
biomass levels can be adopted. Studies22 have found that exploitation rates of about half MSY rates
were required to limit the ecosystem impacts to the same levels obtained at the default 75%B0.
For key LTL species, the team should modify default expectations provided in GSA2.2.4 for non-key
LTL species to reflect the higher biomass levels expected and the lower F needed.
At least SG60 is justified if F is “likely” to have been somewhat below FMSY but not as low as 50%FMSY
for at least one generation time of the species, or for at least 2 years, if greater.
At least SG80 is justified if F is “likely” to have been at 0.5F MSY or 0.5M for at least 2 generation times,
or for at least 4 years, if greater.
SG100 is justified if F is “highly likely” to have been below 0.5F MSY or 0.5M for at least 2 generation
times, or for at least 4 years, if greater.

GSA2.2.17

Allowing for recruitment variability ▲Environmental variability is generally high for fisheries based on key LTL species compared to nonLTL fisheries. In some cases, this makes biomass-based reference points meaningless and better
justifies the use of F-based management approaches.

GSA2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ▲Background
The MSC Fisheries Standard does not refer to “formal recovery plans”. This is because, in somejurisdictions, this terminology carries specific legislative or regulatory meaning. Fisheries are instead
expected to have “recovery strategies”, which may or may not be binding in a statutory context. ThisPI is only scored when PI 1.1.1/PI 1.1.1.A does not meet the SG80.

Scoring issue (a) – rebuilding timeframes ▲If quantitative stock assessment information is used in scoring this PI, the team should note that stock
rebuilding timeframes required in scoring issue (a) relate to the time required for the stock to recoverfrom the current level to BMSY, or a level regarded as “consistent with MSY” where proxies are used.
On this basis, it may be impossible for some stocks to meet recovery targets in a 5-year timeframe
because of the life-history parameters of the species under assessment. Such parameters include:•

Growth rate.

•

Size or age at maturity or recruitment to the fishery.

•

Stock size or age composition.

•

Longevity.

•

Natural mortality.

However, some very-fast-growing stocks may recover in less than 1 certification period (5 years). An
extension to 5 years is allowed for these stocks.

22 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,

Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012) Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

As allowed in the scoring of other PIs, the CAB should apply the definition of generation time given in
Box GSA4.

GSA2.3.2–GSA2.3.3

Timeframes for achieving conditions ▲The team should note that stocks that trigger rebuilding may be allowed 1 year to put rebuilding
strategies and monitoring in place. This would likely be relevant if the stock status dropped below
SG80 for PI 1.1.1/PI .1.1A after certification. If one year is needed in this instance, the team should
put a condition on PI 1.1.1 to allow PI 1.1.2 to be scored at the next surveillance. After one year, theteam can then rescore PI 1.1.2 and assign conditions as appropriate. Given that the SG60 level would
not be met for PI 1.1.2 when the one-year condition is put in place, the team should submit a variation
request against FCP v3.0 7.15.7.2.a, 7.15.13, 7.15.14, and 7.16.3.
The team may consider allowances of more than 1 year in fisheries where stock assessments and thedevelopment of management advice are not an annual event.
If PI 1.1.2 scores less than SG80, due to a lack of evidence for rebuilding, the condition applied todevelop such evidence should still be achieved within the normal maximum 5-year duration of thecertificate (as required in SA2.3.3). While the MSC’s allowance for “exceptional circumstances” in
FCP 7.16.6 may still apply to rebuilding of the stock, which may be constrained by the species
biology, it should not apply here to the necessary reduction in exploitation rate, which is regarded as
being under the control of management and not constrained by the species biology.
The MSC wishes to avoid the situation in which fisheries appear in the upper left corner of a “Kobeplot”, with high exploitation rates even when stock size is reduced. The team should thus consider
whether any condition on rebuilding could reasonably be achieved in less than the maximum 5-year
period; for example, on an “accelerated” 2-year timescale. The team should expect fisheries in thissituation to begin effective rebuilding, and thereby meet SG80 for this PI, as fast as reasonably
possible.

GSA2.3.4

Scoring fishing mortality rate as evidence of rebuilding ▲The MSC’s expectation of rebuilding is that, for most stocks, scores of SG80 or SG100 will require F
to be lower than FMSY, as described in SA2.3.4.a and 2.3.4.b. The alternative allowance in SA2.3.5
would apply only in exceptional circumstances where there is real demonstrated recovery in the stockeven though F is not less than FMSY. This may still occur in some years; for example, in HCRs where
F is specifically used as a target rather than a limit, as described in the examples in Box GSA5.
The alternative allowance in SA2.3.5 may also be temporarily acceptable following a series of recent
high levels of recruitment due to good environmental conditions. In such cases, the “alternative clear
evidence that the stocks are rebuilding” should include that the stock has increased in at least the“last 2 years”, or other period as used in the assessment of the fishery. In these cases, the teamshould not accept evidence of only 1 year/period of growth as sufficient. In its scoring rationale inthese cases, the team should include some understanding of why the stock is rebuilding even though
F is higher than FMSY.
The team should consider the level of fishing mortality in cases where environmental variability
appears to be affecting the ability of the stock to recover.
In situations where climatic cycles, for example decadal cycles, are shown to be reducing thepotential of the stock to achieve good recruitment, SG80 or SG100 may still be justified when F is“likely” or “highly likely” below FMSY and the expectation is that good recruitment will be restored whenclimatic conditions permit. The team should also consider the target levels that are expected forrebuilding, consistent with GSA2.2.7.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA2.4 Harvest strategy PI (PI 1.2.1)
Scoring issue (a) – harvest strategy design ▲Key elements of harvest strategies include:•

The control rules and tools in place, including the ability of the management system to control
effort, taking into account issues such as overcapacity and its causes.

•

The information base and monitoring stock status.

•

The responsiveness of the management system and fleet to stock status.

The CAB should also consider whether there are issues that might compromise the effectiveness ofthe harvest strategy, such as fishing overcapacity caused by subsidies. If overcapacity exists becauseof subsidies, the management system should be robust enough to deal with this issue and still delivera sustainable fishery in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2.
The elements of the harvest strategy need to work together. The team should therefore consider:•

The overall performance of the harvest strategy.

•

How its elements contribute to allowing the management system to be responsive to the state of
the stock.

In terms of being responsive to the state of the stock, the team should provide evidence that theharvest strategy allows an adaptive management system. This could include demonstrating that theharvest strategy allows or has allowed the management authority to respond to issues in a clear,transparent, and consistent manner. This may include prior evidence of action that management has
taken when shortcomings in the elements of the harvest strategy have been identified. A responsive
harvest strategy should demonstrate that the management agency has acted, when required.
A responsive harvest strategy does not need a “well-defined” HCR for it to be responsive.
For highly fluctuating or dynamic stocks that can have their stock status driven by environmental
factors, a responsive harvest strategy should allow management to reduce exploitation to levels thatare consistent with the natural environmental fluctuations. In such cases, the harvest strategy should
allow management to alter exploitation in an adaptive manner, to levels that are appropriate for thestock to meet the objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1/PI 1.1.1A SG80 under fluctuating environmental
conditions.
Additionally, for “highly productive” species such as small pelagic fishes and invertebrates with short
generation times (e.g. < 1 year), there can be trade-offs between catch rates, fishery stability, andmanagement and conservation objectives 23. Because life history can affect such trade-offs24, thedesign of the harvest strategy should be appropriate for the species, and scoring should reflect this.
To achieve this, a robust management system may include:•

Use of in-season monitoring and adjustments.

•

Consideration of long-term climactic changes such as regime shifts in the harvest strategy 25.

23 Cochrane, K.L., Butterworth, D.S., De Oliveira, J.A.A., Roel, B.A. (1998) Management procedures in a fisherybased on highly variable stocks and with conflicting objectives: experiences in the South African pelagic fishery.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8: 177–214.
24 Siple, M., Essington, T, & Plaganyi, E. (2018) Forage fish fisheries management requires a tailored approachto balance trade-offs. Fish and Fisheries. 20.
25 King, J.R. & McFarlane, G.A.. (2006) A framework for incorporating climate regime shifts into the managementof marine resources. Fisheries Management and Ecology.13. 93–102.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Maintenance of buffers to account for uncertainty26.

Assessing informal approaches against PI 1.2.1•

The team should factor in to the assessment the likelihood of changes within the fishery that could
lead to an increase in the risk of impact from fishing activity over time.

•

The team should consider how elements of the strategy are combining to ensure that the fisheryis moving in the desired direction or operating at a low risk level.

•

The team should consider how qualitative or semi-quantitative objectives are being achieved.

•

The team should provide evidence that the expected objectives are being met. The team may
demonstrate this evidence through local knowledge or research.

•

The team should determine the extent to which there is a feedback and learning mechanism to
inform the harvest strategy on an ongoing basis. Depending on the scale of the fishery, this could
be through:oInformal stakeholder processes that are based on local knowledge of the fishery, oro

Any other less subjective review process.

GSA2.4.1

Interpretation of terms ▲As used in SI 1.2.1b at the 100 level, an “evaluation” may range from a subjective stakeholder
process in small-scale/data-deficient (SS/DD) fishery to quantitative management strategy evaluation
as appropriate to the fishery.
For “tested” at the SG80 level in SI 1.2.1b, the team can include:•

The use of experience from analogous fisheries.

•

Empirical testing, for example practical experience of performance.

•

Evidence of past performance.

•

Simulation testing, for instance using computer-intensive modelling such as management strategy
evaluation.

Teams should only assess that the harvest strategy is ‘tested and expected to achieve its objectives’,
if there hasn’t been an update to stock status following the implementation of the harvest strategy.
Once there is an update to stock status after the direct implementation of the HS used to score PI
1.2.1, the team should assess if the HS is achieving the objectives of PI 1.1.1/1.1.1A.
For tested and evaluation in scoring issue (b) at the harvest-strategy level, the team should consider
the full interactions between different components of the harvest strategy, including:•

The HCRs.

•

Use of information.

•

Assessment of stock status.

SG100 for SI 1.2.1b requires a broader evaluation than that considered in the evaluation of therobustness of HCRs in SI 1.2.2b.

26 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,

Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012) Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA2.4.2

Setting conditions ▲If conditions are set, changes to the HCRs or assessment method may be needed to make these
conditions operational.

GSA2.4.3–GSA2.4.4

Shark finning ▲BackgroundAt its December 2011 meeting, the MSC Board of Trustees resolved that shark finning shall not be
undertaken within MSC certified fisheries.
The intent of scoring shark finning in PIs 1.2.1, 2.1.2, and 2.2.2 is to enable scoring the fishery on the
CAB’s level of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. These scoring issues are designed as a
combination of policies and information thresholds determined by the evidence requirements, toassess the arrangements that are in place to ensure shark finning is not taking place.

Fins naturally attachedA fins naturally attached (FNA) policy, as defined in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary, needs to be in place
for all retained sharks. Where reference is made to the requirement for FNA, in order to facilitate
freezing and storage, the fishery could partially cut the fins, including for the purposes of draining
blood to avoid ammonisation, and fold them around the carcasses. However, fins should be attached
to a substantial part of the shark, not just some vertebrae, allowing the shark to be easily identified tothe species level. If fins are removed and then artificially attached to the carcass via ropes or wire orplaced into a bag that contains that carcass and fins, this would not constitute FNA.

Non-retention policies
A non-retention policy, including species specific policies, is one where any captured individuals must
be released and cannot be landed or retained in whole or in part. If a UoA operates under a nonretention policy, the same level of information accuracy determined through the evidence
requirements applies to the implementation of an FNA policy.

FNA policies
FNA policies can be included in regulations governing the management of sharks, including but notlimited to prohibiting shark finning, such as:•

Ratified RFMO conservation measures.

•

National or international memoranda of understanding or agreements.

•

National plans of action on sharks.

•

Legislation regulating the management and catch of sharks.

•

UoA/company level codes of conduct.

If a management agency has a requirement for FNA but it includes exemptions, the UoA should
demonstrate that it is adhering to the FNA component. This may be from documented evidence that
the UoA has put in place a code of conduct or policy that mandates its vessels operate with FNA.

Evidence of shark finning
The team is required to apply the Evidence Requirements Framework in the ‘MSC Fisheries Standard
Toolbox’ to evaluate the accuracy of information used to score the shark-finning scoring issue(s). This
is to provide confidence in the team’s determination that an FNA policy is in place. As part of thisprocess, the team is required to:•Consider any documentation that supports the implementation of an FNA policy in practice.

•

Assess the appropriateness of enforcement in the UoA with respect to monitoring compliance with
the FNA policy.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

If there is objective verifiable evidence that indicates shark finning is taking place in the UoA, the CAB
should not certify the UoA unless the client or client group excludes the vessel(s) involved from the
UoA for 2 years, following procedures in FCP 7.4.
Objective verifiable evidence could be any documented statement of fact based on observations ormeasurements, or tests that can be verified.
If there is objective verifiable evidence that indicates shark finning is taking or has taken place on
board a vessel that operates in a UoA/Unit of Certification (UoC) within the last two years:•

The fishery client(s) should exclude the vessel from the UoA(s)/UoC(s).

•The vessel should not operate in the UoA(s)/UoC(s).

•The vessel will not be eligible to access any fishery certificate for two years from the date of
exclusion.

Guidance to the FCP (GFCP) G7.4.7 provides information on this process.
The date of exclusion is the date an updated vessel list was published on the Track a Fishery website.
If fishery clients do not exclude vessels that are involved in shark finning practices, the CAB should
not certify or maintain the certification of the fishery.
It does not matter where the vessel was operating, who was operating the vessel or who owned thevessel when the shark-finning incident took place, the MSC’s intent is that any vessel involved in thepractice of shark finning in the last two years is not eligible to access any MSC fishery certificate,cannot operate within any UoC, and cannot be an “eligible fisher” in any UoA irrespective ofownership or name change.
Fishery clients and CABs should refer to the process for excluding an entity in FCP 7.4.5–7 for details
on excluding vessels from the UoA(s)/UoC(s).
Note: the UoA is included in the text above (as well as the UoC). This is because UoAs can include“other eligible fishers” that were considered in the full assessment but are not part of the UoC
because they have not entered into a certificate-sharing mechanism. Please refer to FCP 7.5.11 and
GFCP 7.5 for more information on “other eligible fishers”. It is the MSC’s intent that vessels identified
as “other eligible fishers” that have engaged in shark finning are excluded from accessing thecertificate via the certificate-sharing mechanism. In order to implement this intent, the CAB and client
should not list these vessels as “other eligible fishers”.
Scenario 1: Evidence of shark finning is identified during a full assessment
If, during a fishery assessment, the team identifies objective verifiable evidence that indicates sharkfinning is taking place on board vessels that operate in the UoA, the vessel(s) engaged in the sharkfinning should be excluded from the UoA.
Scenario 2: Evidence of shark finning is identified during a surveillance audit
At each surveillance audit the team should review observer data, and other sources of information, inorder to detect whether shark finning has taken place on board vessels that operate in the
UoA(s)/UoC(s) in the last two years or since the last surveillance audit. If the CAB identifies objective
verifiable evidence that shark finning is taking place on board vessels that operate in the
UoA(s)/UoC(s), they should immediately inform the fishery client. The fishery client should exclude
those vessels from those UoA(s)/UoC(s) and ensure the vessels do not have access to the certificate.
Scenario 3: Evidence of shark finning is identified between surveillance audits
Fishery clients may regularly review observer data, and other sources of information, between
surveillance audits in order to detect whether shark finning is taking place on board vessels that
operate in their UoA(s)/UoC(s). Fishery clients may receive information from other fishery clients or
stakeholders that indicates shark finning is taking place on board vessels that operate in their
UoA(s)/UoC(s). As soon as fishery clients become aware that shark finning is taking place on board
vessels that operate in their UoA(s)/UoC(s), they should:•

Exclude those vessels from those UoA(s)/UoC(s).

•Ensure the vessels do not have access to the fishery certificate.

•

Inform their CAB immediately.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The MSC’s intent is that if fishery clients are aware that shark finning is taking place on board vesselsthat operate in their UoA(s)/UoC(s), they should not wait until a surveillance audit before taking action
and informing their CAB. This would contravene the MSC’s position that shark finning is not to beundertaken within MSC certified fisheries. If a fishery client has not excluded vessels involved in sharkfinning from their UoA(s)/UoC(s), the MSC’s intent is clearly stated in the MCS Fisheries Standard
1.1.6.

GSA2.5 Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ▲For LTL species, for the fishery to score 60 or above under PI 1.1.1A, the TRPs and LRPs need totake into account the ecological role of the stock for the fishery. The harvest strategy, control rules,
information requirements, and assessment need to be consistent with this distinction. When PI 1.1.1A
is scored, the team should interpret references to PI 1.1.1 in the guidance below as PI 1.1.1A and theobjectives required therein.
There may be conceptual differences in the reference points when scoring PI 1.1.1 and PI 1.2.2. Thisis because fisheries may use different reference points for measuring stock status and as triggers inthe HCRs27. For example, a fishery that uses an explicit BMSY reference point as a target for thefishery biomass may have TRPs for adjusting F at values of biomass either at BMSY, or above or below
BMSY. The focus in this PI is thus on the reference points used in a fishery to trigger changes inmanagement actions, and how they work in combination to achieve the outcomes required in PI 1.1.1.

Scoring issue (a) – HCR design and application ▲The team should consider the basis for plausibility and practicality of design in relation to the scale
and intensity of the fishery; for example, using:•

Empirical information.

•

Relevant science.

•

Model-based approaches, such as management procedures and management strategy
evaluation.

The team should score HCRs against their ability to deliver the levels expressed in scoring issue (a).
•At SG60, HCRs should be “likely” to ensure that stocks will be maintained above the PRI.

•At SG80, HCRs should also ensure that the stock is “likely” to fluctuate around a B MSY level.
Testing may show that this is achieved by the inclusion of a BMSY consistent reference point as a
trigger in the HCRs, such as an inflection in a “hockey stick” form, at a point that would deliver
BMSY in the long term.

•

At SG100, greater certainty is required. The team should regard fisheries with HCRs that target
stock levels above BMSY, for example a biomass that maximises net economic returns (BMEY), as atleast meeting the 80 level. Projections in the fishery may show that the HCR would “likely”
achieve the higher SG100 score by fluctuating more above than around B MSY.

HCRs will usually include some form of dynamic rule, requiring that a change of some sort will bemade in response to a fishery indicator moving above or below one of the TRPs. In lightly exploited

27 Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Smith, A.D.M., Sainsbury, K. (2015) Guidelines fordeveloping harvest strategies for data-poor species and fisheries. Fisheries Research 171 pp 130–140.
Dowling, N.A., Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Dichmont, C.M., and Smith, A.D.M. Harvest Strategies for Data-Poor
Fisheries: A Brief Review of the Literature. CSIRO.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

fisheries, it may be that some reference points are set to trigger changes in data collection orassessment approaches, as certain thresholds are reached 28.
HCRs are often applied on a frequent basis, such as with the annual setting of total allowable catch(TAC) or effort restrictions.
•

Such HCRs respond dynamically to the monitoring data from the fishery with regular adjustments
to input/output-type management measures.

•

In data-poor fisheries that are managed without such input/output controls, management may
comprise only technical measures, such as size limits, gear restrictions, closed seasons, andclosed areas.

•oIn these cases, the specific terms of the technical measures are usually set and fixed for a
relatively long period of time, several years, based on occasional strategic stock assessmentsthat are shown to deliver defined TRPs or LRPs.

o

The team may regard such an arrangement as equivalent to a dynamic HCR operating over alonger time scale in cases where some indicators are monitored to confirm that the HCRs aredelivering the intended targets for the stock.

For “highly productive” species, the design of the HCR should consider life history, as this canaffect performance of the control rule. Given the propensity for changes in productivity with these
species, adaptive and responsive control rules are key to assist with detecting and responding tochanges in biomass29.

At SG80 in scoring issue (a), the team should expect “well-defined” HCRs to explicitly include theconditions under which the technical measures in the fishery would be expected to be revised in the
future.
ExampleRelatively sedentary bivalves often have fishery management trigger points based on population
densities collected through systematic surveys, where these index densities are established basedon the species population dynamics and the inherent productivity of the habitat and environmental
conditions.
There may be no formal stock assessment, but yield is calculated on a proportion of the observed
biomass, and the harvested fraction determined on empirical evidence from historical catches andtheir consequences.
The team should note that, while such arrangements can work, HCRs based on taking a constantpercentage of the year’s estimated biomass should not be regarded as meeting the requirement of
avoiding the PRI, unless some lower threshold is defined.
The CAB should not always interpret the requirement that an HCR reduces exploitation rates as the
LRP is approached as requiring the control rule to deliver an exploitation rate that is a monotonicallydecreasing function of stock size:•

Any exploitation rate function may be acceptable if it acts to keep the stock above an LRP thatavoids possible recruitment failure and attempts to maintain the stock at a TRP that is consistent
with BMSY or a similar “highly productive” level.

28 Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Smith, A.D.M. Smith, D.C., and Haddon, M. Guidelines on developing harvest

strategies for data-poor fisheries. CSIRO.
29 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,
Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012). Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

This outcome includes the requirement that the HCR should act to cause stocks to rebuild to the
TRP when they are below it; maintenance of a stock at a level just above the LRP would not be
acceptable.

•

A reduction of exploitation rate may not always mean that the control rule requires a reduction in“total” exploitation rate, but instead could involve reducing exploitation rate on parts of the stock;for example, by age or sex.

•

The team should assume that reductions in exploitation rate refer primarily to reductions incatches and effort, and not to gear modifications, unless these have the effect of reducing
catches/effort.

As noted in the guidance on PI 1.1.1, HCRs may include both explicit and implicit reference points.
ExampleIf a management strategy is based solely around a TRP, the HCR, when combined with TRP,
should ensure that the stock remains well above the PRI. This should ensure that the exploitation
rate is reduced as this point is approached. This is an implied LRP.
Equally, a management strategy based solely around an LRP should imply that there is a TRP
close to or at BMSY, or some other measure or surrogate that maintains the stock at highproductivity, and at a level that is well above the LRP.

GSA2.5.2“Generally understood” HCRs at SG60 vs “well-defined” HCRs at SG80▲

For “generally understood” and in-place HCRs, there should be at least some implicit agreement
supported by past management actions that demonstrates that “generally understood” rules exist.
There should be the expectation that management will continue to follow such “generally understood”
rules in future and act when changes in explicit or implicit reference points are identified.
When determining whether a “generally understood” HCR is in place in the fishery under assessment,
the team needs to determine whether the fishery will take appropriate management action in line withwhat they perceive as the “generally understood” rule. The team should consider evidence of positive
action being taken in the past as evidence that there is a “generally understood” rule in place. The
team should provide clear reference to documents or other evidence that actions were taken on
specific dates.
The team should provide evidence and examples of the positive actions taken in response to
generally understood HCRs for the target stock when they are in place.
The team should apply a precautionary approach to scoring when there is uncertainty over whether
an HCR meets the requirements of “generally understood”, and whether there is sufficient evidence tosupport this. Note, the full definition for HCRs in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary should only apply at the
SG80 level, given the term ‘well-defined’ is used in this definition.
The team should not consider the following as evidence that an HCR is in place:•

A poorly defined commitment such as “we agree to implement an HCR sometime in the future”.

•

General regulations, such as convention texts or references to the Fish Stocks Agreement.
o•However, binding commitments such as those in national law may be used as evidence, if
supported by evidence of management action.

Scientific recommendations on HCRs or reference points that have not yet been adopted by theactual management agency.

The team should not expect that “in place” arrangements require formal indefinite binding agreement.
For example, CMMs approved by RFMO Commissions are regarded as “active” resolutions and may
thus be accepted as in place even though they may be overturned in the future.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring issue (b) – scoring uncertainty in the HCRs ▲The SGs reflect the degree of confidence there is in the HCR performance in relation to risks causedby known and unknown factors.
Known factors include:•

Observation and process errors that are often accounted for in stock assessments.

Unknown factors include:•

Unpredictable effects from climate.

•

Environmental or anthropogenic non-fishery related factors, which could, for example, lead toperiods of low recruitment or growth.

•High natural mortality.

•

Migration.

These and other changes to the population dynamics may not have been fully accounted for in thestock assessment or projections. Another important reason for limited confidence in an HCR is that it
has not been fully agreed by stakeholders, and it is uncertain whether the fishing community willcomply with the HCR. This last issue is important to ensure HCRs are not only theoretical rules on
paper but are applied in practice.
The team can use testing to support the requirement that the control rules and/or management
actions are designed to take into account uncertainty. Testing can include:•

The use of experience from analogous fisheries.

•

Empirical testing; for example, practical experience of performance or evidence of past
performance.

•

Simulation testing, for instance using computer-intensive modelling such as management strategy
evaluation.

It may generally be the case that LRPs are set at the point that reproductive capacity starts to beappreciably impaired for some fisheries, especially those for small pelagic species and annual
species where the stock recruit relationship is very steep. However, management may choose to set
an LRP above this level. Maintaining a buffer can allow for adaptability to changes in production 30.
Where this results in more precautionary management, it may assist the fishery in meeting SG80 orSG100 for scoring issue (b).
HCRs in small-scale fisheries may still achieve high scores if uncertainties are well considered. The
team may thus score simple HCRs linked to reliable indices of stock status highly on this issue
without management strategy evaluations.

GSA2.5.3

Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs – PI1.2.2 scoring issue (c) ▲In this scoring issue, the team is required review the ability of the tools associated with the HCRs toachieve the exploitation levels. Such tools include:•

Management measures like TACs and fishing limits.

•

Arrangements for sharing TACs between participants in the fishery, including between states inshared stock fisheries.

30 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,

Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012) Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

For this examination, the team may consider the overall history of effectiveness of the tools used in
the fishery, in terms of their ability to achieve the desired exploitation rates and biomass levels, andthe current status.
SA2.5.3 requires that the team examine the current exploitation levels in the fishery, as part of theevidence that the HCRs are working, for example through evidence that current F is equal to or lessthan FMSY. The team may also accept current F levels greater than FMSY in cases where:•

Stock biomass is currently higher than BMSY, or•

Stock assessment information is comprehensive and it is appropriate to treat F MSY as a TRP (seeBox GSA5).

However, the team should not use F < FMSY as the sole evidence for the existence of an effective
HCR. F could, for example, be lower than FMSY just because effort is currently low, even though there
has been no management commitment or attempts to actually control effort at a level that would
constrain F to FMSY by the HCR. However, if F has been constrained at F < FMSY by the tools, the team
could accept this as part of the evidence that the HCRs are being effective. Evidence for theeffectiveness of an HCR should in fact require the consistent achievement of the target exploitationlevel, which may be well below FMSY if stocks are currently below BMSY. The team should takeparticular care when assessing the effectiveness of capacity limitation measures in fisheries, forexample in comparison to well-monitored effort controls and catch limits, in terms of their likely ability
to meet management goals and target exploitation levels.
To avoid severe socio-economic impacts in a fishery, the team may also make allowance for thegradual adjustment of F down to appropriate levels in cases where the pace of change is limited. In
these cases, projections of stock status should confirm that the expected future adjustments in F will
still lead to fluctuations around MSY levels within a reasonable timescale.
If proxy indicators and reference points are used in the fishery instead of explicit estimates of F andFMSY (as allowed in SA2.2.3), the team should assign higher scores where greater confidence isprovided by the proxy information, similar to the scoring of PI 1.1.1. Where higher scores are justified
by the use of 2 or more proxy indicators, they should be independent of each other and be expected
to be proxies of the quantity of interest, such as mean fish size in the case of exploitation rates. The
team should present a rationale for how the proxies conform to these principles.
As with the case of using proxies for scoring stock biomass in PI 1.1.1, it may sometimes be argued
that 1 good proxy is better than 2 or more weak proxies.
Examples: SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels
Examples of how the team may justify SG60, SG80, and SG100 in these situations:•

At least SG60 is justified if 1 proxy indicates that “overfishing” is not occurring.

•

At least SG80 is justified if 1 or more proxies indicate that it is “likely” that “overfishing” is notoccurring. In this case, the extra confidence may be due to the availability of a second proxy
indicator, or may arise because a minimum 70% probability level can be assigned to the single
indicator used, as compared to the SG60 level where this probability level may not bedemonstrated.

•

SG100 is justified if 2 or more proxies indicate it is “highly likely” that “overfishing” is notoccurring.

Assessing informal approaches to HCRs
In informally managed fisheries, the CAB should assess the extent to which there are management
tools and measures in place that are consistent with ensuring that susceptibility of the target species
to removal is no higher than that which would cause the risk to the target species to be above an
acceptable risk range. Measures could be spatial, temporal, or changes to gear overlap.
The team should also consider measures in place to respond to changes in the fishery, for example
by reducing the susceptibility of target species when the fishery is not heading in the direction of its
objectives.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Metapopulations
The team should address uncertainties relating to the metapopulation structure. The team should notethe descriptions of different types of metapopulation in GFCP G7.5.

GSA2.6 Information monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3)
GSA2.6.3

Information categories ▲Stock structure could incorporate information describing:•The distribution and geographical range of the stock.

•

The relationship of the geographical range to the harvest control.

•

The age, size, sex, and genetic structure of the stock.

Stock productivity could incorporate:•

Maturity.

•

Growth.

•Natural mortality.

•

Density-dependent processes.

•

The stock-recruit relationship.

•

Fecundity.

Fleet composition could incorporate information on associated effort by gear type/method of
capture, including fleet characteristics in both targeted and non-targeted fisheries taking the species.
Information is required for the whole stock, but better information would usually be expected from thefishery unit under assessment.
Stock abundance could incorporate information relating to absolute or relative abundance indicesincluding:•

Recruitment.

•

Age.

•

Size.

•

Sex.

•

Genetic structure of the stock.
o

Reflecting the guidance on surrogate measures under PI 1.1.1, the team may meet therequirement for “stock abundance” information at SG60 and SG80 by using surrogate
indicators that provide an adequate proxy for stock abundance.

Fishery removals could incorporate information describing:•

The level, size, age, sex, and genetic structure of landings.

•

Discards.

•

Illegal, unreported, unregulated, recreational, customary, and incidental mortality of the target
stock by location and method of capture.

Information is required for the whole stock, but better information would usually be expected from thefishery being assessed.
Other data may include environmental information such as temperature, weather, and other factorsthat may influence fish populations and fishing.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring issues (b) and (c) – scoring fishery removals ▲The distinction between scoring issues (b) and (c) for PI 1.2.3 at SG80 relates to the relative amountor quality of information required on fishery removals.
Scoring issue (b) relates to fishery removals specifically by those vessels covered under the UoA,
which need to be regularly monitored and have a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the
HCR. For example, where depletion methods are used, they should be tested against catch and effort
data at a determined frequency consistent with the HCR; for example, weekly, or monthly.
The reference to “other” fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not coveredby the UoA. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or
coverage as that covered by scoring issue (b).

Metapopulations
Understanding dispersal pathways and population connectivity is important for devising effective
harvest strategies. The team should specifically address information related to the metapopulation
structure.
Information that could be relevant to the assessment includes:•

The life cycle of the species, including its spatial distribution and temporal distribution.

•

Identification of local populations and the extent to which they are connected and function as
either sinks or sources, reflecting the dispersal of both larvae and adult.

•

The role of oceanographic features or any other mechanisms in controlling larval dispersal andconnectivity.

•

Genetic studies comparing local populations.

•

Variations in population structure.

•

Variations in demographic parameters between sources and sinks.

GSA2.7 Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ▲Background
This PI refers to stock assessments, but in some circumstances, particularly under SG100, the team
may find it useful to consider whether management procedure / management strategy evaluation
approaches were used to test the robustness of the stock assessment to uncertainty and alternative
hypotheses.
For some harvest strategies, stock assessment methods may not be model-based but based on stock
status relative to empirical reference points; for example, catch rate and density. Survey abundance,and decision rules may comprise rules using these indices rather than stock status estimates fromanalytical assessments. Other harvest strategies may use complex analytical models.
The “default” reference points described in GSA2.2.4 are equivalent to the “generic” reference points
referred to in PI 1.2.4.
For example, when scoring PI 1.2.4b at SG60, an assessment might use the BMSY = 40%B0 and/or
PRI = 20%B0 values. While at SG80, the fishery may have estimated its own BMSY for the stock (e.g.
35%B0). Note the expectation that these levels may be adjusted for different types of stock (mainly
whether they are long-lived/slow-growing, or short-lived/fast growing).

Short-lived species
Assessment of cephalopods can prove challenging because of aspects of their life history andbecause there are fewer analytical stock assessments available than for finfish. As such, applicationof assessment methods may be successful for some stocks but not others. For example, somespecies may experience complete replacement of the population at every generational cycle, causing

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

there to be few or no other cohorts. For these stocks, sequential analysis of cohorts may then not bea suitable form of assessment. The team needs to consider:•

The nature of the stock.

•

Whether the assessment method is appropriate and able to model any rapid changes.

Metapopulations
Where several or many local populations exist within a metapopulation, it is unlikely that full stock
assessments would be completed annually for each local population. The degree of self-recruitment
and demographic connectivity among sub-populations should dictate the specific assessment
required to allow for responsible and sustainable harvest.
The team should consider the appropriateness of the stock assessment in relation to themetapopulation structure.
The team should also assess whether the stock assessment identifies and considers major sources of
uncertainty related to the metapopulation structure.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3 Principle 2 ▲Background
The Principle 2 assessment is divided into four components, which are considered to cover the rangeof potential impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.
Table GSA1: Components of Principle 2
Component

Description

In-scope species

Species within scope of the MSC program (fish and invertebrates) that are
not covered under Principle 1 and are not ETP/OOS species.

ETP/OOS species

Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species and species out of
scope (OOS) of the MSC program (birds, mammals, amphibians, andreptiles).

Habitats

The chemical and bio-physical environment, including biogenic structures,
where fishing takes place.

Ecosystem

Broader ecosystem elements such as trophic structure and function,community composition, and biological diversity.

GSA3.1

General requirements for Principle 2 ▲In Principle 2, the MSC uses the term “species” in scoring issues and requirements. The term could
mean an entire species, or a stock or population of a species, as appropriate to the species and thecontext of the fishery in assessment.

GSA3.1.1.f

Unwanted Catch ▲Where a UoA has a management plan, some species and sizes may be considered and designatedto be ‘unwanted catch’ (including through using terms such as ‘non-target’, ‘bycatch’ or ‘discards’ inthe plan). If not designated, unwanted catch of species are those that are not covered under the plan.
Unwanted catches of species may also be designated as catch that is prohibited in that fishery.
Unwanted catch may also include the part of the catch that has been thrown away or slipped where
the components of that catch may not survive after release.
See GSA3.1.6.1 for a further description of unwanted catch.

GSA3.1.2–3.1.7

Designation of P2 species ▲Principle 2 species are species impacted by the UoA and not under assessment in Principle 1. The
decision tree outlined in Figure GSA3 provides an overview of the intent of the separation between inscope and ETP/OOS species components. This should be reviewed in conjunction with the decision
tree outlined in Figure SA3 for determining ETP/OOS species.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Figure GSA3: High level overview of Principle 2 species designations
Where a fishery assessment has more than one UoA, for species assessed and scored as meeting
the Principle 1 requirements, the team does not need to score the same species under Principle 2 foranother UoA. It is assumed that if the species meets the Principle 1 requirements in UoA1 there is noneed to score the same species under P2 in UoA2, and vice versa.

GSA3.1.4.b National ETP legislation ▲The MSC’s intent in specifying this designation criterion is that these species have been identified
under any relevant national legislative frameworks in response to their ETP status. This legislation
may take many forms but examples of this could include:•

Primary legislation31 – this legislation usually outlines general principles and provides powers forfurther regulation. The term describes the main laws passed by the legislative bodies of a country.
Examples can include an “Act” or “Bill”.

•

Secondary legislation32 – this legislation usually consists of more detailed provisions covering aparticular subject. The term describes laws created under powers granted through primarylegislation. An example can include a “Statutory Instrument”.

Where teams are unsure whether a species is listed within “National ETP legislation” as describedwithin SA3.1.4.b, the precautionary principle should be applied.

31 https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/
32 https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.1.4.2 ETP/OOS list modification for Chondrichthyan species ▲The MSC’s intent is specifying modifications for all Chondrichthyan species rather than just thoseshark species identified in the shark-finning requirements, i.e. only those within the Selachimorpha
and Rhinopristiphormes. The difference is intentional as there is a greater risk of shark finning in the
Selachimorpha and Rhinopristiphormes, but all Chondrichthyans are relevant for the ETP/OOS listing
criteria.

GSA3.1.4.4 Applying modifications to ETP/OOS list at scope extension ▲The MSC’s intent is that modifications to the ETP/OOS list are only applied once per certification
cycle. However, if an ETP/OOS species is removed from any of the lists under SA3.1.4.b, or the
status or management changes such that modifications applied under SA3.1.4.1–3.1.4.3 mean thatan ETP species is eligible to be scored under Principle 1, the modifications may be reviewed as partof the scope extension process to move the species to Principle 1.

GSA3.1.5.c Bait ▲Bait is always assessed as a scoring element within the in-scope species component since use of
ETP/OOS species is not consistent with the MSC’s intent. Wild-caught bait, whether caught within thefishery or purchased from elsewhere, needs to be considered in an assessment because all aspectsof the fishery need to be sustainable, including those relating to the stocks of the bait species.
Therefore, the team should present rationale that even purchased bait comes from well-managed andhealthy stocks.
Bait from sources other than wild-caught, such as terrestrial origin products or aquaculture byproducts are beyond the MSC’s bait requirements. Sources of such products do not need to beconsidered as scoring elements in the in-scope species PIs. However, when scoring the ecosystemPIs, the team may consider the impact on the ecosystem of using these products.

GSA3.1.6.1 Unobserved Mortality ▲The total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 needs to include observed and unobserved
fishing mortality:
Observed mortality includes:•

Catches.

•Catches that are thrown away, including slippage.

Unobserved mortality can include, but is not limited to:•

Illegal fishing and/or unregulated catches.

•

Animals that are injured and subsequently die as result of coming in contact with fishing gear.

•

Animals that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear.

•

Ghost fishing (GSA3.6.3-4).

GSA3.2

General requirements for outcome PIs ▲The outcome PIs assess the status of each component and whether the fishery is posing a risk ofserious or irreversible harm to the component or hindering its recovery.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.2.1

Interpretation of likelihood levels ▲The team may interpret terms in Table SA8 either:•

Qualitatively, for example, through analogy with similar situations, plausible argument, empiricalobservation of sustainability and qualitative risk assessment, or•

Quantitatively, for example, through measured data from the relevant fishery, statistical analysis,
quantitative risk assessment and quantitative modelling.

Table GSA2 shows the MSC’s intent for the maintenance of each P2 component in relation tosustainability levels.
Table GSA2: MSC outcome expectations for each P2 component
Term

Definition and discussion

In-scope(2.1.1)

The intent of the SGs is that a fishery is managed such that the stock biomass ismaintained above the PRI. This reflects the language used for PI 1.1.1.
Where the PRI is not defined by management, other biologically based limits (BBL) or
proxies can be used to score this PI (see GSA2.2.3 on proxies).

ETP/OOS
(2.2.1)

The intent is that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP/OOS populations tofavourable conservation status.

Habitats(2.3.1)The SGs refer to the changes caused by the UoA that fundamentally alter the capacityof the habitat to maintain its ecological structure and function or recover from theimpact.

Ecosystem(2.4.1)

Changes caused by the fishery that fundamentally alter the capacity of the ecosystem tomaintain its key structure and function or recover from the impact. The team mayinterpret this to mean changes that seriously reduce the ecosystem services provided
by the component to the fishery, to other fisheries, and human uses.

The components of P2 may be subject to human impact from sources other than the UoA. For
example, in-scope species may be target species in other fisheries, while habitats and ecosystemprocesses may be impacted by coastal-zone or other developments or introduced species.
If the component status is low, for whatever reason, the operative issue for the majority of the SGs in
P2 assessments is whether the UoA is hindering recovery. In these cases, the team should base theassessment on the marginal contribution that the UoA makes to the status or recovery of thecomponent under consideration. If the UoA is not the root cause of human impacts on the component,
actions of the UoA cannot redress the situation. In any event, the UoA is required not to hinder
recovery or rebuilding.

GSA3.3General requirements for management PIs ▲Management arrangements
The intent of the management PIs is to assess the arrangements in place to manage the impact that
the UoA has on the P2 components to ensure that it does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible
harm to the components of the ecosystem. The SGs contain a mixture of requirements for either
measures or strategies to be in place. In addition to the definitions provided in SA3.3.1, the teamshould use Table GSA3, which provides a summary of requirements at each SG when assessing
management arrangements.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Table GSA3: Guidance to interpreting management arrangements required at each scoring
guidepost
Measures

Partial Strategy

Strategy

Scope

UoA or wider

Objective

Limiting impact / nothindering recovery SG60
outcome status

DesignEither designed for component, or
incidental (having been designed to manage
impacts elsewhere)

Designed forcomponent

Linkages

Unlinked

Some cohesive links

Strategically linked

ResponsivenessNon-responsive

Response where sho
wn to be ineffective

Fully responsive

Cumulative

UoA only

UoA and other MSC
UoAs

All fisheries

Direct indirect
impacts

Direct only

Monitoring

UoA and wider
Limiting impact / nothindering
recovery SG80
outcome status

Defined managementtargetDirect and Indirect
Some

Full

Measures could include the closure of an area that was primarily put in place to avoid the catch ofjuvenile target species and enhance target species sustainability, but also has a beneficial effect onother species caught by the UoA, such as other juvenile finfish.
A partial strategy may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.
However, if such measures are effective in assisting the UoA to achieve the SG80 level for theoutcome PI, this could be considered as sufficient in meeting the criteria for partial strategy.
A strategy could include voluntary or customary arrangements, agreements, or practices, and/or
codes of practice where they can be demonstrated to be working by achieving the corresponding
outcome PI at SG80 or higher.
A comprehensive strategy, only used in the ETP/OOS management PIs, requires that the
management ensures and continues to confirm that the UoA achieves the corresponding outcome
requirements.

“Alternative measures”
The Management PIs also assess “alternative measures” to minimise the impact of the UoA on
species and habitats. Fisheries need to review “alternative measures” that are shown to minimisemortality of the species or species group in question as well as “alternative measures” to reduce
impacts on habitats.
Box GSA7: The MSC’s intent on reducing the impact of fisheries on unwanted catch and on
habitats
The FAO states that:
Selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and practices should be further developed andapplied, to the extent practicable, to maintain biodiversity and to conserve the population structure

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

and aquatic ecosystems and protect fish quality. Where proper selective and environmentally safe
fishing gear and practices exist, they should be recognized and accorded a priority in establishingconservation and management measures for fisheries33.
•

Fisheries should take account of the potential for both positive and negative impacts of“alternative measures” on species and habitats (refer to GSA3.6.1.1) when considering whether
such measures should be implemented.

“Alternative measures” should avoid capture of the species in the first place or increase its
survivability if released. Alternatively, in the case of in-scope species, measures could use theunwanted catch in some way so that it would no longer be “unwanted”. If there are no “unwanted”
species, the team does not need to score the issue on reviewing “alternative measures” in that PI.
The language used in the scoring issue is based on that used by the FAO 34. The FAO also
provides management planning guidelines for all significant sources of fishing mortality in a fisheryand requirements for management actions pertaining to bycatch and discards 35, including:•

Reviewing effectiveness of existing initiatives to address bycatch and discard problems.

•

Reviewing potential effectiveness of alternative methods to address the bycatch/discard
problem.

The MSC’s intent is that the team should, in the outcome and information PIs, consider the effortsof the UoA to minimise the mortality of this “unwanted” catch. The team should score informationon the effectiveness of the measures, including any reduction of unwanted catch, for example,
lower catch rate, in the information PI. This information on the reduced catch rate of the species
may improve certainty that a species is above the PRI/biologically based limits or, if below
PRI/biologically based limits, form part of a strategy to ensure that the MSC UoAs do notcollectively hinder recovery of this species. The team should also consider this when scoring theoutcome PI.

The arrangements in place to manage impacts on the species may include measures to address bothwanted and unwanted catch (see Box GSA7). With respect to unwanted catch, measures may
include:•Input and/or output controls.

•

Improvements of the design and use of fishing gear and unwanted catch-mitigation devices.

•

Spatial and temporal measures.

•

Limits and/or quotas on unwanted catch.

•Bans on throwing away or slipping catch that create an incentive to reduce unwanted catch,provided that the unwanted catch cannot be released alive.

•

Measures to increase survivorship of unwanted catch that is thrown away or slipped.

•

Incentives for fishers to comply with measures to manage and/or reduce mortality of unwanted
catch.

In these PIs, the team should also consider incentives that might compromise the effectiveness of the
management strategy meeting P2 outcomes, such as fishing overcapacity caused by subsidies. If
overcapacity exists due to subsidies, the management system should be robust enough to deal withthis issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery in accordance with MSC Principle 2.

33 FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.
34 FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.
35 FAO (2011) International Guidelines on bycatch management and reduction of discards. Rome: FAO.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.4General requirements for information PIs ▲The requirements in the information PIs are framed in terms of information adequacy. The team may
use many forms of information in order to score the UoA; for example, written, verbal, photographs,
and first-hand accounts. This information may come from different, potentially competing sources; forexample, the client, fishers, community members, non-governmental organisations, and government
agencies.
It is expected that the team will apply either the Evidence Requirements Framework in the MSC
Toolbox, where required, or use its expert judgement to decide whether the available information isadequate in the context of the outcome and management PIs.
For some forms of information, support can be derived from published scientific literature that refers
directly or indirectly to the subject of interest, from the client or stakeholders, or from first-handobservations. The team will need to be satisfied that information:•

Is objective.

•

Has been generated through acceptable scientific methods.

•

Can be independently verified.

When presented with information that may not be verifiable, the team may find it useful to “triangulate
opinions”. The team can do this by cross-checking statements made by people against other opinions
and perspectives held by other stakeholders. A range of triangulated opinions will:•

Offer different perspectives, highlight diverse views, or potentially reveal vested interests.

•

Help verify or authenticate information.

•

Challenge the assumptions or biases of others.

Triangulation may not reveal the one true answer; it may simply yield a fuller, more complete
understanding when all the information is brought together. Ultimately, the team will need to use its
expert judgement and make decisions based on the best available information, independent of its
source.

GSA3.5In-scope species outcome PI (PI 2.1.1)

GSA3.5.1
Determining the point of recruitment impairment and the use of proxies▲
For additional help on the interpretation of this term, including the use of proxy reference points, theteam should refer to the Principle 1 guidance in GSA2.2.3.

GSA3.5.2

Designation of “main” and “minor” species ▲When considering species for designation as “main”, the team should use a precautionary approach.
The overall intent when designating “main” species is that the team should have a goodunderstanding of the long-term average catch composition of P2 species of the UoA before it releases
the Public Comment Draft Report. In addition, the team should be confident that the species
compositions, as well as their respective catch volumes, are unlikely to change over the lifetime of thecertificate.
Considering the variability of the catch composition over the last 5 years or fishing seasons, the teamshould recognise that some species might be “main” in some years but not in others. Depending ondata availability, the team may choose a different length of the time series. However, the team should
provide a rationale for the duration chosen.
If catch percentages are unknown or too uncertain to enable determination of which species are“main”, the team should use and document a qualitative information-gathering process to determine
whether the catch of the species by the UoA comprises more than 2% or 5% of all species caught by
the UoA. The team should be precautionary in its classification of “main” and “minor species”. This
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

implies that more species might be considered “main” unless the team provides rationale to justify
otherwise. This might be the case for fisheries that need to use the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)
methodology (the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Section A) and/or have very low sample sizes sothat the standard deviation is very high.

Figure GSA4: Decision tree for determining “main” and “minor” species in the in-scope
species component

SharksShark fins are considered to have high commercial value. Thus, when a fishery trades shark fins, theteam should consider shark to be a main species, even when sharks comprise less than 5% of thecatch.

GSA3.5.2.1.bDesignating less-resilient species as “main” at 2% ▲Resilience here is based on the species life-history characteristics and the risk to the stock fromanthropogenic activities, not the actual impact of the UoA on the stock. The team should assess theactual impact of the UoA on the stock under the outcome PI.
The team may use the productivity part of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) as aprecautionary and robust method of quickly determining the intrinsic resilience of a species, in cases
where it scores either low or medium productivity (SA3.5.2.1.b.i.A). The team may take an overall
average productivity score of ≥ 2 to indicate that the species has a life-history equivalent to medium or
lower productivity. Using this threshold would be a precautionary way of designating a species as“less resilient”. See of the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Tool A for full details on the PSA
analysis.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

However, the team should note that the productivity score is not the only method available to help
designate species as “less resilient”. A wide variety of other sources of information can also be used,either apart from or in combination with the productivity score. For example, Fishbase provides
designations for some species as being either of low, medium or high resilience/productivity.
If the intrinsic resilience is high but the species is still at risk for other reasons, the team could
consider investigating species declines, population size, and extrinsic threats. For example, thecurrent abundance of the population may affect natural resilience if depensation effects are apparent
and impair natural reproductive ability.
The team may also consider the spatial distribution of the species and the degree of spatial overlap
with commercial fishing operations to determine 1 of the following:•

Whether the species is at risk of being locally depleted in the assessment area.

•

Whether the species has only a limited distribution, so is likely to be more severely affected byfishing pressure.

Whether the species is part of a widely distributed and highly migratory population, in which case thecumulative impacts on the population may be greater and more difficult to account for.

GSA3.5.2.2 Exceptionally large catch ▲If the UoA takes an influential proportion of the stock, the team may still designate a species as “main”
if it falls under the designated weight thresholds of 5% or 2%.
For example, a stock might be in such a poor state that all impact by the UoA is important enough toconsider, even in cases where the catch proportion is so low that it would normally be classified as a“minor” species.
Another example is where the relative catches of both target and the P2 species are exceptionallylarge such that the risk to the population of the impacted P2 species is significant enough to warrant adesignation as “main”. Exceptionally large catch of the P2 species can either be relative to theimpacted stock size, or in the absence of full information, a catch by the UoA of 400,000mt of thetarget species.

GSA3.5.5

Species below the PRI ▲The team should note, at SG80, that the recovery of a species in P2 that is below the PRI (or otherlimit with similar intent and outcome) is only required to levels above the PRI or biologically based
limit, and not to the MSY or equivalent target levels required in P1, as specifically referred to in PI
1.1.2 on stock rebuilding. P1 and P2 set critically different bars in this regard.
The team may find it useful to first evaluate whether recovery of a species below the PRI is happening
on a stock level, as evidenced by a demonstrably increasing trend in biomass. If direct evidence fromtime-series estimates of stock status is not available, the team may use proxy approaches, includingreference to fishing mortality levels and the use of simulation studies.
Generally, if fishing mortality for the entire stock, not just the marginal fishing mortality of the UoA, isless than FMSY, the team can reasonably expect that recovery of the stock is not hindered. This
determination will hold true in most cases. However, in some cases, to ensure that rebuilding
objectives are likely to be met, the team may need to consider the extent to which total F is below
FMSY.
If there is no evidence of recovery as outlined above, by either evaluating stock biomass or totalfishing mortality, SA3.5.5.d allows an SG80 score in cases where the proportion of catch by the UoA
is effectively not hindering recovery. In other words, if total fishing mortality is not below FMSY, theteam needs to evaluate whether the marginal fishing mortality caused by the UoA is material to thestock’s ability to recover. The team could determine this in a practical way by examining likely
population trajectories if all the other fisheries reduced their catches to zero, in which case the only
catches are being taken by the fishery under assessment. Since this will often be difficult toDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

determine, the MSC allows that the team may use the UoA’s catch in proportion to the total catch of astock as a reasonable proxy of whether that UoA, on its own, could be hindering recovery.
The team’s judgement on whether the UoA is hindering recovery will depend on the proportion ofcatch and the overall level of F that is causing the problem. In some cases, the team might find it
more useful simply to assess the marginal F by the UoA in terms of the weight of catch removed inrelation to the overall abundance of the stock, rather than in relation to the total catch. In this case, theteam may need to investigate whether the UoA has greater impact on certain size classes of thestock, such as juveniles, as the actual impact of the UoA on the population biomass could be different
if only mature adults are targeted. In evaluating whether the UoA’s stock removals are hindering
recovery, the team may also find it useful to evaluate the overall resilience of the species and/or the
spatial distribution of the species and evaluate, for example, whether the species is at risk of being
locally depleted.
The team should note that:•

The impact of a UoA should here be assessed in terms of stock removals and the marginal F of
the UoA.

•

The percentages listed here should therefore not be confused with the percentages used todesignate “main” species, which are based on the proportion of a species as part of the total
catch of the UoA.

In a multi-species fishery context, the target levels of biomass or fishing mortality for some species
that would be acceptable at SG100 may be different from those usually applied to a single species.
However, in all cases, target levels of biomass or fishing mortality should result in low risk of serious
or irreversible harm to in-scope species.
The team should refer to GFCP Annex GPB1.5.1.b–c for additional guidance on the harmonisation ofscores and conditions when evaluating the cumulative impacts of MSC UoAs.

GSA3.6 In-scope species management strategy PI (PI 2.1.2)
Scoring issue (a)“if necessary” ▲If the UoA has no, or negligible (see SA3.1.1.e) impact on this component, the team does not need toscore scoring issue (a) for SG60 and SG80.
However, there is no “if necessary” clause in SG100. For the team to score SG100 on thiscomponent, a management strategy should be in place for the UoA for P2 species.

Scoring issue (a)MSC UoAs collectively not hindering recovery ▲If a species is below the point where recruitment might be impaired, the second part of the clause inscoring issue (a) “demonstrably effective strategy” is scored and the impact of all MSC UoAs with thatspecies as “main” needs to be considered.
To determine whether a strategy is “demonstrably effective”, the team may use:•

Direct evidence that the proportion of combined catch by all MSC UoAs relative to the total catchof the stock does not hinder recovery, or•Simulation studies that combine information on recent and expected F levels, stock size, andrecruitment, etc. to confirm that the stock is expected to recover.

Even if the total catch of a species is clearly hindering recovery (e.g. total fishing mortality is not below
FMSY), the team may still determine a strategy is demonstrably effective between all MSC UoAs if the
proportion of combined catch by the UoAs is effectively not hindering recovery. The team needs toevaluate whether the marginal fishing mortality caused by the UoAs is material to the stock’s ability torecover. For example,

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Combined catches of all MSC UoAs of less than 30% of the total catch of a species may not be
influential in hindering a recovery in a marginal sense and nothing the UoA does would be likely tochange the situation.

•

UoA catches of more than 30% might be influential, such that if the UoA took action to reduce its
catches, the stock might well start to recover.

If a species below the PRI has an overarching recovery strategy in place, with effort controls set on
total fishing mortality that are adhered to, an SG80 score may also be achieved where evidence
exists that the fishing mortality caused by all MSC UoAs is within the limits set by the recovery
strategy in place for the species.

Recovery strategies differing between UoA jurisdictions
There may be instances where stocks below the PRI have a distribution across multi-jurisdictionalboundaries, such as shared, straddling, highly migratory species (HMS), and high seas non-HMS
stocks, but there are no comprehensive management efforts in place set to manage and recover mostof the stock complex across all boundaries. Instead, separate parts of the stocks may only be
governed through regional management measures. Separate UoAs impacting the same stock may
thus have to comply with separate strategies for their respective jurisdiction.
In these cases, and other applicable situations, where a demonstrably effective strategy between the
MSC UoAs needs to be in place, the different jurisdictional strategies do not have to be aligned andharmonised between UoAs in order to meet this requirement at SG80 The intent is instead to evaluate
whether the separate strategies together achieve the outcome that recovery of the species is nothindered by those MSC UoAs. If not, the team should require some alignment of mitigation processes
between UoAs.
Examples: UoAs in different jurisdictions
When separate jurisdictions have set different landing limits on the same depleted species, one
UoA would have to comply with a requirement to release all catches alive and another might havean allowance to land only a small amount each year. In such cases, the team would have to:•

Evaluate the validity of each separate strategy.

•

Calculate the combined mortality caused by each UoA.

•

Determine whether these 2 strategies combined constitute a demonstrably effective strategy to“not hinder recovery”.

GSA3.6.1

Reviewing measures for reducing unwanted catch, scoring issue (c) ▲The team should assess as unwanted catch any non-negligible proportion of the catch that meets theunwanted definition (SA3.1.1.f) for a particular species.
If there is “negligible” (as defined in SA3.1.1.e) unwanted catch of a species, the team may use its
discretion as to whether the scoring issue will be scored. The team should use a precautionary
approach when determining what is “negligible”. When determining whether a catch is negligible, theteam may consider the significance of the catch in relation to, for example:•

The proportion of the unwanted catch as part of the total catch.

•

The proportion of the unwanted catch as part of the total amount of unwanted catch.

•

The regularity of the catch occurring.
Example 1
In a North Sea groundfish UoA, a percentage of the catch includes gurnard, all of which are thrownback dead. In this case, the gurnard would be unwanted. The team should score this scoring issue
for this catch.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

However, if all or almost all of the gurnards were to be kept for crew consumption or, for example,
landed and sold, the catch would no longer be considered unwanted. In this case, the team should
not score scoring issue (c).
Example 2
In a longline UoA where a percentage of the catch includes a skate species, the skate species isimmediately cut from the line rather than being landed. In this case, the team should consider theskate to be unwanted catch. The team’s review of “alternative measures” should reflect the need tominimise the mortality of the species, with the expectation that released skate will have highsurvivability or avoid capture in the first place.
Example 3
In a mixed-species UoA, all species are landed and consumed or sold, so there is no unwanted
catch. In this case, the team should not score scoring issue (c).
Example: review of “alternative measures”
The management body for a fishery has investigated several measures that could be used tominimise the catch of species A, a species that is discarded with poor survivability.
The management body selected 4 potential measures that have been used in similar gear in otherfisheries or to minimise mortality of this species. The management body does not have quantitative
estimates of the levels by which the potential measures might reduce the catch of species A
through their own field testing, but they have considered other studies indicating that implementing
3 of these measures would have no or little effect on reducing the catch of this species.
However, the 4th measure is estimated to reduce catch of this species by 80%. The measure:•

Is not expensive to implement.

•

Will not require replacing of current gear.

•

Will not affect crew safety or significantly add time to vessel operations.

•

Slightly reduces the catch of the target species, but not significantly.

•

Does not cause increased catches of other P2 “unwanted” or ETP/OOS species.

•

Does not have a negative impact on habitat.

The management body recommends use of measure 4 but has not yet required it in legislation, nor
has the fishery chosen to adopt it. This fishery has clearly reviewed “alternative measures” but has
not yet implemented them.
This fishery would meet SG60 if it:•

Has clearly reviewed “alternative measures” but has not yet implemented them.

•Were to adopt the use of this measure and it was being used at the time of the site visit.

•

Has no plans to conduct another review of measures.

This fishery would meet SG80 if:•

It were to adopt the use of this measure.

•

The measure was being used at the time of the site visit.

•

Another review was scheduled to take place in 3 years’ time.

This fishery would meet SG100 if:•

It were to adopt the use of this measure.

•

The measure was being used at the time of the site visit.

•

It planned to review “alternative measures” every 2 years.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.6.1.1 “Alternative measures” ▲The team should consider:•

How the “alternative measures” for review have been selected.

•

Whether appropriate gear and practices have been considered as part of the review.

The review may consider “best practice” measures in a gear/species/region that have been
established as achieving the lowest achievable levels, and therefore meet the FAO’s description of“proper selective and environmentally safe fishing gear” (see Box GSA7).
If “best practice” has not been established, or it is not clear which measures reduce catch to thelowest achievable levels, the team should assess whether the review considers measures that are
expected or known to minimise mortality of the unwanted species.
The gear and practices selected for review may be from a number of sources, including those thathave been shown to be effective in similar fisheries or regions, or those presented as “best practice”
in international fora.
The list below highlights some repositories of expertise for mitigation methods but is not an
exhaustive list. International fora with information and/or expertise on reducing unwanted catches
include:•Bycatch Reduction Techniques Database, Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction 36.

•

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) 37.

•

Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish andNorth Seas (ASCOBANS)38.

•

Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC-Sea
Turtles)39.

•

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)40.

•

UNEP-CMS (United Nations Environment Programme – Convention on Migratory Species)41.

In addition, many national bodies and RFMOs have developed policies and procedures to reduce
unwanted catch, for example:•

The US NOAA Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP).

•

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

•

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, which also maintains a bycatchmitigation information system42 for that region.

Where the P2 components are required to be harmonised with other MSC certified fisheries, the teamshould consider whether the UoA under assessment has considered the gear and practices used inthese fisheries as part of their list of “alternative measures”, if they have been shown to minimise
unwanted catch.
In situations where the proposed alternative mitigation measures are cost prohibitive or impractical forthe fishery to implement, other lower cost “alternative measures” may be considered, for example,
improved education for fisheries regarding “best practice” approaches. This is not meant to be ameans to avoid the costs associated with implementation of gear modifications or other measures but

36 http://www.bycatch.org
37 http://www.acap.aq
38 http://www.ascobans.org
39 http://www.iacseaturtle.org
40 https://www.iucn.org
41 http://www.cms.int
42 https://www.wcpfc.int/bycatch-mitigation-information-system-bmis

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

is an alternative to achieve minimisation when other measures would render the fishery economicallyunviable.

GSA3.6.1.2 Review of “alternative measures” ▲Some fisheries may need to review “alternative measures” more frequently, depending on the extent
and nature of the unwanted catch; for example, as a result of changes in stock size. The team may
determine that a review should occur more frequently if information becomes available indicating thatthe existing measures are ineffective and do not lead to any reductions in mortalities of unwanted
species; for example, as determined during a surveillance audit.

GSA3.6.1.3 Implemented as appropriate ▲At SG80, the “alternative measures” may be implemented either within the UoA or in the wider fisheryas part of a sub-strategy or code of conduct, etc. on unwanted catch. This could be species-specificor cover all unwanted catch.
Evidence of implementation may include:•

The development and use of codes of conduct.

•

A description of appropriate ways of handling gear and catch on board vessels and in crew
training records.

•

Evidence from the fleet or observers that measures are being implemented by fishers.

•

A summary document listing information and measures reviewed along with an analysis of themeasures and their appropriateness for the UoA.

•

The minutes of a meeting that has considered “alternative measures”.

If the measures reviewed are shown to be more effective at minimising unwanted catch, but themeasures are not implemented, the team should review the reasons for this, which can be:•

Evidence that the practicality would be adversely affected by implementing the measuresreviewed. Examples of such practicalities include crew safety, target catch, and vessel
operations.

•

Evidence that the UoA has assessed the economic costs and benefits of implementing themeasure and determined that the potential costs would have an adverse impact on the economic
viability of the fishery.

•

Evidence that the UoA has considered the implications of relevant solutions on other species andhabitats and found that there are negative consequences for:oSpecies, causing them to fall below the PRI or outside biologically based limits, or hindering
their recovery from such a state.

oHabitats, causing serious or irreversible harm to the habitat, such that the measures should
not be implemented.

The FAO (2011)43 recognises that there are costs and benefits to implementing measures that include
direct and indirect costs, such as:•

Cost of the gear.

•

Impact on revenue from catch volumes or quality.

43 FAO (2011) International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards. Rome/Roma, FAO.

2011. 73 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Operational efficiency.

•

Access or restriction to fishing opportunities.

Costs can be mitigated through the application of grants/loans and preferential treatment on duties
and taxes for investment in new technologies. The team’s judgement of whether costs are prohibitive
should take these issues into account together with the size and scale of a fishery.

Example: prohibitive costs ▲The management body of a small-scale UoA in a developing country reviews potential mitigation
measures on a regular basis. One reviewed measure has been shown to reduce mortality ofunwanted catch in similar fisheries but does not affect target catch efficiency or crew safety.
However, the UoA vessels decide not to implement the measure because they determine that there
would be a 10% increase in costs arising from greater length of time for setting gear. This cost
increase would significantly impact their economic viability, even when offset by potential benefits.
In this case, the team would review evidence that the costs would be projected to increase by 10%,based on projected cost of purchasing measure and loss/gain in target species catches/quality, andthat this increase would have a significant impact on the economic viability of the UoA; for example,
based on comparison to profit and loss, or turnover.
The UoA could still meet SG80 for this scoring issue (c) if the team concludes that:•

Implementing this measure would be cost prohibitive for the UoA.

•

The measure review was not implemented on this basis.

The UoA could meet SG80 or higher if:•

The cost of implementation in this UoA was partially covered by a donation for the purpose
from a funding body and a non-governmental organisation (NGO), so that the increased cost to
the UoA was not prohibitive.

•

All other criteria have been met.

The MSC has purposely not been prescriptive about determining what is cost effective or safe,
recognising that what could be unsafe or economically unviable in one fishery might be safe andeconomically viable in another. The team will need to use its expert judgement to assess this.
GSA3.6.1.3 indicates that there should be evidence that the fishery assessed the costs andbenefits of “alternative measures”. It does not stipulate whether this needs to be a fully quantitative
cost/benefit analysis or whether a qualitative indication considering costs of implementing
measures versus fishery profits would be enough. The MSC does not want to unduly burden thefishery clients, so size and scale of the fishery could be a factor in determining the extent to which
they assess costs and benefits of “alternative measures”. Thus, an industrial fishery with large profit
margins indicating they did not implement a measure because it was too expensive would need toprovide a more detailed indication that the costs would impact their viability than would a smallscale fishery with slim profit margins, which might be able to simply indicate the cost of any
measures compared with profit. In both cases there should be some evidence that the fishery or
management body investigated the costs of implementing the gear; for example, by contacting a
supplier for a quote or referring to a catalogue.
To determine the point at which a measure becomes cost prohibitive, the team should consider:•

The point at which the potential costs would adversely impact the economic viability of thefishery (this may constitute the point at which the measure becomes cost prohibitive).

•

That size and scale of the fishery.

•

Opportunities to mitigate costs (e.g. through grants/funding).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.6.3–4 Ghost gear management strategy scoring issue ▲The following definitions (adapted from FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear 44)
are to be used when considering ghost gear and its impacts:•

Ghost fishing: the capture and/or entanglement of target, non-target, and ETP/OOS species byghost gear.

•

Ghost fishing mortality: the mortality of organisms arising from the entrapment, entanglement,or other physical interactions with ghost gear.

•

Ghost gear: fishing gear or parts thereof (including fish aggregating devices) that are abandoned,
lost, or discarded at sea. This is more formally referred to as “Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded
Fishing Gear” (ALDFG).

•

Abandoned fishing gear: fishing gear over which that operator/owner has control and that could
be retrieved by the owner/operator but that is deliberately left at sea due to force majeure or other
unforeseen reasons.

•Discarded fishing gear: fishing gear that is deliberately released at sea without any attempt for
further control or recovery by the owner/operator.

•

Lost fishing gear: fishing gear over which the owner/operator has accidentally lost control andthat cannot be located and/or retrieved by the owner/operator.

•

Ghost gear impact: environmental impacts resulting from ghost gear, including ghost fishing
and/or its physical impact on habitats.

•

Fish aggregating device (FAD): a permanent, semi‐permanent or temporary object, structure, or
device of any material, man‐made or natural, that is deployed, and/or tracked, and used toaggregate fish for subsequent capture. A FAD can be either an anchored FAD (aFAD) or a drifting
FAD (dFAD). In MSC assessments, FADs are not considered a gear type as such because they
do not capture fish, but merely facilitate subsequent capture. FADs therefore may be included asa functional part of certain fishing gear types (e.g. purse seine, handline) as they are sometimes
used to facilitate the capture efficiency of these gears.

•

Fishing gear: a tool with which living aquatic resources are captured. This refers to any physicaldevice, or part thereof, or combination of items, that may be placed on or in the water or on theseabed, with the intended purpose of capturing or facilitating the capture, or harvesting of marineorganisms, in accordance with MARPOL Annex V45;46.

Whilst it is recognised that it is challenging to completely eliminate some ghost gear (e.g. gear loss
from severe storms), it is the MSC’s intent that fisheries aim to minimise ghost gear and its impact onmarine ecosystems as much as possible.
Various approaches can be taken to manage ghost gear and its impacts. As proposed by McFadyen
et al. (2009)47, interventions can be broadly divided between measures that:•

Prevent (by avoiding the occurrence of ghost gear in the environment).

•

Mitigate (by reducing the impact of ghost gear in the environment).

44 FAO (2019) Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear. Directives volontaires sur le marquage desengins de pêche. Directrices voluntarias sobre el marcado de las artes de pesca. Rome/Roma. 88 pp.
Licence/Licencia: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
45 IMO (1973) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by theProtocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL).
46 IMO (2006) Guidelines on Annex V of MARPOL Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from
Ships.
47 McFadyen, G., Huntington, T., and Cappell, R. (2009) Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear.
UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523.
Rome, UNEP/FAO. 2009. 115pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Remediate (by removing ghost gear from the environment).

These include but are not limited to those listed in Table GSA4.
Table GSA4 Example of ghost gear management measures
Type of intervention

Example of measures

Prevention•

Marking and identification of fishing gear.

•

Spatial and/or temporal measures to reduce gear conflict.

•Fishing input controls to limit gear use (e.g. limits on soak time
for passive gear types).

•

Gear design to reduce whole or partial loss of the fishing gear(including technology to track gear position).

•

Vessel design to reduce discarding of gear and other aquatic
litter.

•Use of end-of-life fishing gear disposal facilities.

•

Fisher education and awareness on preventing gear loss.

Mitigation•

Gear design to reduce the incidence and duration of ghost
fishing.

Remediation•

Lost gear reporting, locating, and recovery initiatives.

It is widely accepted that prevention is better than mitigation or remediation of ghost gear impacts. It is
the MSC’s intent to promote effective management strategies to avoid gear loss. Therefore, it isexpected that measures should include 1 or more preventative measures at SG60. It is expected thata partial strategy should include at least 2 measures that work together to prevent ghost fishing by the
UoA. A strategy may also include mitigation and remedial measures to address ghost fishing by the
UoA.
When considering approaches to managing ghost gear and its impacts, the assessment team should
consider current “best practice”, referring to:•

FAO (2009) for basic principles 48.

•

FAO (2019) ‘Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear’49.

•

The revised 2021 Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI) ‘Best Practice Framework for theManagement of Fishing Gear’50.

•

2019 International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) ‘Recommended Best Practices for
FAD Management in Tropical Tuna purse seine fisheries’ 51, for examples of “best practices” withrespect to mitigating ghost gear impacts from lost or discarded FADs.

48 McFadyen, G., Huntington, T., and Cappell, R. (2009) Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear.

UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523.
Rome, UNEP/FAO. 2009. 115pp.
49 FAO (2019) Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear. Directives volontaires sur le marquage desengins de pêche. Directrices voluntarias sobre el marcado de las artes de pesca. Rome/Roma. 88 pp.
Licence/Licencia: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
50 Global Ghost Gear Initiative (2021) Best Practice Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear: June 2021
Update. Prepared by Huntington, T. of Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd. 94 pp plus appendices.
51 Restrepo, V., Koehler, H., Moreno, G., and Murua, H. (2019) Recommended Best Practices for FAD.
management in Tropical Tuna Purse Seine Fisheries. ISSF Technical Report: 2019–11. International Seafood
Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Note that this list of reference documents presented here are not exhaustive: there may be moresuitable examples of best practice measures to apply in specific fishery scenarios.

GSA3.6.3.a “If necessary” ▲This clause is used to exempt fisheries from requiring ghost gear management strategies in scenarios
where it can be demonstrated that the risk of ghost gear impacts or ghost fishing on the relevant
component is negligible (or demonstrably absent). Examples may include fisheries characterised by
an absence of fishing gear such as those involving hand collection (e.g. “hand-dived scallops” or“hand dredging”). In this scenario the SI would receive a score of SG100.
Example of scoring 2.3.2 (d) – Habitats ghost gear management strategy
The fishery context: a purse seine fishery using dFADs operating within the WCPFC region. No net
loss is reported however net panels are known to be lost from time to time. There is some
information on the number of dFADs released annually but an absence of information on numbers
lost or retrieved. Whilst dFADs are marked, there is a lack of information on the fate of majority ofdFADs deployed. The dFADs deployed are characterised by “non-entangling” design.
Scoring considerations: The team have identified a number of “more sensitive” habitat scoring
elements (e.g. coral aggregations) within the region at risk from ghost gear impact. Key ghost gear
impacts include the smothering and physical abrasion of biogenic habitat features. The teamconsider impact from the net loss on scoring habitats elements to be relatively minor. Thisconclusion is based on information on scale of loss, location of gear deployment relative to habitats
and data analysed on ocean current conditions/patterns. The team consider that dFAD impact isunclear. Whilst dFADs are marked and the quantities deployed are known, there is a lack ofvalidated information on lost dFADs or prevalence/location of dFADs beaching.
The team considers dFAD marking an example of ghost gear preventative measures (as per Table
GSA4) so consider that SG60 is met. Whilst the dFAD design is “non-entangling”, the team don’t
consider a ghost gear mitigation measure in the context of habitat impact specifically (i.e. ghost
fishing mitigation is more relevant for ETP/OOS component and considered there).
In order to score SG80 (partial strategy) or SG100 (strategy), the team consider further
preventative measures are required, with an understanding of they work together to minimise
habitat impact. Examples of these may include reducing dFAD use, implementation of dFAD
tracking and retrieval measures, providing better information on prevalence and location of lostdFADs, and improved dFAD design to mitigate ghost gear impact on habitats (e.g. biodegradable
components).

GSA3.7 In-scope species information PI (PI 2.1.3)
GSA3.7.3 ▲The team should use information that is adequate to support understanding of the effectiveness andpracticality of measures used by the UoA and potential “alternative measures”, if:•

There is unwanted catch, and•Scoring issue (c) on the “review” of “alternative measures” is scored in the management PI 2.1.2.

GSA3.8 ETP/OOS species outcome PI (PI 2.2.1)
Scoring issue (a) – assessment of direct UoA effects on ETP/OOS unit(s) ▲The MSC’s intent is that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of the ETP/OOS unit to a levelconsistent with achieving favourable conservation status. In the MSC context, direct effects of the
UoA on the ETP/OOS unit covers injuries and mortalities due to interaction with the fishing gear or
vessels, including unobserved or cryptic mortality that may result from ghost fishing. Direct effects
may also include sub-lethal effects, such as injuries that do not immediately result in death and loss ofDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

fitness due to disturbance. The indirect effects of the UoA on the ETP/OOS unit are those that result
from fishery impacting the ecosystem in a way that consequently effects the ETP/OOS unit. These
indirect effects are assessed as part of the Ecosystem Outcome PI 2.4.1.
If an ETP unit is already at a level consistent with favourable conservation status, this may be used as
evidence that the UoA does not hinder recovery of the ETP unit to this level. However, the teamshould consider whether there are other factors that would mean that the UoA may be hindering
recovery; for example, if the impact assessment evaluating status relative to favourable conservation
status was undertaken more than 5 years ago, or the ETP/OOS unit has shown steady declines likely
attributable to UoA mortalities.

Defining ETP/OOS unit ▲The identification of the appropriate ETP/OOS unit(s) is essential for assessing the impact of the UoA(or MSC UoAs) on ETP and OOS species. The MSC recognises that there are a variety of ways that
this has been approached across taxa and in different management contexts.
The MSC’s intent is that the team indicates which ETP/OOS unit(s) has been selected, and that the
ETP/OOS unit(s) is appropriate to the species and the context of the fishery in assessment. The
selection should also be precautionary. The ETP/OOS unit(s) may be a species, a population, astock, or another category.
Organisations responsible for assessing the status of species may have already identified an
ETP/OOS unit based on:•

Biological attributes.

•

Impacts of the UoA on that unit, in terms of scale and intensity.

•

Geopolitical boundaries.

In such cases, these units would normally be used by the team. However, if the organisation
responsible for assessing status has not selected the most appropriate and precautionary unit basedon the criteria above, the team will need to select a different ETP/OOS unit.
Organisations responsible for assessing the status of species may include relevant management
authorities associated with the UoA but also international organisations, such as the International
Whaling Commission (IWC), and Instruments associated with the Convention on Migratory Species;
for example, ASCOBANS and ACAP.
The team will need to determine the appropriate ETP/OOS unit(s) and provide a justification for thischoice, if:•

An ETP/OOS unit(s) has not already been identified by the organisations responsible forassessing status of species, or•

A unit appropriate for assessing impact of the UoA has not been identified by the organisations
responsible, or•

The organisations responsible differ in how they identify a unit.

The selection of the unit(s) may be a compromise between using the ETP/OOS unit(s) that bestreflects the subset of individuals that are impacted by the UoA, whilst also ensuring that mortalities
can still be attributed to the ETP/OOS unit(s) in question. However, the team should also be
precautionary when determining the unit(s).
For example, where multiple populations of the same species overlap so that it is not possible todetermine from which population an individual mortality came from, the team should select a higher
taxonomic level (e.g. species) as the ETP/OOS unit(s), provided the individual populations are likely
to have the same status. However, in the situation described above, if the individual populations havedifferent status, the team should be more precautionary and select the more vulnerable population as
the ETP/OOS unit(s). Where there is evidence that the fishery overlaps geographically with only (ormainly) one population, the team should consider the impact of fishing mortalities on that population
as the ETP/OOS unit(s).
The team should note that uncertainty in population structure (i.e. whether the fishery is impacting
single or multiple units) can make defining an ETP/OOS unit(s) particularly challenging. Ideally, theDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

degree of connectivity and self-recruitment will determine the most appropriate ETP/OOS unit(s). For
example, where a single population is completely isolated and there is no or little connectivity or
geographic overlap with other populations, this single population is likely to be the most appropriate
ETP/OOS unit. However, where there is high level of connectivity between metapopulations, the wider
metapopulation is likely to be the most appropriate ETP/OOS unit. Where little is known about
connectivity, approaches that consider the ability to identify impacts and implement management
measures may be more appropriate. In this case, selecting the ETP/OOS unit at the smallest scalethat is practical makes it harder to falsely conclude that the population is at a higher level than it reallyis.
To help illustrate the intent of these requirements, examples of how identifying ETP/OOS units ofassessment in different contexts are provided below.

Example 1: Cetacean species in the UK
The UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) defines cetacean populations as “acollection of individuals all of the same species with a tendency to be found in the same area.
Populations contain genetic variation within the population itself, and between other populations.
Populations can exist in isolation, or can co-exist at least during a part of the year with otherconspecific populations (i.e. other populations of the same species) in the same area”. The JNCC
notes that most cetaceans in UK waters are part of larger biological populations, with ranges
extending into waters of other countries or the High Seas. However, to obtain the best conservation
outcomes for species, it divides the populations into smaller management units, which provide anindication of the spatial scales at which impact assessments, cumulatively or in combination, need
to be assessed for key cetacean species in UK waters. The management units are based on best
understanding of biological population structure and any ecological differentiation between
populations, but the boundaries are determined either by political boundaries (e.g. UK vs Irish
waters) or the management of human activities (e.g. ICES divisions for fisheries management) 52.
For example, for bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) the JNCC identifies seven management
units in the UK, some of which fall into UK waters and others are shared with other countries, e.g.
Greater North Sea53. These seven management units could be considered ETP/OOS units for the
purposes of fishery assessments. Where a fishery overlaps with multiple ETP/OOS units, eachwould be considered a separate scoring element.
Example 2: Global marine turtles
For marine turtles, regional management units (RMUs) were developed through the IUCN Marine
Turtle Specialist Group to evaluate the relative impacts of fisheries on appropriate population units
for widely distributed species54;55. RMUs are biologically and geographically explicit population
segments. They use spatially integrated information, including information on individual nestingsites, genetic stocks, and geographic distributions of different life-history stages to account forcomplexities in marine turtle population structures.56 RMUs are equivalent to IUCN sub-52 IAMMWG (2015) Management Units for cetaceans in UK waters (January 2015), JNCC Report No. 547,

JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.
53 IAMMWG (2015) Management Units for cetaceans in UK waters (January 2015), JNCC Report No. 547,
JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.
54 Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Hurley, B.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Bolten, A.B., et al. (2010) Regional Management
Units for Marine Turtles: A Novel Framework for Prioritizing Conservation and Research across Multiple Scales.
PLoS ONE 5(12): e15465. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015465.
55 Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., DiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B., and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheries
bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4(3):40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00388.1
56 Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Hurley, B.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Bolten, A.B. et al. (2010) Regional Management
Units for Marine Turtles: A Novel Framework for Prioritizing Conservation and Research across Multiple Scales.
PLoS ONE 5(12): e15465. Available at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015465
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

populations, so they are used as the appropriate demographic unit for IUCN Red List assessments.
The use of spatial information allows overlap of individual RMUs with specific fisheries to beevaluated. The RMU would also be the most relevant ETP/OOS unit for most fishery assessments.
However, there are some areas (e.g. Australia) where genetic sub-structuring exists, and specificgenetically defined management units have been identified. For UoAs in those areas, thesemanagement units may be the more relevant ETP/OOS unit.
Example 3: Oceanic whitetip shark in Western Pacific
The oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) is distributed globally in tropical and subtemperate waters. Oceanic whitetips were evaluated as Critically Endangered as a species on the
IUCN Red List in the 2018 assessment57. The IUCN assessment indicates that there are no data
available on the global population size of the oceanic whitetip shark, but that preliminary resultsfrom genetic studies suggest there may be some differences between individuals in the Western
Atlantic and Indo-Pacific58.
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) undertook a stock assessment
for the oceanic whitetip shark stock in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) in 2019201959. This stock assessment indicated that there is no evidence for more than one population
within the WCPO but that there is limited horizontal movement inferred from satellite tagging,suggesting that there is a potential for regional residency in the Pacific Ocean. Defining the stock at
this scale also allows for the WCPFC, as the relevant management body, to assess the impact offisheries in the region on this stock and to apply management measures. Given that the stock isbased on some biological information and is managed at stock level by the relevant management
body, the WCPO stock of oceanic whitetip is a relevant ETP/OOS unit.
Example 4: Black-browed albatross populations in the South Atlantic
There are several possible taxonomic units below species that CABs could consider in this case –for example, seabirds can be grouped by “colony”, “sub-colony” or “breeding site”, “island group”,“population” or, in the case of coastal breeding birds, by administrative unit such as county or
country. Considering different political responsibilities, legislation, threats, population trends anddynamics, at-sea distributions, and migration patterns, “island group” may be the most relevant
ETP/OOS unit, where practical, or country for continental land masses. For example, theAgreement on Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) assigns priorities for research andmonitoring at the island group level, and this is also the level at which ACAP identifies Priority
Populations (as flagships); i.e. those populations declining at more than 3% per year, hold morethan 10% of global breeding numbers, and are at risk from fisheries requiring international action to
improve their conservation.
An example supporting selection of island group as the ETP/OOS unit is the case of black-browed
albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) in the South Atlantic. The 2018 IUCN status assessment of
black-browed albatross determined that as a species they are Least Concern 60. There are no subpopulation assessments for this species group at this time in IUCN. However, black-browed
albatross from different island groups would likely qualify as IUCN sub-populations, i.e. they can be

57 Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu,

K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B., and Winker, H. (2019) Carcharhinus longimanus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39374A2911619. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T39374A2911619.en
58 Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu,
K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B., and Winker, H. (2019) Carcharhinus longimanus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2019). e.T39374A2911619 Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T39374A2911619.en
59 Tremblay-Boyer, L., Carvalho, F., Neubauer, P., and Pilling, G. (2019) Stock assessment for oceanic whitetip
shark in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (2018) WCPFC-SC15-2019/SA-WP06. Report to the WCPFC
Scientific Committee. Fifteenth Regular Session, 12–20 August 2018, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.
98 pp
60 BirdLife International (2018) Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018.
Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698375A132643647.en
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little
demographic or genetic exchange. Black-browed albatrosses in the Falkland Islands are
genetically distinct from those elsewhere, and the status trend is increasing, whereas on South
Georgia the population is declining61. The South Georgia population cannot be geneticallydistinguished from birds breeding on islands in Chile; however, in most seabird species, including
albatrosses, banding studies indicate that individuals show very high micro-philopatry, often
recruiting into the same sub-colony or, in species where nests are loosely aggregated, into thesame sub-area from which they fledged62. Most of the remainder recruit onto the same island or
stretch of coast (“colony”), relatively few into adjacent colonies and very small numbers (or none)
into colonies in other island groups.
Given that there is also an understanding of at-sea distribution for the populations from different
island groups, and generally good separation between individuals from island groups at sea, theisland group (e.g. South Georgia, Falkland Islands) level would be the most relevant ETP/OOS unit
for fisheries interacting with this species.

Example 5: Minke whale populations in North Pacific
The situation with common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the North Pacific around
Japan is a good example of when the team may need to be more precautionary when selecting an
ETP/OOS unit. The IUCN status of common minke whales is Least Concern63. There is uncertainty
about the exact population structure of minke whales in the North Pacific, but the International
Whaling Commission (IWC) recognises at least two populations of minke whales in this region: the‘O’ type are relatively abundant whereas the ‘J’ type have been heavily depleted 64. The two
populations have different overall distributions but mix in some areas where they are subject to
bycatch and directed takes. Where the UoA overlaps with the area in which the species mix in
distribution or the distribution is uncertain, the choice of ETP/OOS unit should be precautionary.
This is because it is not always possible to distinguish the population from which the individual
mortalities came from. Thus, unless there is evidence to the contrary from the UoA, the ‘J’ typeminke whales would be the most relevant ETP/OOS unit.
Where the UoA overlaps with the area where reliable spatial information indicates that only the ‘O’type of whale is distributed, it would be more appropriate to select only the ‘O’ type as the
ETP/OOS unit.

Determining whether impacts are negligible
The MSC has defined thresholds for teams to use to determine whether ETP/OOS unit mortalities canbe considered “negligible”, i.e. a level at which teams are required to consider that the UoA is nothindering recovery (at all SG levels) of the ETP/OOS unit. The use of “negligible” is intended toensure that there is no need for a qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the impact of the UoA on the
ETP/OOS unit, where fishing mortalities are “highly unlikely” to impact the population of the ETP/OOS
unit. The ETP/OOS unit should still be scored at the SG60, 80, and 100 levels but the “negligible”
criteria may be used as a justification that the UoA is not hindering recovery.
It is not possible to consider that the impact on an OOS species is “negligible” if the ETP/OOS unit
has a breeding population (e.g. mature adults) size of less than 5,000 individuals. It is also not

61 Burg, T.M., Catry, P., Ryan, P.G., and Phillips, R.A. (2017) Genetic population structure of black-browed andCampbell albatrosses, and implications for assigning provenance of birds killed in fisheries. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2765
62 Gauthier, G., Milot, E., and Weimerskirch, H. (2010) Smallscale dispersal and survival in a long-lived seabird,
the wandering albatross. Journal of Animal Ecology 79: 879‒887.
63 Cooke, J.G. (2018) Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: Available at:https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T2474A50348265.en.
64 IWC (2021) Scientific Committee Report (SC68C). International Whaling Commission. 200pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

possible to consider that the impact is negligible if average annual mortalities from the UoA are
greater than 10 individuals. These levels were set with precautionary values considering that for a
population size of 10,000 individuals, 10 would be 0.1% of the population. However, a % threshold
was not used overall as the MSC’s intent is that when mortalities are greater than 10, the UoA impact
is assessed in the ETP/OOS outcome PI.
When there are mortalities of ETP/OOS units above “negligible” levels, the team will need to:•

Apply the RBF (MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Section A), or•

Evaluate the likelihood that the UoA is hindering recovery to favourable conservation status,
based on existing quantitative assessments, such as those provided in Table GSA5.

The “negligible” criteria are provided for OOS species using the number of individuals rather thanweight. However, recognising that for many fish and invertebrate species the catch is reported byweight, a threshold of < 2% of UoA catch is applied.

Determining the likelihood of hindering recovery to favourable conservation status
The favourable conservation status reference point is set as a minimum of 50% of carrying capacity
but may be higher depending on the life-history characteristics of the species. Different terms may be
used to characterise the TRPs consistent with the MSC definition of favourable conservation status
including optimum sustainable population (OSP), maximum net productivity level (MNPL) andmaximum sustained fishing mortality (MSM). Fishing mortality or biomass-based reference points,
such as MSY, may be used if they are set to ensure recovery to at least 50% of carrying capacity.
Where ETP/OOS units are not “likely” to be at favourable conservation status, the UoA needs todemonstrate that any mortalities from the ETP/OOS unit are “unlikely” to hinder recovery. That is, thelevel of mortalities is low enough that they would not prevent recovery to favourable conservation
status, if the species is capable of recovering to this level, within 100 years or 3 generations,whichever is shorter.
It is not the MSC’s intent that the team undertake an assessment of the status of the ETP/OOS unit or
estimate the impact of fishing mortalities. It is for the UoA(s), or organisations responsible forassessing status of species, to undertake these analyses and provide them to the team to consider.
When applying the MSC scoring guidepost probability levels, the team should then assess thisinformation, including considering the quality and recency of the assessment and the UoA-specificinformation used.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Example: Assessment of 2.2.1a where potential biological removal is used to evaluate UoA
impactFor marine mammals, the US defines populations in relation to Optimum Sustainable Population.
Populations that are not at Optimum Sustainable Population are those below their MNPL, or below
50–70% of a historical population size representing carrying capacity 65. To evaluate this, mortality
limits for marine mammals are represented using potential biological removal (PBR), which is
linked mathematically to the MNPL, specifically to achieve the conservation objective that 95% of
simulated populations met two criteria:•

That populations starting at MNPL stayed there or above for 20 years.

•

That populations starting at 30% of carrying capacity recovered to at least MNPL over 100
years66.

Thus, PBR as applied in this case is an appropriate method to determine whether the UoA hinders
recovery to favourable conservation status.
In this example, a management agency calculated a PBR of 100 individuals for dolphin A in 2020.
To assess SG60, the team would evaluate the likelihood that the UoA-related mortality presented
for dolphin A was below this level. The PBR uses a precautionary value for a recovery factor andthe assessment was undertaken recently, so the probability that the PBR is consistent withachieving the population objective has a high degree of certainty. However, the team also needs toconsider the quality of the UoA-related mortality information. If the average estimate of UoAmortalities of dolphin A is 90 individuals (i.e. close to the PBR limit) over the period 2015–2020, but
this estimate is based on very limited fishery-independent information that was then scaled to the
UoA level, the team may decide that it is only “likely” (SG60) that the UoA is not hindering recovery.
However, if higher-quality estimates of UoA mortalities were provided, despite the number ofmortalities being close to the PBR limit, the team may decide that a score of 80 is appropriate.

Methods for assessing status of the ETP/OOS unit or impact of the UoA
Several methods are available to estimate the status of the ETP/OOS unit, or whether the impact of
the UoA(s) would hinder recovery to favourable conservation status. Possible methods include stock
assessments or population viability analyses. Examples of other commonly used methods arepresented in Table GSA5. The MSC does not advocate the use of one method over another, because
each may have pros and cons in a given situation. With all of these methods, the team should
consider the appropriateness of the assessment for estimating whether the fishery hinders recovery of
the ETP/OOS unit to a level consistent with favourable conservation status, as well as the uncertainty
associated with the outcomes.
Table GSA5: Examples of application of methods to estimate impact and associatedpopulation objectives
Method/application

Description

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)

References

PBR as usedin the US
MarineMammalProtection Act

The PBR level is defined as the
maximum number of animals, notincluding natural mortalities, that
may be removed from a marine
mammal stock while allowing thatstock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population.

PBR is linked
mathematically to theachieving above the
MNPL (the lower
bound of OSP,
equivalent to at least
50% carrying
capacity). Specifically,
it is set to achieve theconservation objectivethat 95% of simulated
populations met two

Gerrodette andDeMaster, 199067;
Wade, 199868;
NMFS, 201669
MMC, 202270

Equation:
PBR = NMIN0.5RMAXFR
Where:

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Method/application

PBR foralbatrosses
and petrels

Description

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)•

NMIN= minimum population
estimate of the stock•

0.5RMAX = one-half the
maximum theoretical or
estimated net productivity
rate of the stock at a small
population size•

FR= recovery factor specified
between 0.1 and 1. Current
marine mammal stock
assessment guidelines set
the default recovery factor for
endangered species at 0.1
and for depleted and/or
threatened or stocks of
unknown status at 0.5

criteria: 1) that
populations starting at
MNPL stayed there or
above for 20 years or2) that populations
starting at 30% ofcarrying capacity
recovered to at least
MNPL over 100 years.

PBR level defined as above, but
equation differs:

References

The US Marine
Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) also
requires preparation oftake reduction plans in
specified cases. The
goals of the take
reduction plan are to
reduce serious injury
and mortality below
PBR within 6 months
and reduce serious
injury and mortality toinsignificant levels
within 5 years. This
insignificancethreshold is defined asless than 10% of PBR,
known as the zeromortality rate goal
(ZMRG).
Maintain population ator above its MNPL
(depending on

Dillingham andFletcher, 201171

65 Gerrodette, T., and DeMaster, D.P (1990) Quantitative determination of optimum sustainable population level.

Marine Mammal Science 6: 1–16.
66 Wade, P.R. (1998) Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnepeds.
Marine Mammal Science 14(1): 1–37.
67 Gerrodette, T. and DeMaster, D.P. (1990) Quantitative determination of optimum sustainable population level.
Marine Mammal Science 6: 1–16.
68 Wade, P.R. (1998). Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnepeds.
Marine Mammal Science 14(1): 1–37.
69 NMFS (2016) National Marine Fisheries Service Procedure 02-204-01: Guidelines for preparing stock
assessment reports pursuant to the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 23 p. Available at:https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dammigration/guidelines_for_preparing_stock_assessment_reports_2016_revision_gamms_iii_opr2.pdf
70 MMC (2022) MMPA provisions for Managing Fisheries Interactions with Marine Mammals. Available at:https://www.mmc.gov/priority-topics/fisheries-interactions-with-marine-mammals/mmpa-provisions-for-managingfisheries-interactions-with-marine-mammals.
71 Dillingham, P. W., and Fletcher, D. (2011) Potential biological removal of albatrosses and petrels with minimal
demographic information. Biological Conservation, 144(6): 1885–1894.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Method/application

with minimal
demographic
information

Description

τ is the coefficient thatincorporates species maximum
growth rate and speciesappropriate multiplier andincludes uncertainty in theestimate of the number ofbreeding pairs.

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)

References

recovery factor value
selected – more
precautionary values
would lead tomaintenance of
population at levels
closer to carrying
capacity).

is the estimated number ofbreeding Pairs.
ƒ = recovery factor between 0.1
and 1. Recommended ƒ = 0.1 forthreatened and above species, ƒ= 0.3 for near threatened and ƒ =0.5 for all other species.
Reproductive
value loss limit(RVLL) as
used formarine turtles

is estimated maximum
annual net population growth rate(the hat notation denotes anestimate) that corresponds to
MNPL.

Adapted from PBR forlife-history
characteristics formarine turtles, so used
MNPL (at least 0.5K).

Curtis and Moore,
201372

K is carrying capacity

is the minimum abundance
estimate of the population
rescaled by reproductive value.
is uncertainty factor selected toaddress management
considerations or potential bias in
the other parameters.

72 Curtis, K.A, and Moore, J. (2013) Calculating reference points for anthropogenic mortality of marine turtles.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23. 10.1002/aqc.2308.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Method/application

Description

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)

References

Fixed % totalabundance asused by
ASCOBANS
for harbour
porpoise in theBaltic Sea

Using a basic population modelfor harbour porpoises andassuming no uncertainty in any
parameter, the maximum
anthropogenic removals that
achieves the ASCOBANS interim
objective over an infinite time
horizon is 1.7% of the population
size in that year. To reach theobjective, the intermediate
precautionary aim is to reduce
bycatch to less than 1% of thebest available population
estimate.

ASCOBANS interim
objective is 80% of K.
The overall objective is
to minimise (i.e.
ultimately reduce tozero) anthropogenic
mortality.

UNEP/ASCOBANS,
202073

Removals limit
algorithm(RLA), as used
for smallcetaceans in
the North Sea(similar to thecatch limit
algorithm usedby theInternational
Whaling
Commission’s
RevisedManagement
Procedure)

The RLA comprises a simple
population model that is fitted toa time series of estimates ofabundance to estimate
population growth rate anddepletion, which are then used inremovals calculation. The RLA is
tuned through computer
simulation to set limits toanthropogenic mortality thatallow the specified conservation
objectives to be met. The
robustness of the RLA isdetermined by assessing its
performance in a range ofcomputer simulation tests
describing uncertainty in our
knowledge of population
dynamics, the data and the wider
environment.

The ASCOBANS
interim conservation
objective is used as abasis (i.e. to allow
populations to recoverto and/or maintain
80% of carrying
capacity in the longterm). Converting this
into a quantitative
objective for this study,
they used: apopulation should
recover to or be
maintained at 80% ofcarrying capacity, on
average, within a 100year period. In
simulation tests, thisequates to the median
population level beingat 80% of carrying
capacity.

Hammond et al.,201974

Population
sustainability

PST is the maximum number offisheries deaths that a population

Default objective isthat Risk = 1

Richard et al.,202075; Fisheries

73 UNEP/ASCOBANS (2020) Resolution 8.5. Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch. ASCOBANS

9th Meeting of the Parties, 7–11 September 2020. UNEP/ASCOBANS/Res8.5 (Rev.MOP9).
74 Hammond, P.S., Paradinas, I., and Smout, S.C. (2019) Development of a Removals Limit Algorithm (RLA) to
set limits to anthropogenic mortality of small cetaceans to meet specified conservation objectives, with an
example implementation for bycatch of harbour porpoise in the North Sea. JNCC Report No. 628, JNCC,Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.
75 Richard, Y., Abraham, E., and Berkenbusch, K. (2020) Assessment of the risk of commercial fisheries to New
Zealand seabirds, 2006-07 to 2016-17. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report 237. Available
at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/39407-aebr-237-assessment-of-the-risk-of-commercial-fisheries-tonew-zealand-seabirds-200607-to-201617
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Method/application

Description

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)

References

threshold(PST) in the
New Zealandspatially
explicit risk
assessment(SEFRA) for
seabirds

can sustain while still achieving
the defined population objective
and has been adapted from the
PBR approach. In the SEFRA
approach, this value is compared
to a modelled estimate of total
fishery-related deaths (D). A risk
ratio (D/PST) is calculated to givethe overall risk ranking. The risk
score is expressed as a
Bayesian distribution including
uncertainty, so a level ofconfidence that the objective will
be achieved can be specified.

corresponds to a
median populationstabilisation outcomeof 75% of theunimpacted level.

New Zealand,
202076; Sharp,
201777

Depends on reference
point selected. Can
use MSM, which isequivalent to MSY.

Zhou and Griffiths,
200878Equation:
PST = 0.5 Φ*rmax*N
Where Φ is an adjustment factor
estimated by simulation anddefined to ensure that impacts
equal to PST (R = 1) correspondto a defined population
stabilisation objective.
Sustainability
assessment forfishing effects(SAFE) as
used forelasmobranch
bycatch in an
Australianprawn trawl
fishery

The proportion of each species’
population that is vulnerable tocapture, after accounting forvarious selectivity effects, isassessed against biologicalreference points (BRPs)
developed from empiricalequations that relate life-history
traits to natural mortality (M) (e.g.
comparisons with maximum
sustainable fishing mortality). Not
designed to estimate recovery
timeframes.

76 Fisheries New Zealand (2020) National Plan of Action – Seabirds 2020. Supporting Document. Available at:https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/40658-National-Plan-Of-Action-Seabirds-2020-supporting-document
77 Sharp, B.R. (2017) Spatially Explicit Fisheries Risk Assessment (SEFRA): A framework for quantifying andmanaging incidental commercial fisheries impacts on non-target species. Chapter 3 in: Aquatic Environment andBiodiversity Annual Review (AEBAR) 2017: A summary of environmental interactions between the seafood sector
and the aquatic environment. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand, 724 pp.
78 Zhou, S., and Griffiths, S.P. (2008) Sustainability assessment for fishing effects (SAFE): a new quantitative
ecological risk assessment method and its application to elasmobranch bycatch in an Australian trawl fishery.
Fish. Res., 91: 56–68.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Method/application

Description

Population objective& recovery
timeframe (if defined)

References

Ecologicalassessment of
the sustainable
impacts offisheries(EASI-Fish) ineastern Pacific
Ocean tuna
fisheries(examples withelasmobranch,turtle, anddolphin
species).

EASI-Fish first estimates theinstantaneous fishing mortality
rate from the volumetric overlapof multiple fisheries on a species’
3-dimensional spatial distribution,in this case developed using a
relative environmental suitability(RES) model based on presenceonly data coupled withenvironmental data for theassessment region. The
estimated fishing mortality is thenused in length-structured “perrecruit” models to determine thevulnerability status of eachspecies using conventional andprecautionary fishing-mortality
and spawning-stock-biomassbased BRPs commonly used instock assessment.

Depends on reference
point selected, e.g. F
value at MSY (Fmsy)

Griffiths et al.,201979Note on the Use of IUCN Red List and Favourable Conservation Status
The IUCN Red List provides threat statuses for species or populations. The team should not use
these threat statuses as an automatic evaluation of whether an ETP/OOS unit is currently at a levelconsistent with favourable conservation status. The IUCN Red List was developed to identify risk ofextinction, so it is possible that an ETP/OOS unit listed as Least Concern may not be at favourable
conservation status but has not yet depleted to a level or at a rate that would trigger a higher threat
categorisation on the IUCN Red List. In addition, the IUCN Red List may not provide a threat
evaluation at the same level as the ETP/OOS unit; for example, if it provides a threat status for a
species but not the specific population impacted by the UoA.
The IUCN Red List assessment may provide useful information on the current population size andtrends for species, where these have been updated regularly, as well as links to relevant risk
assessments. However, the intent of the MSC requirements is that there is a specific quantitative
analysis on the status of the ETP unit with respect to favourable conservation status or the potential
for any mortalities from the UoA(s) to hinder recovery to this level.

GSA3.8.3

Intentional harassment or intentional killing of marine mammals ▲The targeted exploitation of marine mammals is not within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard.
However, its understood that some fisheries intentionally kill or harass marine mammals whilst
targeting species in the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard. The intent of SA3.8.3 is to ensure thatfor any UoAs in which intentional harassment or intentional killing of marine mammals is an integral
part of the fishing operation (activity or practice), such activity has not hindered recovery to favourable
conservation status.

79 Griffiths, S.P., Kesner-Reyes, K., Garilao, C., Duffy, L.M. and Roman, M.H. (2019) Ecological Assessment of

the Sustainable Impacts of Fisheries (EASI-Fish): a flexible vulnerability assessment approach to quantify the
cumulative impacts of fishing in data-limited settings. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 625, 89–113.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The MSC recognises that there are challenges in clearly demonstrating that a UoA has not hindered
recovery when considering all potential sources of impact associated with intentional harassment or
intentional killing of marine mammals (including observed mortality, unobserved/cryptic mortality, sublethal population-level impacts, or any other impact that may affect population status).
Consequently, this requirement focuses on evaluating outcome status in a more precautionary
manner by requiring a high degree of certainty that recovery is not necessary or has already occurred.
The team should interpret “high degree of certainty” as a probability level that is equal to or greaterthan the 95th percentile, consistent with the SG100 level in Table SA8.

GSA3.8.3.2–3.8.3.4 ▲An example of the intentional harassment or intentional killing of marine mammals as an integral partof the fishing operation is the intentional pursuit and encirclement of marine mammals with fishinggear (e.g. purse seine nets) or vessels.
The team should not consider the following examples of intentional harassment or intentional killing ofmarine mammals as being an integral part of the fishing operation:•

The use of non-lethal deterrent devices or actions aimed at deterring marine mammals fromdamaging catch or gear, or otherwise deployed to reduce entanglement risk, except where:•o

It is demonstrated that their continued deployment/use causes serious injury or directly
compromises marine mammal survival.

oFirearms are used to deter or kill marine mammals. These are lethal devices and if used as
an integral part of the UoA fishing operation, should trigger the application SA3.8.3.

The unwanted catch of marine mammals, as this outcome is normally considered to beunintentional.

Example: Application of SA3.8.3 for 2.2.1 scoring issue (a)Fishery A is a purse seine fishery that targets a species of tuna. The fishery comprises 18 vessels,with 2 UoAs. UoA1 targets free school (unassociated) sets, and UoA2 targets FAD sets. The
fishery interacts with 10 ETP/OOS units, 2 of which are marine mammals (a species of baleen
whale and a species of dolphin).
The team considered whether there is evidence that the fisheries interactions with the 2 marine
mammal ETP/OOS units involved the intentional harassment or intentional killing of that unit as anintegral part of the fishing operation, as per the definitions set out in SA3.8.3.2–SA3.8.3.4.
The team found that the dolphin interactions were incidental bycatch recorded in unassociatedsets. Therefore, the team did not trigger the application of SA3.8.3 to score the direct effects of thedolphin ETP/OOS unit.
The baleen whale interactions had occurred where the fishery had set on (encircled) the whale.
Available observer data highlighted that these whale sets were an intended part of the fishery’s
operations, comprising 3% of sets in UoA2. This part of the fishery operation was determined to bea form of intentional harassment and determined to be an integral part of the fishing operation. As
such, the team triggered the application of SA3.8.3 for UoA2 to score the impacted baleen whale
ETP/OOS unit at the SG80 level.
The team assessed the available information about the proportion of whales released alive, thescale and intensity of the fishery and findings from several studies on the post-capture survival
rates of the species. In combination with studies on the status of the species, the team used thisinformation to determine that UoA2 is unlikely to hinder recovery of the ETP/OOS unit to favourable
conservation status. The fishery therefore met SG60 for scoring issue a. However, there wasinsufficient information available to enable the team to determine the population status of thebaleen whale ETP/OOS unit was at a level consistent with favourable conservation status with ahigh degree of certainty as required by SA3.8.3 to meet SG80 for this unit. Therefore, for UoA2, thebaleen whale ETP/OOS unit did not meet SG80 for scoring issue a.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The team assessed the other 9 ETP/OOS units that did not trigger SA3.8.3. These all met SG60
and met or exceeded SG80 for the direct effects scoring issue (PI 2.2.1 (a)). In the scoring
rationale, the team included explanations for each unit.
The team applied the scoring element approach set out in FCP v3.0 7.15. As only one of 10 scoring
elements failed to achieve SG80, the score for 2.2.1 (a) was 75.
The team set a condition against PI 2.2.1 for the fishery to verify the status of the ETP/OOS unit
using a quantitative estimate of the population size. Within the Client Action Plan, the client set out
that they will contract a university to undertake a study of the population of the baleen whale
ETP/OOS unit with results to be made publicly available.

GSA3.9 ETP/OOS unit management strategy PI (PI 2.2.2) ▲The MSC’s intent for this PI is that management measures or strategies are implemented that deliver
the ETP/OOS outcome SG80 level and minimise mortalities of the ETP/OOS unit.
Management measures or strategies should be designed to achieve both of these objectives andshould have been implemented “on the water”.

Scoring issue (a) – Management strategy ▲“If necessary”
If the UoA has no, or “negligible” (as defined in SA3.8.2.5) impact on this component, the team does
not need to score scoring issue (a) for SG60 and SG80.
However, there is no “if necessary” clause in SG100. For the team to score SG100 on thiscomponent, a comprehensive strategy should be in place for the UoA for ETP/OOS species sinceincidental impacts could still occur and management needs to be responsive.

Measures expected to minimise mortality
Measures that are expected to minimise mortality are defined in this requirement. The assessment
team should consider:•

How the measures have been selected.

•

Whether they represent “best practice” when it comes to minimising mortality or have beenshown to be effective at minimising mortality in the UoA or similar fisheries, i.e. to the extent
practicable.

Where “best practice” has been established as achieving the lowest UoA mortality possible whilst not
negatively affecting the mortality of other non-target species or unduly affecting targeting catch rates(a small decrease in target catch may be expected, e.g. 10%), the expectation is that these measures
are implemented in the fishery in order to meet at least the SG60 level.

Where “best practice” is established“Best practice” may already be established by national management agencies or in international fora.
The MSC’s intent is that where “best practice” measures exist and at least one “best practice”
measure is implemented in the fishery, the measures expected to minimise mortality part of PI 2.2.2
scoring issue (a) would be met at the SG60 level. To achieve SG80 or higher for this part of PI 2.2.2
scoring issue (a), two or more “best practice” measures should be applied (unless only one “bestpractice” measure exists). In this context it is also the MSC’s intent that any relevant legally mandated
best-practice measures for the UoA should be complied with. This compliance aspect is considered in
PI 3.2.3 scoring issue (d) as per SA4.9.2.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The FAO produces Best Practice Technical Guidelines for bycatch of birds, turtles, and mammals,
although these are not updated regularly 80. Also, the ACAP reviews and identifies “best practice”
mitigation measures for seabird bycatch in a number of gear types. In order to be considered “bestpractice”, a number of criteria are required to be met including:•Individual fishing technologies and techniques should be selected from those shown by
experimental research to significantly reduce the rate of seabird incidental mortality to the lowest
achievable levels.

•

Fishing technologies and techniques, or a combination thereof, should have clear and provenspecifications and minimum performance standards for their deployment and use.

•

Fishing technologies and techniques should be demonstrated to be practical, cost effective andwidely available.

•

Fishing technologies and techniques should, to the extent practicable, maintain catch rates oftarget species.

•

Fishing technologies and techniques should, to the extent practicable, not increase the bycatch ofother taxa.

•

Minimum performance standards and methods of ensuring compliance should be provided forfishing technologies and techniques and should be clearly specified in fishery regulations 81.

Where “best practice” is not clearly establishedFor some species/gear interactions, there are no established “best practice” measures. In thesecases, the measures applied in the fishery should be selected from those that are shown to reduce
mortality rates to the lowest practicable levels in the UoA or similar fisheries.
For example, when pingers are used correctly (i.e. applied across the entire UoA and adequately
monitored for placement and functioning), they may be considered to minimise harbour porpoise
bycatch in gillnets. However, pingers could not be considered to minimise common dolphin bycatch ingillnets because there is no clear evidence for their consistent effectiveness. For common dolphins,
the UoA would need to have implemented other measures that are expected minimise mortality, e.g.
based on measures that have been shown to be successful elsewhere or through development of
new measures tested in the UoA itself in order to meet the SG60 requirement.

Scoring issue (b) – management strategy effectiveness ▲The MSC’s intent is that the UoA needs to provide evidence that it is progressing towards achieving
the objectives of minimising mortality of the ETP/OOS unit. There are four possible ways ofdemonstrating this:1.

There is evidence that the UoA has zero mortalities (including unobserved) of the ETP/OOS unit.

2. The “negligible” requirements in SA3.8.2.5 apply.
3. There is evidence of demonstrable reductions in the mortality of the ETP/OOS unit over time.
4. The UoA may not have evidence of demonstrable reduction but it:a. Is “highly unlikely” to be hindering recovery of the ETP/OOS unit to favourable conservation
status (demonstrated through meeting SG80 in PI 2.2.1 (a) or scoring 80 or above when the
PSA is applied.

80 FAO (2009) Fishing operations. 2. Best practices to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in capture fisheries.

FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: No. 1, Suppl. 2. Rome: FAO. 49pp.
81 https://www.acap.aq/bycatch-mitigation/mitigation-advice
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

b. Has a “comprehensive strategy” and has applied all existing “best practice” measures
expected to minimise mortality (demonstrated through meeting SG100 in PI 2.2.2 (a).
Where none of these four criteria apply, the MSC’s intent is that the UoA does not meet SG80 for thisscoring issue.
For demonstrable reduction, a specific magnitude of reduction is not specified. However, the MSC’s
intent is that real, on-the-water progress towards reducing the mortality rate needs to be
demonstrated by the UoA in order to meet SG80. Overall declining trends in ETP/OOS unit mortalities
over a five-year period, for example, could be taken as evidence of demonstrable reductions, even if
there may be some stochasticity in ETP/OOS unit mortalities over this time. However, the teamshould also consider the reasons for any reductions, including whether the reductions may be due toa decline in the abundance of the ETP/OOS unit rather than the implementation of management
measures to minimise mortality. The MSC’s intent is that if the demonstrable reductions are likely to
be caused by declines in abundance rather than the measures implemented by the fishery, this would
not be considered evidence of demonstrable reductions and SG80 would not be met.
ExampleReductions in UoA-related mortality are demonstrated in longline fishery 1, which interacts with 3
seabird units: A, B, and C. Bird-scaring (tori) lines and offal-discharge practices were introduced as“best practice” mitigation measures in the year 2000. In 2005, the bycatch rate for all 3 seabirds
had reduced from 0.2 birds/1,000 hooks to < 0.05 birds/1,000 hooks. The population sizes forseabird units A, B, and C had remained relatively stable during this period and the number of birds
following the vessels remained consistent. However, the number of mortalities had demonstrably
declined. Fishery 1 would meet at least SG80 for PI 2.2.2 scoring issue (b).

Scoring issue (c) – “Review” of “alternative measures” ▲Where mortalities are above the defined “negligible” level, a review of “alternative measures” by the
UoA or related management agency is required. The MSC’s intent is that even when implementing“best practice”, current measures may not allow these levels to be reached; therefore, regular (at least
5-yearly) reviews of “alternative measures” are needed. There is no 60 level because it is assumed
that at least one such review took place in order for the current measures to minimise mortality to be
implemented. At SG80, if the additional “alternative measures” are shown to be more effective thancurrent measures, these should be implemented unless they:•

Negatively affect crew safety, or•Unduly affect target species catch (i.e. more than 10%), or•

Negatively impact on other species or habitats.

For example, in the longline fishery 1 example above, bird-scaring lines have led to a demonstrable
reduction in bird mortalities between the years 2000 and 2005. However, from 2005 to 2020 the levelof mortality has remained around 0.05 birds/1,000 hooks. In real terms, this represents hundreds ofindividual mortalities of seabird units A, B, and C annually. There are therefore mortalities above the“negligible” level of these ETP/OOS units and the assessment team would need to assess scoring
issue (c). The UoA would need to demonstrate whether any other “alternative measures” had been
considered and whether they had been implemented. If not implemented, justification for not doing so,in relation to the scoring requirement, would be required in order to meet SG80.
In the longline fishery 1 example, night-setting was reviewed in 2018 as an “alternative measure”. It
was demonstrated to reduce the mortality of seabird units A and B but increase the mortality of nontarget fish species and seabird unit C. This measure was therefore not implemented. This would
demonstrate that SG80 was met. However, if this review did not also consider “best practice”
measures for seabirds and longlines, such as forms of line weighting, it would not meet SG80.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.11

Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.3.1) ▲Treatment of impact not caused by the UoA
Only the impact of the UoA itself is used to determine the status of the habitat. However, if non-UoA
anthropogenic activities (or natural events) have had an impact on the habitat, the team should
assess the UoA’s relative impact as per GSA3.2.

Treatment of “more” sensitive habitats
An individual UoA may achieve an SG80 score in the outcome PI 2.3.1 when fishing on a “more”
sensitive habitat because its individual impact is unlikely to cause the “more” sensitive habitat serious
and irreversible harm. However, the MSC recognises the unique value of “more” sensitive habitats
and the possibility that all fishing, where all fishing includes all MSC UoAs plus other fisheries, may
nevertheless be causing “more” sensitive habitats to fall below 80% of their unimpacted state.
Therefore, unless there is a comprehensive management plan covering all fishing impacts on the“more” sensitive habitat, under the management PI 2.3.2 (see SA3.12.1.1), the MSC requires that
UoAs avoid “more” sensitive habitats even if they score higher than 80 on the outcome PI 2.3.1.

GSA3.11.1

Habitat structure and function ▲The team’s assessment should take into account both the impact on the habitat and the habitat’sdelivery of ecosystem services. For example, if only a part of the habitat is affected by fishing but thispart delivers the greatest ecosystem services, the team should take this into account in theassessment.

GSA3.11.2

Habitat characteristics ▲Usually, habitats impacted by the UoA are benthic habitats (i.e. are associated with, or occur on, thebottom) rather than pelagic habitats, which are near the surface or in the open water column.
However, the team may consider impacts on:•

The biotic aspects of pelagic habitats.

•

Habitats that the gear may accidentally come into contact with if gear loss or malfunction were tooccur. This is required to meet SG100 under the management PI 2.3.2 (SA3.12.1.2.b)

The team may use Box GSA8 to categorise the habitats encountered by the UoA, according to their
SGB status.
Box GSA8: SGB habitat nomenclature82
Substratum
Fine (mud, sand)•Mud(< 0.1mm particle diameter)•

Fine sediments(0.1–1mm)

82 Modified from 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):154–167.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Coarse sediments(1–4mm)Medium• Gravel/pebble (4–60mm)
Large•

Cobble/boulders (60mm–3m)•

Igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock (> 3m)

Solid reef of biogenic origin•

Biogenic (substratum of biogenic calcium carbonate)•

Depositions of skeletal material forming coral reef baseGeomorphology
Flat• Simple surface structure•

Unrippled/flat•Current rippled/directed scour•

Wave rippled

Low relief• Irregular topography with mounds and depressions•

Rough surface structure•

Debris flow/rubble banks

Outcrop•

Subcrop (rock protrusions from surrounding sediment (<1m))•

Low-relief outcrop (<1m)

High relief•

High outcrop (protrusion of consolidated substrate (>1m))•

Rugged surface structure

Biota
Large erect, dominated by:•Large and/or erect sponges•

Solitary large sponges•

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

Crinoids•

Corals•Mixed large or erect communities

Small erect/encrusting/burrowing, dominated by:•

Small, low-encrusting sponges•

Small, low-standing sponges•

Consolidated bivalve beds (e.g. mussels)

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Unconsolidated bivalve beds (e.g. scallops)•

Mixed small/low-encrusting invertebrate communities•

Infaunal bioturbators

No fauna or flora•

No apparent epifauna, infauna, or flora

Flora, dominated by:•

Seagrass species

GSA3.11.3 ▲The team should use a precautionary approach when determining whether a habitat impacted by a
UoA is “less” sensitive or “more” sensitive.

Unimpacted habitat structure and function
Unimpacted habitat structure and function (i.e. unimpacted habitat state) is used in determining
whether habitats are “less” or “more” sensitive. The team should therefore consider the following:
For habitats that have been afforded protection by a competent authority:•

If the habitat was already impacted by any fishery at the time it was afforded protection, and all
the impact occurred after 2006, the unimpacted state is the idealised expected recovery state.

•

If the habitat was already impacted by any fishery at the time it was afforded protection, and all
the impact occurred before 2006, the unimpacted state is the current state of the habitat at thetime it was afforded protection.

•

If the habitat was not impacted at the time it was afforded protection, the unimpacted state is thecurrent state of the habitat at the time it was afforded protection.

The idealised expected recovery state is the unimpacted state as defined in a recovery plan, or
assumed from modelling predictions, or comparisons with historical data and/or adjacent habitats.
For habitats that have not been afforded protection by a competent authority, the unimpacted state isthat which is:•Defined in a recovery plan, or•

As assumed from:oModelling predictions, oroComparisons with historical data, oroAdjacent or comparable habitats.

If the unimpacted state has not been defined, and cannot be assumed from available information ordata, it should be considered as the state of the habitat in year 2006. The year 2006 is the date of the
UNGA Resolution 61/10583. In this instance, there is an acceptance that the UoA should not be
penalised for historical damage (i.e. damage prior to 2006).

83 United Nations General Assembly (2006) Resolution 61/105: Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks, and related instruments (8 December 2006). A/UNGA/RES/61/105.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Habitat recovery
Habitat recovery relates to the whole habitat, not just some species within the habitat. Likelihood ofrecovery should take into account the likely speed of recovery, as well as the certainty of recovery ofa habitat.
The MSC has nominated the 80% level as a reasonable point at which to expect most of the habitat’s
structure and function (including abundance and biological diversity) to have been restored, taking
into consideration the likely logistic population growth of habitat-forming organisms.
The team may consider using the Benthic Impacts Tool (MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Tool C) tohelp determine recovery rates of habitats, and therefore help inform scoring of PI 2.3.1 (a).

GSA3.11.3.1 FAO VME ▲FAO Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) are habitats that have been designated as such by acompetent authority, based on the VME criteria as defined in the International Guidelines for theManagement of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas 84.

GSA3.11.4“Serious or irreversible harm” to “less” sensitive habitats ▲The hypothetical climax state is the state to which a habitat would eventually recover to (in theabsence of all fishing), when considering existing environmental and anthropogenic conditions.
Climax states are generally considered to be stable, and towards the end of ecological succession.
“Less” sensitive habitats should not be retrospectively classified as “more” sensitive habitats if unable
to recover to at least 80% of their hypothetical climax state within 20 years if fishing were to cease
entirely.

GSA3.11.5“Serious or irreversible harm” to “more” sensitive habitats ▲In the case of “more” sensitive habitats, “serious or irreversible harm” is a reduction in habitat
structure and function below 80% of the unimpacted state. The unimpacted state is as defined in
GSA3.11.3.
The MSC’s intent is to not hold UoAs responsible for historical damage to “more” sensitive habitats
unless they were responsible for such impact. Therefore, if the habitat is currently below 80% of its
unimpacted state, and the impact was clearly caused by other MSC UoAs, or non-MSC fisheries, thenthe UoA would meet at least SG60, However, avoidance of such habitats would be required under PI
2.3.2 until the habitat has recovered to at least 80% of its unimpacted state, and there is acomprehensive plan showing that all fishing will allow the habitat to recover to, and maintain, at least
80% of its unimpacted state. If the UoA was responsible for the impact, it would fail to meet SG60
unless it undertook immediate action to avoid the habitat.
The team should not consider minimal damage that occurs to an FAO-designated VME when a moveon rule is triggered as “serious or irreversible harm”, even when the habitat is below 80% of its
unimpacted level.
The team may consider the pre-existing historical extent of “more” sensitive habitats if:•

The historical extent is known.

84 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) International guidelines for the

management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. FAO, Rome.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Recovery in those areas of historical extent would be possible.
ExampleOff the north coast of Australia, several shelf-break VME areas have been damaged but are still
there in reduced form and would recover if left undisturbed for several years. Therefore, the teamshould consider these areas within the scope of the habitat’s recovery.

Examples of recovery rates and resulting habitat
Figure and Table provide some examples of recovery rates and resulting habitat status in somehypothetical situations. For each of these examples, it is assumed that the UoA is the only one
impacting the habitat; therefore, all fishing impacts on the habitat are covered by 1 UoA. If multiple
UoAs were impacting the habitat, the impact of individual UoAs would be less.
Example A
The dotted line represents the current status, in relation to unimpacted status, of the habitat
impacted by a moderate-impacting UoA; for example, demersal longline. This UoA:•

Has an impact on 60% of the entire distribution of this habitat type.

•

Fully protects 40% of the habitat type inside a closed area, which is not shown in figure.

Because the gear has a moderate impact, the habitat status in the fished parts of the habitat is 50%of the unimpacted level. The recovery rate for this habitat type is fast, and it is likely that the overall
status of the habitat would rise above 80% of the unimpacted level in around 5 years. Combinedwith the unimpacted status of the habitat in the closed area, this means that the habitat would
recover to 80% of the unimpacted level in 5 years, achieving at least an 80 score and potentially ahigher score if there is greater confidence supported by evidence for this expected recovery.
Example B
The dotted and dashed line represents the status of the habitat impacted by a UoA with a highimpact, such as demersal trawl. This UoA:•

Protects 40% of the habitat type.

•

Fishes the other 60%.

The status of the impacted habitat area is shown in the figure but the status of the habitat within theprotected area is not shown.
Since this is a high-impacting gear, the habitat has been degraded in the fished areas to 10% of theunimpacted level. This habitat is not very resilient, barely reaching the 80% level in 20 years andnot reaching it in 5 years. Across both the closed area and the impacted areas, the UoA would be
unlikely to be causing “serious or irreversible harm” but with less confidence than in example A,
possibly achieving an SG60 score.
Example C
The solid line represents the same high-impacting UoA that:•

Protects 40% of a slow-growing habitat.

•

Fishes the other 60% of that habitat.

The fished habitat has been degraded to 10% of the unimpacted level. This habitat has a very slow
recovery rate and will take more than 20 years to reach the 80% unimpacted level. This UoA is,
therefore, causing serious or irreversible harm to this habitat and would be unlikely to score a 60.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

100

Recovery of habitat (%)

80

50

T
i
m
e
(
y
e
a
r
s
)

0
0

5
10
15
20
25
Figure GSA5: Example recovery rates for habitats over time under different fishingconditions where fishing is removed at year 0
Table GSA6 provides additional details on the UoAs and habitats to accompany the examples
provided in Figure GSA5.
Rows A-H illustrate in a qualitative sense how the overall habitat status could be estimated, both at
the current time and in the future depending on:•

The extent of habitat protection in a closed area.

•

The level of habitat degradation outside the closed area.

•

The habitat recovery rate.

Any current scenario that results in the status of the overall habitat being less than 80% of theunimpacted level is considered “serious or irreversible harm”. Row I gives the likelihood of the
UoAs causing “serious or irreversible” harm (see Table SA8), and Row J gives the corresponding
MSC scores.
Table GSA6: UoA and habitat characteristics for the examples in Figure
UoA and habitat characteristics

Example A(dotted line)

Example B(dotted anddashed line)

Example C(solid line)

A. Proportion of habitat fully protected
in closed area

40%

40%

40%

B. Area of habitat subject to fishing

60%

60%

60%

C. Level of gear impact

Moderate

High

High

D. Current status of habitats in fishedareas (% of unimpacted state)

50%

10%

10%

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

E. Current overall status of habitat,
compared to unimpacted state (A + [B
x D])

70%

46%

46%

F. Habitat recovery rate

Fast

MediumSlow

G. Expected future status of habitats infished areas in 20 years if fishingceases (% of unimpacted state)

100%

80%

50%

H. Expected future overall status of
habitat in 20 years, compared to
unimpacted state (A + [B x G])

100%

88%

70%

I. Likelihood that the UoA is causing
serious or irreversible harmHighly unlikely

Unlikely

Not unlikely

J. MSC score

80 or higher,
depending on
confidence andevidence(unconditionalpass)

60 (pass withcondition)< 60 (fail)

GSA3.11.6

Area of consideration ▲The “managed area” is the UoA's overall fishery management area, which will usually be wider than
the area in which the UoA actually operates (i.e. the UoA area). This is to ensure by default theconsideration of habitat impacts within the areas controlled by the management regimes under which
the UoA operates. The management regime may be:•

A single exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

•

A combination of EEZs, in the case of a UoA that fishes on a shared stock.

•

A combination of an EEZ and an RFMO.

•

Entirely an RFMO.

For many UoAs, the managed area may be only part of an EEZ; for example, the jurisdictional area
for the UoA or the area covered by a management plan under which the UoA operates.
There are 2 types of exceptional case:
1. Situations where the range of the habitat(s) is much smaller than the area of the governancebody’s control, for example:•

Where the RFMO covers an entire ocean but the habitat is restricted in distribution.

•

Where it is not sensible to consider the entire area because areas under that governancebody’s control are not contiguous or have quite different bio-physical and habitat
characteristics.

2. Situations where the managed area is extremely restricted, such as cases where an EEZ has only
a very narrow extent because of encroaching baselines of adjoining EEZs, and it does not makesense to consider such a narrow habitat within the assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Examples of these exceptional cases•

CCAMLR manages fishing throughout the Southern Ocean. Clearly, it would not be appropriate
or feasible to include the entire area covered by CCAMLR when considering the range of thehabitat(s) affected by vessels fishing only in the Ross Sea.

•

A fishery that operates mainly in the Norwegian Trench overlaps with the North Sea and theNorwegian EEZ. These latter 2 areas cover more than 3 million km2 in total. It is likely that the
UoA is fishing a relatively small portion of this total area and therefore impacting a small portionof the habitat(s). Again, it would not be reasonable to consider the entire range of the habitat(s)across the total area.

•

The Gambia coastline is only 800km long and the EEZ is only 19,500km2. Several habitats
extend along much of the western coast of Africa, extending into other EEZs. Given the small
area controlled by the Gambian government, it would be appropriate to consider the entire
range of the habitat(s) beyond the Gambian EEZ.

In such exceptional cases, it would be reasonable for the team to scale up or scale down the“managed area” when determining the appropriate habitat range to consider. The team should apply
expert judgement and provide rationale for such scaling.
In a nested management situation, the team should consider the widest management range.
However, the examples given above for management regimes may apply.

GSA3.11.6.4 Habitat outside the “managed area” ▲Since different habitat types are scored as separate elements, there may be situations when aparticular habitat (or element) extends beyond the “managed area”. In such situations, if the habitat
extends significantly beyond the “managed area”, and as such, the “managed area” is a relatively
small portion of the habitat’s overall range, then the team should take into consideration habitat
outside the “managed area”. However, if the “managed area” covers a large part of the habitat’s
range, the “managed area” itself will be sufficient for scoring.

GSA3.12Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ▲When scoring the habitat PIs, the team should consider any habitat-specific management that exists
for the “managed area”.

The MSC’s approach to management of “more” sensitive habitats
The MSC’s approach to the assessment of sustainability with regard to “more” sensitive habitats isbased on United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions (especially 61/105 85 and 64/7286)
and the FAO Guidelines for deep-sea fisheries87. The central requirements of the FAO Guidelines fordesignated VMEs are as follows:

85 United Nations General Assembly (2006) Resolution 61/105: Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks, and related instruments (8 December 2006). A/UNGA/RES/61/105.
86 United Nations General Assembly (2009) Resolution 64/72: Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks, and related instruments (4 December 2009). A/UNGA/RES/64/72.
87 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) International guidelines for the management of
deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. FAO, Rome.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

A set of criteria for identifying VMEs.

•

Impact assessments to determine whether fishing activities are likely to produce significant
adverse impacts on VMEs.

•

Acquisition of data to determine the fishing footprint and the interaction of fisheries with VMEs.

•

Development of a “functioning regulatory framework” that includes regulations to protect VMEs.

•

In the absence of a “functioning regulatory framework”, establishment of an interim precautionary
approach that allows for the development of appropriate CMMs to prevent significant adverse
impacts on VMEs while preventing such impacts from taking place inadvertently and that consistsof:oClosing of areas where VMEs are known or likely to occur.

oRefraining from expanding the level or spatial extent of effort of vessels involved in deep-sea
fisheries.

These elements are incorporated into the MSC requirements by requiring either a comprehensive
management plan that determines that all fishing will not cause serious and irreversible harm to“more” sensitive habitats (which includes designated FAO VMEs), or that MSC UoAs should avoid“more” sensitive habitats individually and cumulatively. Given the complexity of undertaking an impact
assessment on “more” sensitive habitats, the MSC considers that most UoAs should choose to apply
the simpler approach of avoiding “more” sensitive habitats altogether.
For scoring issue (b) at the SG60 level, some examples of “plausible argument” are generalexperience, theory, or comparison with similar UoAs or habitats.
The team should also take this approach as the desired outcome of the management
measures/strategies for “less” sensitive habitats.

GSA3.12.1 ▲If there is a “more” sensitive habitat in the UoA’s “managed area”, the team should score themanagement PI 2.3.2 in relation to both “less” sensitive and “more” sensitive habitats.
Table GSA3 provides generic guidance on the differences between “measures”, “partial strategy”, and“strategy”. Table GSA7 provides examples of “measures”, “partial strategies”, and “strategies” interms of benthic habitats. These are only examples of such management levels and do notnecessarily meet the whole of the scoring rationale requirements. The team should always use its
expert judgement to determine how well, or otherwise, management measures, partial strategies, or
strategies are designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of “serious or irreversible harm” torelevant habitats.
A strategy should include regular review of “alternative measures” to reduce the impact of the UoA on
the habitat. The team should also consider appropriate “alternative measures” determined in thisreview during the review of measures to minimise unwanted catch (PIs 2.1.2 and 2.2.2), particularly
when making a decision on which measures to implement.
UoAs are expected to take appropriate action, within measures/strategies, to avoid impacting “more”
sensitive habitats. Precautionary measures/strategies to avoid encounters with “more” sensitive
habitats are also required, and these may include closed areas, move-on rules, frozen footprints, gear
modifications (or restrictions), authorisation to undertake new fishing activities, and/or consideration ofdFADs, taking into consideration their design, monitoring and retrieval strategies.

GSA3.12.1.1 ▲A partial strategy for a UoA using a pelagic gear or a low-impacting bottom gear, such as a gear witha footprint score of 1 in Table A28 in the MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox, may not need to include
requirements and implementations. The team should provide rationale in those cases. The team mayfind it useful to refer to the pelagic examples in Table GSA7.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.12.1.2 ▲A comprehensive management plan could also include avoidance measures to ensure that serious or
irreversible harm to “more” sensitive habitats does not occur.
Some damage to “more” sensitive habitats is acceptable as long as overall “serious or irreversibleharm” to structure and function is avoided. If a strategy does not afford complete protection to all“more” sensitive habitats in an area, this should be supported by an impact assessment todemonstrate that:•“Serious or irreversible harm” is avoided.

•“More” sensitive habitats are not impacted by more than 20% of their unimpacted state

In cases where a comprehensive management plan is in place but the “more” sensitive habitat is
below the 80% recovery criterion, the plan should first allow the “more” sensitive habitat to recover toat least 80% of its unimpacted state before fishing continues. In other words, the only allowance forcontinued fishing by MSC UoAs on a “more” sensitive habitat is when:•

There is a comprehensive plan that shows that all fishing will keep the “more” sensitive habitat at
80% or recover it to 80%.

•

The “more” sensitive habitat has recovered to, or is above, 80%.

A formal comprehensive impact assessment may not be necessary in all cases; for example, whenbenthic gear is prohibited but pelagic gear is permitted because the risk to benthic habitats is
negligible. See Table GSA7 for an example of a strategy for a pelagic UoA.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Table GSA7: Potential measures, partial strategies, and strategies in relation to habitat
impacts
Examples of potential measures, partial strategies, and strategies in relation to habitat
impacts88

Cod UoA using fixed gear (e.g.
gillnets) in inshore zones andmobile gear (e.g. otter trawl) in
offshore zones

Strategy✓

The management arrangements inplace are designed to manage
impacts on other components
under the assessment tree; forexample, P1 and P2 species. They
contribute indirectly to managementof habitats because of inshore
areas closed to mobile gear andseasonal closures in the offshore
environment, and distribution of
relevant habitats extends wellbeyond known fishing areas. The
arrangements might be considered
cohesive, but there is no evidenceof efforts to investigate themthrough the lens of habitat
management in order to understandhow they work to meet desirable
habitat outcomes and avoid posing
risk of serious or irreversible
harm to relevant habitats.

✓

The seasonal closure can beconsidered an individual tool or
action that seeks to explicitly
protect juvenile and spawning
habitat despite being designed toenhance the sustainability of
species of interest. However, there
is little evidence to suggest that
impacts of the arrangement areinvestigated to determine whether
or not habitat protection is occurringor to understand how the measure
works to achieve habitat protection;
nor are there any other measures,plans, or statutes that would
determine how managers wouldchange the seasonal closure if it

There are some closed areas andclosed seasons for specific gear ineither or both the inshore andoffshore zones, though these are
primarily stock and bycatch
management measures. Some
habitat protection is afforded bythese management arrangements.
Monitoring and information
gathering efforts are directed at
species management
arrangements.

Multi-species trawl UoA in
inshore tropical waters

Partialstrategy

Rationale

Measures

General UoA description

Trawling is banned in inshore
waters during the seasonalmonsoon to protect juvenile andspawning habitat for fish andinvertebrate species.

88 Modified from: Grieve, C., Brady, D.C., and Polet, H. (2011) Best practices for managing, measuring, andmitigating the benthic impacts of fishing: final report to the Marine Stewardship Council. Unpublished work.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

ceased to be effective from a
habitat perspective.
Groundfish trawl UoA in offshore
zones with explicit links to otherspecies/multi-gear management
plans

✓

There is a clear multi-species
management approach with thelinking of species/gear
management plans. The closed
areas contribute indirectly to the
management of habitats for the
groundfish UoA, though they were
established to protect the stocks ofother sessile target species (e.g.
scallops). The habitat-protection
zones, though designed for broader
conservation purposes, serve toprotect habitats of concern. The
arrangements could be considered
cohesive, particularly as there isevidence of strict enforcement of
the protection zones and closed
areas, coupled with high sanctions
imposed for violators. Similarly,
there are some efforts tounderstand how bottom-contacting
gear might impact other benthic
biota, but these are aimed atinterests other than those in the
UoA. The closed areas andprotection zones were not designed
specifically to manage habitats inrelation to the groundfish UoA, nor
are there specific mechanisms
described that would enable
managers to appropriately modify
fishing practices were unacceptable
impacts to habitats identified.

✓

There is science-based rationale forprotecting the habitats asspawning, larval, or juvenile areas
for the sustainability of fish species.
The arrangements are cohesive,
comprising several measures thatindirectly protect habitats forbiodiversity purposes. There issome understanding of how thisworks to protect habitats and ademonstrable awareness of theneed to change measures if theystop being effective from a habitats
perspective. While themanagement approach is notdesigned explicitly to manage
fishing impacts on habitats, there isa functioning management
framework, although not strictly
speaking “regulatory”, that suggests
UoAs in the area do not cause

Some closed areas within the
groundfish UoA prohibit use of any
bottom-contacting fishing gear.
Non-UoA, environmental
protection-led regulations designate
2 habitat areas of concern, which
are also closed to bottomcontacting fishing gear. Vessel
monitoring systems and otherenforcement efforts aim to ensure
no violation of closed or protectedareas. Information gathering seeks
to monitor the protected zones, andfishing impacts are considered insubsequent analyses.
Arrangements about the use orotherwise of bottom-contacting gear
have changed according to shifting
distributions of benthic species ofinterest to the other UoAs.

Co-managed and communitybased managed tropical UoAs
using multiple gear on a diverse
range of habitats
Under a broad marine managementarea, which was not specificallydesigned to manage fishing but
general community uses of themarine environment, protection isafforded to a mosaic or patchworkof seagrass, mangrove, and coral
reef habitats where bottomcontacting gear use is restricted orbanned. The cultural context andscale of the various UoAs lendthemselves to the communitybased management approach.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

serious or irreversible harm tohabitats. There are some efforts
aimed at understanding how
specific strategies might work in
relation to the various habitats
impacted by the community’s
fishing. Despite the cultural context
and relatively small scale ofindividual UoAs, the total approach
does not add up to a strategy
within a functioning regulatory
framework that is directed
specifically at management of
habitat impacts of the UoA or other
MSC UoAs.
Midwater trawl UoA on
continental slope where someseamounts are encountered andrare bottom contact is made✓The strategy is cohesive by virtueof permitting only midwater trawlingon any seamount in the region. The
functioning regulatory framework is
explicit with the ban on bottomcontacting gear on all seamounts
and as such represents a
precautionary approach. OtherMSC UoAs are also required tocomply with these rules. Managers
have implemented a mechanism to
avoid contact with VMEs
(seamounts) by mandating the useof only non-bottom-contact gear.
However, while the strategy isdesigned to avoid serious or
irreversible harm to thesehabitats, it can only be considereda partial strategy. This is because
it relies upon the generally
accepted rarity of bottom contact by
midwater trawls and other gear
rather than an explicit means ofunderstanding the effectiveness ofthe management approach inensuring that serious andirreversible harm is not happening
to seamounts or the mechanismthat might need to be in place if itceases to be effective.

In acknowledgement that thesefeatures can be considered FAOdesignated VMEs (or moresensitive habitats), someseamounts are afforded strict
protection from any bottomcontacting gear, including midwater
trawl gear, and there is a complete
ban on the use of bottom/otter trawl
gear on all seamounts. This gear
restriction constitutes the key partof the UoA management strategy.

Demersal trawl UoA in inshore
and offshore areas
Overarching management
framework takes an ecosystembased fisheries management
approach involving impact
assessments for management
plans (including impacts onhabitats), spatial controls likeclosures to protect essential fish

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022✓

Management is cohesive andstrategically aimed at managing theimpacts of the UoA, other MSC
UoAs, and non-MSC fisheries on
relevant habitats within acomprehensive ecosystem-based
management plan. There are asuite of measures and tools
available and evidence of their use.
Ecological risk and impact
assessments have been carried out

Page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

habitat, effort reduction rules, andbuyout/lease-back arrangements
incentivising the use of less bottomcontacting gear to catch fish
quotas.

Multiple UoAs targeting mixedspecies complexes using
multiple gear (bottom- and nonbottom-contacting gear,
including hand rakes, dredges,
trawl gear, gillnets, and trap andline methods) in inshore andoffshore environments ranging
from cool temperate waters towarm tropical seas
A bioregional marine planning
framework uses an ecosystembased fisheries management
approach involving ecological risk
assessments and risk-management
planning for fish. Precautionary
management approach to risks
identified for habitats includes
closed areas for a variety of gear(that may change from year to year)
and a system of marine protectedareas (MPAs), offering morepermanent protection from any
bottom-contacting gear. Habitat
mapping and strategic researchplanning and execution areprogressively closing theinformation gaps on the impacts ofDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

and have determined that all fishingactivity will not cause serious or
irreversible harm to habitats,including more sensitive habitats.
There is active management
seeking to reduce the impact of the
UoA on both essential fish habitatand other habitats that were rated
higher risk from an ecosystemmanagement perspective, including
more sensitive habitats. The
management plan has clearly
articulated objectives relating to thehabitats component and sets out
how management will be modified if
undesirable impacts are detected.
Monitoring and evaluation areenshrined within the management
plan and are directed atunderstanding fishing impacts onhabitats, as well as the usual
species-related monitoring andevaluation. Explicit strategies aim to
manage the cumulative impacts offishing, by the UoA, other MSC
UoAs, and non-MSC fisheries, on
habitats in order to avoid serious
or irreversible harm.
✓Management is cohesive andstrategic, aimed specifically atmanaging fishing impacts on
species, habitats, and otherecosystem components within acomprehensive management plan.
Several measures are in place, andresearch, monitoring, andevaluation are aimed atunderstanding the impacts of the
UoA on habitats. Management
strategies (e.g. plans) contain
explicit mechanisms for modifying
fishing practices based on
unacceptable impacts coming tolight through research, monitoring,or evaluation. There is evidence
these have been implemented tomodify fishing impacts on relevant
habitats. As this is one of the mostcomprehensive and cohesive
management approaches, bothless sensitive and more sensitive
habitats, as well as cumulative
impacts are explicitly considered bymanagers in the risk assessmentand management process, theresearch strategy, and thePage 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

fishing on habitats, as well as therelative health of relevant habitats.
Results are routinely used to informfishery-management decisions.
Pelagic longline UoA targeting
migratory pelagic species

management decision-making
processes.

✓

There is little or no known bottom
contact by the gear, except perhaps
in cases of gear loss. The species
targeted cannot be caught using
trawl or other bottom-contactinggear.

The use of the gear, theunderstanding that comes fromyears of peer-reviewed research
about its impacts, and the specificmanagement strategy thatmandates only its use could beconstrued as a cohesive andstrategic arrangement. This is
supported by demonstrable
understanding of how the use of
pelagic longlines work to avoid
impacting benthic habitats
specifically, and someunderstanding about the impacts oflost gear on habitat, and the relative
effects of such impacts are deemed
to be low risk for overall habitat
health. Periodic assessments (i.e.
directed research and risk
assessments) are conducted to
inform management decision
makers about lost-gear impacts toensure that management strategies
are working and are demonstrably
avoiding serious or irreversible
harm to habitats and to determine
whether changes need to be madeto mitigate unacceptable impacts.

GSA3.12.2.2 ▲An MSC UoA needs to have some way of assessing whether the actions of all MSC UoAs and othernon-MSC fisheries, where relevant, are applicable to the avoidance of impacts on more sensitive
habitats. An area may be closed to fishing by the management entity, or by a client fishery or nonMSC fishery (prior to the management entity doing so). The team should consider all of these closed
area scenarios when scoring the UoA. For instance, a “precautionary VME closure” might be declaredby a trawl UoA on triggering a move-on rule, and MSC UoAs impacting in that closed area would be
required to respect this closure under the requirements of the management PI 2.3.2. However, othermeasures, such as changing to a semi-pelagic gear, may not be relevant or appropriate for other
MSC UoAs.

GSA3.13

Habitats information PI (PI 2.3.3) ▲Assessing informal approaches against PI 2.3.3
The team should consider whether information is available to understand:•The distribution of habitat.

•

The impact of the UoA on habitat.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The team should factor in the likelihood of changes within the UoA that could lead to an increase in
the risk of impact from fishing activity over time.
The team should consider whether information is collected to detect these changes to ensure that the
UoA is moving in the desired direction or operating at a low-risk level.
Examples of information type include:•

Local knowledge or research from fishers or community members.

•

Place-based information that is local to a particular geographical area.

•

Information with social, economic, or ecological dimensions.

The information will reflect the knowledge and opinions about issues held by individuals and groups
local to the UoA. Local knowledge can be valuable first-hand experience that might provide
information on a wide range of topics, including:•

Habitat distribution and range.

•

Gear impacts on local habitats.

•Gear and UoA spatial overlap with habitats.

•

Scale and intensity of the UoA.

•

Depending on the scale of the UoA, this information could be collected through informal
stakeholder processes or a less subjective review process.

Scoring issue (c) – monitoring ▲When scoring issue (c) at the SG80 level, the team should consider all potential increases in risk,such as changes in:•

The scoring of the outcome PI.

•

The operation of the UoA.

•

The effectiveness of the measures.

GSA3.14

Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.4.1)

GSA3.14.4“Key” ecosystem elements ▲“Key” ecosystem elements may include:•“Key” prey, predators, and competitor species.

•

Predator-prey interaction.

•

Food web interactions.

•

Community composition.

•

Carrying capacity.

•

Species biodiversity.

•

Genetic diversity.

•

Migratory behaviour.

GSA3.14.5

Indirect impacts on ETP/OOS species ▲Indirect effects of the UoA on ETP/OOS species are those that result in changes to the “key”
ecosystem elements as identified above.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 89© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The team is required to evaluate whether any of the impacts of the UoA on “key” ecosystem elements
indirectly impact ETP/OOS units and hinder their recovery. Indirect effects of fishing may havepositive or negative effects on ETP/OOS units. The MSC’s intent is that any ecological effects of the
UoA/OOS do not hinder the long-term viability of the ETP/OOS unit, and thereby also cause “serious
and irreversible harm” to the ecosystem. Types of indirect effects may include:•

Changes to trophic structure or function.

•

Removal of biomass as food source for the ETP/OOS unit (including localised depletions) or its
prey (trophic interactions).

•

Addition of biomass due to discards or offal discharge.

•

Changes to essential habitat for the species.

The team should provide rationale on which indirect effects, if any, it has considered in relation to the
ETP/OOS unit. The team should provide detail of methods used to evaluate these effects.
The following case studies illustrate how indirect effects have explicitly been considered andmanaged within different fisheries. They provide examples of where the team should consider indirect
impacts on ETP/OOS units, and how these relate to key ecosystem elements.
Case study 1: CCAMLR krill fisheries
CCAMLR has an objective to conserve marine living resources. This includes preventing changes
or minimising risk of changes in the marine ecosystem that are potentially not reversible over two to
three decades89.
An example of how this objective is operationalised is that CCAMLR considers the needs ofdependent predators such as marine mammals and seabirds when setting quotas for krill
harvesting. Krill is an important prey species for seals, cetaceans, and penguins in the Southern
Ocean. Indirect impacts of the krill fisheries include removal of krill as prey species, with localised
depletion being a key concern given the patchiness of the krill resource90 and references therein).
CCAMLR sets a precautionary catch limit that ensures at least 75% of pristine krill biomass ismaintained, and to prevent localised depletion an additional cap is set which cannot be exceeded
until the catch is sub-divided into small spatial units 91. In addition, the Government of South
Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, in whose waters a proportion of the krill fishery takes
place, include a number of additional protection measures including a closed season during thetimes when key predators are breeding, coastal protection zones to reduce competition with landbased predators92. Indirect impacts from the UoA on ETP/OOS units should be considered as partof whether the UoA is likely to cause serious and irreversible harm to the predator-prey ecosystemelement.
Case study 2: Burry Inlet cockle fishery
The Burry Inlet hand-raked cockle fishery is managed by Natural Resources Body for Wales(NRW), whose overall aim in managing the fishery is to develop a thriving cockle fishery that
supports, protects, and enhances the needs of the community and the environment on which it

89 CCAMLR (1980) Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Hobart: CCAMLR.

Available at: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/camlr-convention-text
90 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,
Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012) Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
91 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,
Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012) Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
92 Bamford, C.C.G., Warwick-Evans, V., Staniland, I.J., Jackson, J.A., and Trathan, P.N. (2021) Wintertime
overlaps between female Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) and the krill fishery at South Georgia, South
Atlantic. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248071. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248071.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 90© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

depends 93. The Burry inlet is a Special Protection Area under the European Commission Directive
79/409 on the conservation of wild birds and is also a Ramsar site 94. The large estuarine complex
supports internationally or nationally important wintering populations of wildfowl including (amongst
many others) pintail, shelduck, shoveler, oystercatcher, knot, and redshank 95.
Cockles are a key prey source for many overwintering birds in the Burry Inlet, so the indirect impactof the fishery relates to removal of biomass as a food source for bird species. To ensure that thefishery does not adversely impact the bird species whilst also maintaining a cockle resource forcontinued exploitation, a TAC is established each year for the fishery based on the results of twiceannual stock assessment surveys and the food requirements of the overwintering birds of the Burry
Inlet96. A Bird Food Model is used to calculate the food requirements of birds, modelled based on
the mean of peak counts of oystercatchers over recent years and information from the literature onenergy requirements of the birds and energy content of shellfish97. The catch returns from thelicensed fishers are monitored to see how much cockle is being removed each month in relation to
the set TAC. This enables the TAC or daily quota to be amended if necessary to ensure enoughfood is left for the birds, as well as to ensure sustainable resource use 98.
The team should consider indirect impacts from the UoA on ETP/OOS units as part of whether the
UoA is likely to cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the predator-prey ecosystem element.

GSA3.15

Ecosystem management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2)

Scoring issue (a) – management “strategy” in place ▲See SA3.3.1 for more details on “measures”, “partial strategy” and “strategy”.

GSA3.15.2

Interpreting “strategy” ▲At SG80 and SG100, partial strategies and strategies, respectively, may contain measures designed
and implemented to address impacts on components that have been evaluated elsewhere in thisframework.
If the measures address specific ecosystem impacts effectively enough to meet the appropriate
standard, it is unnecessary to have special “ecosystem measures” to address the same impacts.
UoAs should be capable of adapting management to environmental changes as well as managing theeffect of the UoA on the ecosystem.

93 NRW (2013) Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery Order 1965: Management Plan 2013. Available at:

http://naturalresources.wales/media/679996/burry-inlet-cockle-fishery-order-1965-mp.pdf [accessed on 19 July2022].
94 NRW (2013) Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery Order 1965: Management Plan 2013. Available at:https://naturalresources.wales/about-us/strategies-and-plans/burry-inlet-management-plan-cockle-fishery-order1965/?lang=en
95 NRW (2013) Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery Order 1965: Management Plan 2013. Available at:https://naturalresources.wales/about-us/strategies-and-plans/burry-inlet-management-plan-cockle-fishery-order1965/?lang=en
96 NRW (2013) Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery Order 1965: Management Plan 2013. Available at:
http://naturalresources.wales/media/679996/burry-inlet-cockle-fishery-order-1965-mp.pdf.
97 Stillman, R. & Wood, K. (2013) Predicting oystercatcher food requirements on the Dee Estuary. A report to
Natural Resources Wales. Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University.
98 NRW (2013) Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery Order 1965: Management Plan 2013. Available at:
http://naturalresources.wales/media/679996/burry-inlet-cockle-fishery-order-1965-mp.pdf.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 91© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA3.16

Ecosystem information/monitoring PI (PI 2.4.3)

GSA3.16.1

Climate change ▲The team should consider monitoring the effects of environmental change on the natural productivityof the UoAs as “best practice”. The team should include recognition of the increasing importance ofclimate change.

GSA4 Principle 3
GSA4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ▲An MSC UoA might include only a sub-set of fishers, such as vessels, fleet operators, and individual
fishermen within a wider fleet of fishers fishing for the same biologically distinct stock, using the same
method, and under the same or similar management system or arrangements. However, the teamshould note that:•

The management of the wider fleet that denotes the specific “fishery” is the subject of assessment
under the fishery-specific management system PIs.

•

The team may consider special or additional management arrangements or features unique to thevessels in the UoA. The team may reflect this in the scores under the fishery-specificmanagement system PIs.
ExampleIn some RFMOs, compliance can be the responsibility of a compliance committee, and sanctions
can be brought by:•

The RFMO itself in instances of loss of access to resources, such as when a Member’s vessel
is identified as IUU, or when there is loss of access by the Member itself.

•

The flag state of the vessel in violation.

For violations not in any way under the control of the national management authority of the fishery:•

The fishery consisting of vessels from flag state X should not be held responsible for the noncompliance of flag state Y vessels.

•

If the fishery consists of vessels registered with flag state X, and the non-compliance is byvessels registered with flag state Y, its internal compliance should not be part of theassessment.

However, the team should consider the effectiveness of the following actions:•

At the national level: the compliance of flag state X vessels.

•

At the RFMO level: the overall effectiveness of compliance to deliver sustainable outcomes.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 92© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA4.1.1

Assessment of multi-level management systems ▲Table GSA8: Examples of types of jurisdiction for different management systems
Type of jurisdiction

Management system

Purely domestic fishery

The fishery management framework may exist
at a local, regional, or national scale within thejurisdiction of a single state.
Additionally, a purely domestic UoA may exist in
multiple jurisdictions within a state, for example
under a federal system of government.

Trans-boundary fish stocks, straddling fishstocks, stocks of highly migratory fish species,and discrete high seas fish stocks

When fish stocks are exploited by 2 or morestates, international law becomes relevant.
These multi-level management systems may
have a variety of jurisdictional arrangementsthat might apply to that UoA. The team isrequired to consider these jurisdictionalarrangements.

GSA4.1.3

Fisheries management bodies that are subject to international
cooperation ▲Under international law, as set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) andrelated instruments, the states concerned, including the relevant coastal states in the case of sharedstocks, straddling stocks, and highly migratory species, are required to cooperate to ensure effective
conservation and management of the resources.
The relevant instruments that set out these requirements are:•

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982).

•

United Nations Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks andHighly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995•

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995 (including the FAO ComplianceAgreement of 1993).

The MSC considers UNFSA Article 10 and the UNCLOS requirements as a basis for MSC
requirements relating to cooperation for UoAs that are subject to international cooperation for
management of the stock. These requirements to cooperate should apply to:•

UoA participants, even if cooperation is not formally required by the relevant RFMO/regional
fisheries management arrangement (RFMA) or if an RFMO/RFMA does not exist.

•

UoAs in the high seas, even if the target species are not HMS, shared, or straddling stocks andare not formally covered by the UNFSA requirements.

The requirements are further elaborated in SA4.3.1–4.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 93© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA4.1.4.1 Informal or traditionally managed systems ▲A key characteristic of management mechanisms and measures in traditionally managed or selfgoverning UoAs is that they may be undocumented or may not be formally ratified.
The CAB could use:•

Semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders or other participatory tools to collectinformation. The information in the sample should be representative of the reality of the UoA.

•

Multiple stakeholder participatory approaches to cross-check opinions and views from different
segments of the stakeholder community.

•

Both of the above to support the rationale and validate the conclusions provided for the scores as
required in SA4.3.

GSA4.3

Legal and/or customary framework PI (PI 3.1.1) ▲BackgroundA fishery management system’s local, regional, national, or international legal and/or customary
framework is:•

The underlying formal or informal supporting structure that incorporates all formal and informal
practices.

•

Procedures and instruments that control or have an impact on a UoA. This includes policies andpractices of both government and private sectors, and is not limited to:•oImplementing agencies; for example, fisheries agencies and conservation agencies.

oFishery business groups; for example, catch sector cooperatives and industry associations.

oFishing vessel owners.

oIndigenous groups.

oLocal civil society or community groups.

The government sector, including all applicable government systems, the courts, and the relevant
parliamentary and regulatory bodies. The management system is the complex interaction of
government legislation, industry, or customary practice. However, it may also include controls andpractices in a UoA that result in “hard” law or “soft” law, which are accepted practice controls overactual on-water catching practices.

The team may consider governance structures and mechanisms introduced in a UoA to achievecertification to an ISEAL Code compliant international voluntary sustainability standard to be part of acustomary framework. Nevertheless, this certification itself does not automatically qualify a fishery tomeet MSC scoring requirements. The team should:•

Review the legal and/or customary frameworks in place.

•

Reach a scoring determination based on its judgement.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
In all scoring issues in this PI, for management systems that are less clearly articulated, such as
informal and traditional management systems, the team may determine the extent to which thisscoring issue is met through:•Accepted norms.

•

Commonly held values.

•

Beliefs.

•

Agreed rules across the fishing communities of which the UoA is part.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 94© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring issue (a) – Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management ▲The team may determine this by examining:•

The presence or absence of the essential features of an appropriate and effective structure within
which management takes place.

•

Whether those features are hard or soft.

•

Whether the framework has a focus on long-term management rather than short term.

•

How management manages risk and uncertainty.

•

Whether the framework is transparent and open to scrutiny, review, and adaptation as new
information becomes available.

The essential features needed to deliver sustainable fisheries are defined by their relevance toachieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with P1 and P2 appropriate to the size and scale of the
UoA, and may include:•

Establishing when and where people can fish.

•

Who can fish.

•

How they may fish.

•

How much they can catch.

•

What they can catch.

•

Who they talk to about the “rules” for fishing.

•

How they might gather relevant information and decide what to do with it.

•

How they know that people are abiding by whatever rules are made.

•How they catch, sanction, or penalise wrongdoers.

With these features, the operational framework could be said to be compatible with local, national, orinternational laws or standards.
For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of the stock, national entities
expected to cooperate on national management issues include regional and national management,
state and federal management, indigenous groups, and other groups, as appropriate to the UoA
under assessment.

Scoring issue (b) – Resolution of disputes ▲Issues and disputes involving allocation of quota and access to marine resources are outside thescope of an assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard.
When there are no immediately obvious structures for dispute resolution, the team could use
participatory techniques to:•

Identify and evaluate the presence of dispute resolution mechanisms used in the UoA.

•

Obtain information on these dispute mechanisms.

•

Assess the effectiveness of such mechanisms.

To minimise the likelihood of subjectivity, the team should include participants and/or intervieweesfrom a wide variety of stakeholder types and from stakeholders operating outside the UoA. Fishers
may be able to draw up charts or use other visual or non-textual means to help explain ordemonstrate the process for resolving conflicts in the UoA.
The team can determine the level of transparency and effectiveness of the systems by:•

Using information on the proportion of stakeholders aware of the existence of any dispute
resolution arrangements.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 95© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Examining history and stories of how disputes have been dealt with in the past.

•

Ascertaining whether the presence or absence of unresolved disputes can be consideredsignificant indicators of the existence and/or effectiveness of dispute-resolution mechanisms.

The team can determine evidence of consistency with this requirement using field observations andstructured interviews with fishers and fishing community leaders to ascertain the following:•

The extent to which fishery participants are aware of established rights.

•

Responses in the past within the UoA to disputes over established rights.

•

Accepted norms and practice across the UoA that are supportive of such established rights.

Scoring issue (c) – Respect for rights ▲This scoring issue encompasses groups of individuals with customary rights, as well as indigenous oraboriginal groups with established rights, who are dependent on artisanal or subsistence fishing for
either food or livelihood.

GSA4.3.1.b.i Controversial unilateral exemptions to an international agreement ▲When assessing whether the fishery is conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to aninternational agreement, the team should consider:•

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

•

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

•

Whether the sustainable management of the fishery is undermined.

The team should interpret these terms as follows:•

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

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

•“Exemption” means a refusal to join or abide by the rules of an international management body, or
the taking of a reservation or exception to a measure adopted by such body, where in either casethe effect is to undermine the sustainable management of the fishery.

•“International agreements” are those with a direct mandate for sustainable management of theresources affected by the fishery according to the outcomes in Principles 1 and 2.

GSA4.3.1.1

Cooperation ▲With respect to UNFSA Article 10, the requirement under SG60 (SA4.3.1) applies to the generation ofscientific advice, not its implementation (UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs d, e, f, and g). A framework forcooperation with other parties could include the ability for parties to coordinate scientific advice torespective management agencies.

GSA4.3.2.b

Organised and effective cooperation ▲At SG80, “organised and effective cooperation” with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10
paragraphs a, h, and j, and could include the establishment of appropriate cooperative mechanisms
for effective monitoring, control, surveillance, and enforcement.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 96© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Further, at SG80 and SG100, the flag state(s) of vessels from the UoA should be participating either:•

In a relevant RFMO or other arrangement as members, or•

If membership is prohibited for political reasons, as a cooperating non-contracting party orcooperating non-member.

GSA4.3.3

Binding procedures ▲At SG100, binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties could include agreement andcompliance with CMMs to ensure the long-term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks.

GSA4.3.4

Disputes that overwhelm the fishery ▲The team should consider whether any outstanding disputes are of substantial magnitude and involvea significant number of interests such that the UoA is unlikely to meet the objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2. However, the existence of disputes are of themselves not enough to stop a fisheryfrom being eligible for certification. The existence of lawsuits is not considered a barrier tocertification, as otherwise parties opposed to certification could lodge lawsuits to prevent an outcome
they did not support. The team should use its best judgement to determine whether a disputecompromises the ability of the management system to provide sustainable management, either at thetime of assessment or within the subsequent certification period.

GSA4.3.5.1

Formal and informal practices and procedures ▲These practices or procedures could be formalised under rule of law or be informal but known throughtraditional or customary means.

GSA4.4

Consultation, roles, and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2) ▲BackgroundIn scoring the PI, the team may consider the roles and responsibilities of the fishers in relation to theircooperation with the collection of relevant information and data, where relevant and/or necessary.
Examples of relevant information and data include catch, discard, and other information of importanceto the effective management of the resources and the UoA.

Effectiveness of consultation processes
When evaluating the effectiveness of consultation processes, the team might consider the generalabsence of discrimination against any individuals and/or organisations from any known consultations.
However, the team needs to support any such conclusions with valid information collected by rigorousand robust means.
Effective consultation processes within the management system should be appropriate to the scale,intensity, and cultural context of the UoA. This could include, but is not limited to, consultation at thelevel of broad policy development and at the level of research planning.
In multinational arrangements, there should be adequate consultation at the UoA’s national andinternational level. Thus, for consultation requirements the team should assess:•

The management authority, such as the coastal state or the flag state, dealing with the UoA
directly.

•

The international organisation, where such exists.

The team is not required to score elements against this PI for:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 97© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Other non-UoA states that are members of the international organisation.

•

Members of a bilateral/multilateral arrangement.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
In some traditionally managed UoAs or in UoAs under self-governance, specific roles andresponsibilities may not always be clearly articulated or immediately apparent. A range of entities, ad
hoc committees, and other groups with a variety of labels, including NGOs, may have responsibility
for different fishery management roles. The arrangements may not be formally codified but may be
widely understood across the UoA.
The team may need to work with stakeholders to prepare simple governance, institutional, or systemmaps to verify the extent to which roles and responsibilities are defined across the management
system.
In the absence of a documented consultation procedure, the team could demonstrate evidence toverify the extent and transparency of consultation processes by alternative means including:•Identifying the existence, content, and relative frequency of invitation letters to meetings.

•

Consideration of activities of the UoA’s extension officers.

•

The use of local announcements.

•

The use of posters.

•

The extent of awareness of fishers about meeting agendas, meeting content and outcomes.

The CAB may need to interview fishers about selected case studies to determine how informationcollected from stakeholders has been used in the past.
If the team demonstrates that valid and rigorous methods were used, the team may consider
information from such interviews as representative of how the information collected from stakeholders
is generally used. Conducting interviews with different stakeholders and cross-checking theinformation is one way of validating the results.

Scoring issue (b) – Consultation processes ▲The intent of scoring issue (b) is that:•

The management system is open to stakeholders.

•Information viewed as important by those parties can be fed into and considered by the process ina way that is transparent to the interested stakeholders.

When determining that a process “regularly” seeks and accepts information, the team should use its
expert judgement to determine what frequency of review is appropriate. It is not necessary that thedefinition of the term “regularly” is the same in all contexts throughout the MSC Fisheries Standard, asdifferent frequencies of review may be appropriate in different contexts.

GSA4.4.1

Transparency ▲Meeting SG100 may not necessarily require additional reporting beyond what may already occur in a
fishery management system. Examples include:•

Regular newsletters, broadcasts, or reports that go out to stakeholders.

•Information pages published and distributed.

•

A public record of the minutes of meetings, including use of email or other e-technologies.

•

Report-back meetings or other such means of reporting when stakeholders do not have access orability to read reports, do not watch broadcasts, or do not use computers.

The team should verify that the evidence offered:
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 98© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Meets the standard of demonstrating consideration of the information, hence is transparent.

•

Explains how the information was or was not used.

A UoA cannot meet SG100 without being transparent on how provided information is or is not used.

GSA4.4.5

Local knowledge ▲“Local knowledge”:•

May be long-term knowledge held by many fishers or the community.

•

May be location-based, so local to a particular geographical area.

•

May have social, economic, or ecological dimensions.

•

Will reflect the knowledge and opinions about issues held by individuals and groups local torelevant UoAs.

“Local knowledge” can be valuable first-hand experience that might inform any fisheries management
process, including:•Fisheries research.

•

Data collection.

•

Resource assessment.

•

Monitoring, control, and surveillance operations.

•

Policies and processes.

•

Fisheries management policies, practices, and/or decisions.

Evaluation of the relative value and robustness of local knowledge in the management process may
form part of the process of being transparent about how information is considered and used or not
used under SG80 and SG100.
Individuals or groups as referred to in SA4.4.5 could include, but not be limited to:•

Fishers.

•

Indigenous people.

•

Local community representatives or groups.

•

Local civil society groups, such as local NGOs.

•

Local fishing businesses and/or their representatives.

•

Local-government representatives.

•

Politicians.

GSA4.5Long-term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3) ▲Background
Where UoAs fall under dual control, the objectives of the management agency controlling those UoAs
are the subject of PI 3.1.3. Examples of UoAs under dual control include:•

Internationally managed UoAs where management falls to both a national agency and abilateral/multilateral agreement or organisation.

•Federally managed UoAs that have some provincial or state management component.

This PI deals only with the broader management policy context, which could exist within overarchinglegislation, or policy or custom that applies to many or all UoAs within a broader management system.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 99© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Consideration should focus on whether laws, policies, practices, or customs at that higher level imply
and/or require long-term objectives that are consistent with the precautionary approach.

Scoring issue (a) – Objectives assessing informal approaches in PI 3.1.3 ▲The CAB could infer consistency with scoring issue (a) by the practices operating within the UoAs
covered by the management system.
The CAB could use the following to evaluate the UoA’s performance against this scoring issue:•

A review of the factors that have influenced recent decisions in the UoA.

•

Knowledge of the extent to which such factors are consistent with achieving sustainability.

•

The application of the precautionary approach.

The team should consider whether decisions have been taken:•

On the basis of the ecological health of the UoA and associated ecosystems, or•

For other reasons that are not compatible with achieving sustainability over the long term.

When scoring this PI, the team should focus on the consistency of any long-term objectives withinoverarching management policy. The team should expect the UoA to be cautious when information is
uncertain, and to take action even when information is inadequate.
This PI is important to the overall understanding of the use or otherwise of a precautionary approachin the UoA. However, it is not concerned with the operational implementation of the precautionary
approach within the “day-to-day” management of the UoA itself.
This PI is not:•A second opportunity to score UoAs on the use of target and LRPs, which are scored under P1 ofthe default tree.

•

A second opportunity to refer the team to Article 6, Annex II of the Fish Stocks Agreement for aprescriptive list of what is required to appear in management policy in relation to the precautionary
approach.

•

A direction to rescore management strategies or outcomes covered both in P1 and P2, ordecision-making processes covered in a separate PI under P3, where precaution and theprecautionary approach are also mentioned.

GSA4.7

Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1)

Scoring issue (a) – objectives assessing informal and traditional approaches ▲In some traditionally managed fisheries, or fisheries under self-governance, objectives may notalways be stated quantitatively or be expressed in a way that is specific to the particular species or
fishery. Objectives may specify social and/or economic objectives. In some fisheries, objectives may
be defined in terms of addressing further declines, rather than specifically maintaining optimum yields
or biomass levels.
The team can determine compliance of the fishery with MSC requirements by considering how wellthese variously formulated objectives align with achieving sustainability as per Principles 1 and 2.
Objectives that are defined to meet social needs may in some cases be consistent with achieving
sustainability as articulated in Principles 1 and 2. However, to be consistent with achieving
sustainability, such objectives should not be designed to meet social needs at the expense of
ecological considerations. The team should determine whether the fishery is subject to considerations
that may lead the emphasis on social or economic objectives to pose potential risks to achieving theoutcomes required by Principles 1 and 2.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 100© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSA4.7.2

Measurable objectives ▲ExampleAn example of an explicit “measurable” objective is “the impact on dependent predators will be
reduced by x% over y years”.

GSA4.8

Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2)

Scoring issue (a) – decision making processes ▲The CAB should interpret “established” decision-making processes to mean that:•

There is a process that can be immediately triggered for fisheries-related issues.

•

The process has been triggered in the past and has led to decisions about sustainability in thefishery.

These processes may or may not be formally documented or codified under an official statute.
Key considerations for assessing whether the system is well established or not include:•

The extent to which the system is recognised by stakeholders in the fishery.

•

The durability or permanency of the decision-making process.

The team may need to use semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders to obtain
information about how any decision-making process works. The team may need to select a casestudy event and determine from interviews whether and how decisions were made in response to theevent. Appropriate case study events include:•

A stock decline in the past.

•A specific observation across the fishery.

•

Other ecological change.

As with general requirements relating to the use of semi-structured interviews, the team should
provide evidence of a means of cross-checking views and validating conclusions and scores.

Scoring issue (b) – responsiveness of decision-making processes ▲The team should consider all constituents and operational levels of the fishery-specific management
system when assessing the responsiveness of decision-making. Where relevant, the team should
ensure that the assessment of this scoring issue:•

Recognises decision-making at the level most relevant to the UoA.

•

Is not unduly determined by decision-making in other constituents or levels of the fishery-specificmanagement system.

For example, the nature and severity of issues arising at different levels of a management system
may vary, as might the responsiveness of decision-makers to those issues. In a co-management
situation, decision-makers may need to respond to issues not directly relevant to the management of
the UoA.
Similarly, in a network of local management bodies, decision-making processes in one part of the
network may be materially different to those in the UoA, despite both bodies being part of the same
fishery-specific management system.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 101© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring issue (d) – accountability and transparency ▲The CAB should interpret “accountability” to mean that:•Management is answerable to stakeholders on management of the fisheries.

•

The answerability of management is demonstrated by the provision of information on the fishery
to stakeholders.

The data that are required to be available to stakeholders exclude data or information that are subject
to national privacy and data protection regulation and laws associated with the fishery.
When considering public access to information on fisheries’ performance and data, the team could
consider:•The extent to which accurate and up-to-date data available to management are reported to the
public or at least accessible on request to stakeholders.

•

The resolution of the available data.

•

Whether the data and information available are appropriate to the type and nature and of thefishery.

•

Whether the data and information available are of sufficient clarity to ensure meaningful
engagement of stakeholders in the decision-making process.

The availability of information to stakeholders on actions taken by management that have implications
for sustainable use of fisheries resource could include:•

Availability of information, or at least non-confidentiality of information, on subsidies that may beconsidered to have implications for sustainability.

•

Availability of information, or at least non-confidentiality of information, on who, for example
licence holders, has access to the resource.

•

Availability of information on infractions against fishery regulation and consequent penalties
and/or fines.

•

Availability of information on outcomes and impact of management decision where suchinformation is available.

Scoring issue (e) – Approach to disputes ▲When assessing the importance of any evidence relating to this issue, the team should consider
whether any violations of the same law or regulations compromise the ability of the management
system to deliver sustainable fisheries as per the outcomes in P1 and P2.
When assessing fisheries against this issue, the team may consider the extent to which there may beother or higher authorities to whom fishers or other stakeholders may appeal if they are dissatisfied
with fishery rules or their implementation in the fishery by local managers.
If any such appeals have been made, the team should consider and score the responsiveness orotherwise of local managers or leaders.
The team may use semi-structured interviews to determine the extent to which stakeholders believethat local managers or leaders respect any judgements or decisions made by any higher or otherauthority.
The team can use the interviews to determine the extent to which:•Managers implement their own rules.

•

Stakeholders believe the management system is sufficiently proactive to avoid disputes.

The team may consider collective, participative, and publicly accountable involvement in managementof the fishery by a broad spectrum of local stakeholders of the fishery as potential evidence of thepresence of proactive avoidance of legal disputes. The team may use supporting evidence from

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 102© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

multiple and cross-checked, semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders representing
different interests within the community.

GSA4.9Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ▲Background
This requirement extends to compliance with management measures associated with MPAs andhabitats, as well as other spatial management approaches. The team should judge compliance on theformal requirements of an MPA’s management system relating to fishing activity, including any
requirements for research and impact assessment, rather than with an MPA’s objectives, which areunsupported by specific PIs (see GSA3.12 for discussion of habitat management strategies).
Box GSA9: MPAs and other spatial management approaches
MPAs and other spatial management approaches are potentially valuable management tools. In
this context, the term “MPAs” refers to the full range of MPA categories defined by the IUCN, fromstrict nature reserves to protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources, and “otherspatial management” including requirements that are part of fishery management arrangements orplans.
An MPA may or may not contribute to the delivery of a sustainable fishery and there is no explicit
requirement to have MPAs or other spatial management approaches in place for fisheries to meet
the MSC standard. However, the MSC does require that the effectiveness of the management
system, to which an MPA or other approach may contribute, is sufficient to achieve:•

The sustainability of fish and other species.

•

Ecosystem impacts.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
When evaluating the effectiveness of MCS in fisheries where a less-formalised MCS system exists,
the team may consider the role and effectiveness of a range of factors in deterring illegal activity.
These factors may include the following:•

Social disapproval, such as public “naming and shaming”, for violating fishery customs, rules, or
regulations important for sustainability.

•

Fines and penalties imposed by community institutions or other local bodies.

•

Prevailing norms.

•

Self-monitoring.

•

Presence of community fish watchers or wardens.

•

Accessibility to the resource.

•

Ability to smuggle catches onshore without detection.

•

Mobility and homogeneity of the members of the fishery.

•Exclusivity of access and market-related factors such as value, demand, or preferences (forexample, regarding size).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 103© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Scoring issue (a) – Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance system ▲An MCS system (SG80) is a suite of well-integrated mechanisms and tools that work together toimprove compliance with regulations. An MCS system should cover all 3 dimensions of routine fishing
operations99 (as listed below), and include reporting requirements and physical inspections:•

Prior to fishing (e.g. valid documentation, training and vessel set-up).

•

During fishing.

•

During landing of catch.

At SG100, a comprehensive MCS system is as described for SG80 and SA4.9.3, but should also be
risk-based, adaptable, and able to respond to issues in a timely and transparent manner. It should
include a process for compliance data acquisition and analysis and, where appropriate to the fishery,should include physical inspections both onshore and at-sea.

Scoring issue (b) – sanctions ▲At SG80 and SG100, the severity of sanctions and their likelihood to deter non-compliance should beappropriate and adequate to the UoA, such that they provide deterrence.
At SG100, comprehensive sanctions are those that can respond to a wide range of infringements, invarious ways, in order to ensure effective deterrence. For example, the sanctions may be graduated(i.e. consist of a series of structured incremental sanctions of increasing severity) or multifaceted.

Scoring issue (d) – compliance outcome ▲If a UoA has few non-compliance issues and infringements, it may be difficult to demonstrate effective
enforcement of management measures. This scenario may not indicate highly effective MCS. Instead,
it may imply that MCS is ineffective, and infringements are not being detected or recorded. In
contrast, a high number of infringements within a UoA may imply an effective and transparent MCS
system. The team should therefore use expert judgement when evaluating information frommanagement authorities.
The team should consider regulations specific to governing sustainable fishing practices on the water
as those associated with the ‘how, what, where, and when’ of fishing activities. They may include (butnot be restricted to):•Regulations associated with gear restrictions.

•

Catch reporting, quota limits.

•Landing obligations.

•

By-catch.

•

Spatial and temporal restrictions.

These regulations are important in achieving and maintaining sustainable fisheries and should
therefore be considered at all jurisdictional levels.
The team should interpret “systematic non-compliance” as recurring infringement of regulations in a
coherent and coordinated manner. For example, if large number of fishers in the UoA are notcomplying with regulation(s) on a regular basis, the team should regard this as systematic noncompliance. Ad hoc infringements by individual fishers should not constitute systematic non-

99 FAO (2002) Chapter 8: Fishery monitoring, control and surveillance (Bergh, P.E. and Davies, S.). In A Fishery

Manager’s Guidebook – Management Measures and their Application (ed. Cochrane, K.L.). Fisheries Technicalpaper 424. Rome, Italy. 231pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 104© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

compliance. Systematic non-compliance demonstrates that the MCS enforcement mechanisms andsanctions in place are not effective in preventing frequent re-offence by the UoA. When assessing
scoring issue (d), systematic non-compliance is specific to those regulations governing sustainablefishing practices on the water.
At SG80 and SG100, “majority of regulations” is not restricted to regulations specifically governing
sustainable fishing practices on the water (i.e. as defined at SG60). Instead, it should include
regulations associated with the 3 dimensions of routine fishing operations outlined in ‘Scoring issue(a) – Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance system’ above.

GSA4.10

Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI 3.2.4) ▲Fishery-specific management system
In both scoring issues and in each SG under this PI, relevant parts of the fishery-specificmanagement system may include:•

A decision-making process that responds to both wider management issues of stock-wide and/or
specific local stakeholder concerns.

•

Data collection.

•

Scientific research.

•

MCS: Compliance and enforcement PI 3.2.3.

•

Collaborating in and initiating a fishery-specific or national research plan.

•

Responding to feedback and response.

•

Monitoring systems as required by the management strategy and information PIs in P1 and P2.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
When assessing this PI, the team should consider:•

Whether there are opportunities and/or forums for decision-makers to receive feedback on the
management system.

•

Other practices such as exchange of information between the community and the management
institution.

•

The regularity of such opportunities.

Where community organisations are operational, these monitoring systems can be self-determined.
However, they require the support of an external evaluation from a higher authority, and evidence thatspecific checks may be made. The external authority might include provincial or national government
agency, university, NGO, or donor.
To verify activities, the team should ensure compliance with the following indicators:•

An effective organisational structure to implement decisions and corrective actions.

•

Evidence that policies are formulated, initiated, and monitored.

•

Where relevant, activities take account of community and scientific advice, which may include
consideration of supporting risk assessments conducted by a scientific organisation or university.

•

Evidence of an effective system of custodial management and self-determined fisheries control
systems.

The team should not limit the review process to a sub-management or community organisation. It may
be that national or provincial government departments delegate specific duties to sub-management
organisations, where key parts of the management system require stock-wide management, beyond
community level. In such cases, the team review should take into account:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 105© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Higher authorities and their performance in ensuring management against national andinternational measures.

•

Whether the correct tools are in place to ensure that appropriate decisions at the national levelare passed down to the sub-management and community organisations.

GSA4.10.1

External review ▲Depending on the scale and intensity of the fishery, external review could be by:•Another department within an agency.

•

Another agency or organisation within the country.

•

A government audit that is external to the fisheries management agency.

•

A peer organisation, nationally or internationally.

•

External expert reviewers.
End of Section SA GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 106© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section GSB

Modifications to the default tree for enhanced
bivalves – guidance ▲Foreword to Section GSB
Section GSB is intended to provide supplemental guidance and interpretation when applying:•

The default assessment tree (Sections SA, GSA).

•

The modifications to the default assessment tree (Section SB) for assessing enhanced bivalve
fisheries.

The numbering of sections in this Section corresponds to the equivalent sections in Section SB.

GSB2 Principle 1
GSB2.1

General requirements for Principle 1 ▲Because bivalve culture cannot lead to exploitation rates that approach LRPs, it is not managed assuch. Scoring enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries for P1 stock status is therefore not usually appropriate.
However, the team should still determine that there is no threat to the target species. Once this has
been determined, the team should confirm there is no need to:•

Score P1.

•

Have a P1 expert on the team.

GSB2.1.3

Translocation ▲Translocations of marine shellfish have the potential to affect the genetic integrity of wild populations,depending on the scale of the translocation. The team should:•

Examine each situation.

•

Provide rationale and evidence explaining the level of risk if it exists.

The team can achieve this by scoring the genetic outcome PI.

GSB2.1.5

Scoring Principle 1 PIs ▲To ensure that the exploitation of the source seed resource is properly managed, the team should
score enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries involving translocations that remove seed stock from source
locations against the following PIs:•

Stock status.

•

Harvest strategy/control rules, and tools PIs.

Because it is problematic to assess stock size in relation to biomass or fishing mortality, the team may
use the RBF (MSC Fisheries Standard Toolbox Tool A).
In addition to genetic impacts, moving shellfish from one geographic area to another can introduce
disease and/or pests, which affect the parent stock and other species within the ecosystem. For CAG
fisheries that involve translocation, the assessment team should examine each situation and provide
rationale and evidence explaining the level of risk if it exists. The team can achieve this by scoring thetranslocation PIs within Principle 2.
Note that management bodies may define shellfish translocations based on movement of shellfish
between/among areas where harvest is permittable or not (e.g. between areas with differences inwater quality, or risk of pest or disease). As such, when determining risk from translocations inscoring, the team should consider any management measures in place, including efforts to address
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 107© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

potential disease and/or pest concerns to the species and geographic region where the individuals
are out-planted. Examples of practices for managing disease and/or pest impacts from CAG
enhancement include:•

Guidance on identification of pest and disease species.

•

Detailed information on the current location and extent of pest and disease species.

•

Quarantine and control measures.

•

Licensing and permitting, whether that be for facilities, location(s), and/or translocation activities.

GSB2.3

Genetic management PI (PI 1.2.5)

Scoring issue (b) – plausible argument ▲Examples of plausible argument used in scoring issue (b) may include general experience, theory, or
comparisons with similar fisheries or species.

GSB3

Principle 2

GSB3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

GSB3.1.2 ▲There are normally no in-scope species captured in enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries based solely on
spat collection. Therefore, the team does not need to score PIs for in-scope species. However, forfisheries where dredging may involve the capture of in-scope species, the team is required to scorethe in-scope PIs as per Section SA.
There is a potential for enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries to interact with ETP/OOS species.

GSB3.1.4.2 ▲For suspended culture systems, when scoring Principle 2 habitat PIs, the team should focus on thebenthic impacts of bio-deposition and organic enrichment.
When scoring ecosystem PIs, the team should focus on issues relating to:•Carrying capacity.

•

The trophic effects of bivalve filtration/feeding.

Shellfish farming may occur where the natural benthic environment is already heavily enriched withorganic matter prior to the initiation of any culture activities. In such cases, the team can compare
measurements taken underneath farms to measurements taken in control sites outside the farm toshow that the culture activity is not directly responsible for the anoxic conditions.
The team could apply the sulphide (S2-) methodology in justifying its scores for habitat status:•

For SG60, the team is required to justify that the fishery is “unlikely” to reduce habitat structureand function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This could correspondto levels of total S2- in surficial sediment beneath farms of ≤ 3,000µM.

•

For SG80, the team is required to justify that the fishery is “highly unlikely” to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This could
correspond to levels of total S2- in surficial sediment beneath farms of ≤ 1,500µM.

•

For SG100, the team is required to justify that there is evidence that the fishery is “highly
unlikely” to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm. This could correspond to negligible levels of total S2- in surficial sediment
beneath farms, such as would be found at background levels for that environment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 108© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Phytoplankton depletion/ecological carrying capacity
Methods for determining the impact of suspended bivalve farming operations on phytoplankton
depletion range from simple clearance- and retention-time calculations to expensive and complex
computer modelling of ecological carrying capacity of affected water bodies. While it can be difficult toaccount for all the variables involved in coastal ecological processes, the team can use simple
calculations to determine whether or not production is “likely” to be sustainable.
The main threat associated with the translocation of shellfish is the introduction of diseases, pests, orinvasive species. It is important that the team assesses these risks through established protocol thatis validated through independent scientific review. For general guidance on translocation, see GFCP
G7.7.1.2.b.
The removal of seed from an area either through dredging or spat collection may have P2 impacts.

GSB3.2

Translocation outcome PI (PI 2.5.1)

Scoring issue (a) – non-native species ▲In scoring issue (a), the team should interpret “non-native species” to mean a species not alreadyestablished in the ecosystem.

GSB3.3

Translocation management PI (PI 2.5.2)

Scoring issue (b) – plausible argument ▲Examples of plausible argument used in scoring issue (b) may include general experience, theory, or
comparison with similar fisheries or species.

GSB4 Principle 3
GSB4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ▲In cases where P1 is not scored, when scoring P3, the team should focus only on the relevant
management systems applicable to maintaining P2 outcomes.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 109© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Table GSB1: Summary of scoring required for different types of enhanced bivalve fisheries
Fishery typeOn ropes/collectors

3

CAG

On ropes/collectors

4

CAG

By
dredging

5

CAG

By
dredging

✓

✓

✓

✓
(RBF)

✓

In-scope species
(P2)

CAG

✓

Translocation PIs(P2 impacts)

2

Genetic
management &information (P1)

Hatchery
produced

Genetic outcome
(P1)

HAC

Principle 1

Spat/Seed collection
type

1

Translocation
occurring

Enhancement type

Scoring required for:

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
(RBF)

✓

✓

✓

End of Section SB GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 110© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section GSC

Modifications to the default assessment tree forsalmon fisheries

Foreword to Section GSC ▲Section GSC provides guidance and interpretation in applying:•

The default assessment tree (Section SA).

•The modifications for salmon fisheries (Section SC), based on the above considerations.

The team should not deviate from this guidance without justification.
Salmon fisheries with an enhancement component are required to conform to the scope criteria in
Table 1 of the Standard.
The CAB should interpret “enhancement” as any activity aimed at:•

Supplementing the survival and growth of 1 or more aquatic organisms, or•Raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the salmon populations
beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes.

GSC1 General requirements
GSC1.1.1 ▲For the purposes of salmon assessments, the team should consider Section GSC guidance as taking
precedence over Section GSA. Where no guidance is provided, the team should use Section GSA.

GSC1.1.3 ▲Examples of stock management units (SMUs) and populations are shown in Table GSC1.
Table GSC1: Terms and definitions
Term

Guidance to definitions in Annex SC

Population

Examples of populations, 1 or more of which would normally comprise a single SMU,
include:• Conservation Units (CUs) under Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon
Policy (WSP).
•

StockManagement
Unit

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)’s application of the US Endangered Species Act for salmon.

In practice, an SMU may:
• Comprise an array of wild production components, such as populations of Prince
William Sound pink salmon (Figure GSC1 scenario A).
•

Represent a collection of populations such as early summer, summer, or late Fraser
River sockeye.

In some situations, a population may be larger and more widely distributed than thelocalised management units, such as terminal chum fisheries in British Columbia (Figure
GSC1 scenario B). In this situation, the team may treat these component SMUs as 1 SMU

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 111© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Term

Guidance to definitions in Annex SC
for assessment purposes as long as the impacts of fishing on the population and thecomponent SMUs are similar.
Reference points are set for and evaluated at the SMU level, taking into account specificthresholds or other constraints that apply to 1 or more component populations of that
SMU.

Figure GSC1: 2 potential scenarios illustrating the relationship between populations and SMUs

GSC2 Principle 1
GSC2.1 General requirements for Principle 1
GSC2.1.1 ▲In P1, the complexity of salmon population dynamics requires that the team should consider thesustainable management of salmon at 2 levels100:•

Level 1: the level of the SMU. The objective of management should be to:oEnsure that spawner abundance in the SMU is maintained at a level consistent with highproduction; for example, for a target such as spawner abundance at maximum sustainable
yield (SMSY), or a proxy that reflects equal or lower risks to 1 or more populations.

100 Portley, N., and Geiger, H.J. (2014) Stock management units and limit reference points in salmon

fisheries: Best practice review and recommendations to the MSC. Marine Stewardship Council Science
Series 2: 89–115.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 112© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Level 2: the level of the populations within an SMU. The objective of management should beto:oEnsure that the diversity and productivity of these populations are maintained at levels that
ensure a high probability of persistence over time.

oEnable them to rebuild to high production in time in the absence of fishing.

GSC2.2 Stock status PI (PI 1.1.1) ▲In PI 1.1.1, the team should assess the status of an SMU in relation to reference points.
The definition of the SMU, establishment of its reference points, and design of its related
management strategy should:•

Take into consideration the need to manage populations within the SMU to reflect the different
productivities and other features of those populations.

•

Follow the guidance for PIs 1.2.1 to 1.2.4 as appropriate.

Scoring issue (b) – TRPs ▲Examples of TRPs include target escapement goals and target harvest rates.

GSC2.2.1 ▲Escapement-based reference points generally refer to spawner abundance only in assessments ofcurrent status relative to LRPs and TRPs. The team may, where other reference points are used,refer to GSA2.2.3. Example of other reference points include:•

Target harvest rate.

•

Fishing mortality.

•

Other proxies.

GSC2.2.2 ▲The team should evaluate whether achievement of spawning goals is solely for wild, natural-origin
salmon, after excluding:•

Hatchery fish.

•

The contribution from spawning channels.

•

Removal of fish for hatchery broodstock.

GSC2.2.2.1–2 ▲The team should consider the following factors in estimating escapement of only wild fish:•

Relative abundance of artificially produced versus wild salmon.

•

Presence and enumeration of artificially produced fish in the salmon fishery and on the wild
spawning grounds.

•

The management system’s intent as to how artificially produced fish are accounted for inmeeting reference points.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 113© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSC2.2.3 ▲Scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon fisheries can be complex. Where the following situations arise, thefollowing guidance applies:•

If there are no LRPs defined by management, as is often the case with salmon fisheries, the teamshould refer to GSC2.7.

•

If 15 years of data are not available, the team should apply equivalent percentages to thetimeframe that is available.

•

If the TRP is expressed as a range, with an upper and a lower bound:o

The SMU should have met or exceeded the mid-point of the escapement goal range, and/oro

The team should look for evidence that directed fishing is lowered as the lower bound isapproached.

•

The threshold levels in SC2.2.3.1 and SC2.2.3.3 assume an approximately random distribution of
performance over the 15-year period. Where this is not the case, and there is instead a consistent
trend downwards such that most of the failures to reach the escapement goals were in the mostrecent years, then SG80 is not met.

•

The team may consider each cycle line separately in the case of:oSpecies or stocks that display cyclic dominance, such as pink salmon where separate stock
dynamics pertain to alternate years, oroFraser sockeye where each cycle line spawns only every 4th year.

For example, the team may assess pink salmon even-year and odd-year populations separately.
Consideration of environmental variability and its impact on stock status is covered in SA2.2.7.

GSC2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ▲The requirements for rebuilding salmon SMUs differ from those for other species in the following
ways:•

The complex structure of salmon stocks requires rebuilding strategies to account for specificpopulations that may have lower productivities than the SMU average. One example is effective
differential harvest protection through proven time and area strategies to minimise harvest
impacts on low-abundance or less-productive populations.

•

Reduced stock status may be caused by:•o

The fishery, in which case the rebuilding strategy is the responsibility of the fishery
management agency.

oOther human intervention such as habitat degradation or environmental change.

If reduced stock status is caused by human intervention and the impact is out of the management
control of the fishery, the fishery response should take into account the multipurpose nature of theuse patterns in those waterways. For example, the fishery management agency should adjust
management goals either up or down to be appropriate to the new productivity of the system.

Scoring issue (c) – use of enhancement in stock rebuilding ▲In scoring issue (c), use of enhancement in stock rebuilding, the team should consider the following:•

Routine use of artificial production to meet escapement goals as a rebuilding strategy, andtherefore mitigate “overfishing” and maintain harvest rates that are not sustainable, would
generally not meet SG60.

•

Habitat modification may be used occasionally to assist rebuilding.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 114© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Given that the focus of the MSC assessment is on wild stocks, there should be only limited andtemporary use of such methods to rebuild wild stocks, consistent with MSC guidance on scope criteria
for enhanced fisheries.
Under exceptional circumstances, use of hatchery production as a rebuilding strategy could betargeted at a specific population within an SMU that is severely depleted and has not responded toother significant management action. In the extreme case, this would include recovery hatchery
programs (see GSC2.9) designed to prevent the extirpation of severely depleted populations. It is
important that any population where artificial production is used as part of the rebuilding strategy isneither targeted by the fishery nor exposed to non-targeted harvesting that substantially hinders
rebuilding attempts.
When an artificial production strategy is used, the team should consider it an interim strategy of short,finite duration in order to address immediate demographic risks to the population.
In such a case the team should:•

Assess the circumstances driving the program.

•

Verify that the program has been carefully designed to contribute to the long-term viability of thedepleted wild population.

Under these types of program, addressing demographic risks often results in unintentional
interactions between cultured and wild fish that will exceed any routine interaction benchmarks.
The rebuilding plan should:•

Justify the need for enhancement tools, if used.

•

Evaluate the potential risk involved.

•

Define the time-bound duration for supplementation.

•

Include monitoring and evaluation of the supplementation effort to assess the natural population
response in productivity, abundance, life history, and genetic diversity.

This is in compliance with the scope criteria for HAC fisheries as defined in SA1.

GSC2.3.1 ▲In the default tree, PI 1.1.2 is triggered for any score below 80 in PI 1.1.1. However, salmon fisheries
may score below 80 in PI 1.1.1 due to:•

Reduced abundance,•

A failure to enumerate hatchery origin fish in spawning escapements, or•A combination of the above.

PI 1.1.2 is only triggered when PI 1.1.1 scores below 80 due to a reduced stock status.
PI 1.1.2 is not triggered if the sub-80 score is due solely to a failure to enumerate artificially produced
fish on the spawning grounds. In this case, the team should add a condition in PI 1.3.3.

GSC2.3.2 ▲The team should have a clear expectation of component population rebuilding except under welldocumented exceptional circumstances. None should remain chronically depressed relative to their
biologically based limits or population-specific reference points, if estimated.
Evidence to verify that no fisheries are targeting or otherwise excessively harvesting populations thatare below their LRP during the rebuilding period would include the use of specific and effective
management strategies, to differentially avoid interception of those SMUs and depleted populations
during fishing. The rebuilding timeframes for individual populations may exceed those for the SMU.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 115© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSC2.4

Harvest Strategy PI (PI 1.1.1)

GSC2.4.1 ▲Activities that demonstrate fisheries managers’ attempts to minimise harvest on weak populations
include:•Fisheries are managed to meet objectives at the SMU scale, but population-level units are also
defined for conservation and research purposes.

•

Population-specific reference points are established, and stock status against those benchmarks
is monitored when stock status problems are perceptible at the SMU level.

•

When faced with stock-status problems, provisions linking population status with management of
SMUs are enacted. Generally, population-specific reference points have not replaced SMU
reference points; however, the team can adapt HCRs to account for component population status.

•

Differential harvest; for example, altering the time, location, or effort of the fishery.

GSC2.4.2 ▲Proven management strategies designed to control exploitation rates on wild stocks include:•

Differential harvest of artificially produced fish at higher rates than wild fish.

•

Ensuring wild harvest rates are consistent with meeting SMU TRPs (escapement goals) for wild
fish. This would include fish produced from spawning channels, which even if not marked, could
be subject to time and area management strategies to achieve differential harvest rates.

GSC2.5

HCRs and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ▲As a result of the stock structure of salmon, there will likely be a distribution of impacts acrosspopulations.
The team should consider this in terms of:•

The population’s natural productivity.

•

The differential harvesting from each population.

This may vary over time as a result of changes in natural processes, fishery activities, or fishery
management.

GSC2.5.2 ▲It may not be possible to distinguish component populations while the fishery is operating or to
regulate catches of specific populations. If so, the team should evaluate whether fishery managers
attempt to use differential harvest and selection pressure on fish with different life-history traits, suchas return timing and size/age at return, which may vary among component populations, in order tominimise impact on any one life history.
Further considerations may include:•

Demonstrated understanding that underlying component population structure exists and needs tobe conserved within the SMU.

•

The range in productivity levels of different component populations.

•

Expected variability in environmental conditions that could differentially affect population capacityand productivity.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 116© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Expected variability in meeting SMU goals because of natural variation in catchability of fish, noncompliance with regulations by fishing vessels, and management error.

GSC2.6

Information and monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) ▲In this PI, the team should consider whether the information collected supports the harvest strategy at
the SMU level while also maintaining individual component populations.

Scoring issue (a) – comprehensive range of information ▲“Comprehensive range” of information in SG100 can include information on:•

SMU structure.

•

SMU production.

•

Fleet composition.

•

SMU abundance.

•

UoA removals.

•

Estimates of the impacts of fishery harvest on the SMU and the majority of wild component
populations.

•

The environment.

GSC2.6.1 ▲Examples of “sufficient relevant information” (SG80) include:•

Evidence that the abundance of wild component populations has been maintained at levels andspatial distributions that show persistence of the populations, as described from aerial and otherindex survey counts of spawners.

•

Evidence that the management strategy has incorporated approaches that minimise fishery
impacts on weak wild populations, for example:•oTime/area closures to minimise harvests of weak populations, and/oroTargeting and achieving the upper end of the TRP escapement range for the SMU as ameans to maintain populations with lower productivity.

Explicit trade-off and risk analyses, such as that conducted for the Skeena River Independent
Science Review101, which considers how the current definition of SMU reference points andmanagement strategies, combined with possible variability in status and productivity of individual
stock components, affects the status of individual populations.

A “comprehensive range” (SG100) of information would include more rigorous analyses, for instancein addition to the above, stochastic simulations/risk analyses that also explicitly take into accountobservation error and uncertainty reflected by deviations between management targets and final endof-season outcomes. An example of such analyses is the HCR recently developed for Fraser River,

101 Walters, C.J., Lichatowich, J.A., Peterman, R.M. and Reynolds, J.D. (2008) Report of the Skeena

Independent Science Review Panel. A report to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and theBritish Columbia Ministry of the Environment.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 117© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

British Columbia sockeye salmon102. The study explores alternative HCR/guidelines that can respondto decreases in productivity.

GSC2.7

Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ▲When assessing stock status, the team should consider reference points. Reference points in salmon
fisheries often differ from those of wholly marine species.
While these reference points may not be expressed in terms of MSY or PRI, the intent should beconsistent with Box GSA3 in guidance for the default tree.

Scoring issue (b) – assessment approach ▲In this scoring issue, reference points in salmon fisheries may take several forms.
TRPs are required to be consistent with MSY, or a proxy that reflects equal or lower risks to one ormore component populations.
Examples of these are biological escapement goals (BEGs) or spawner abundance required toachieve MSY (SMSY). Where such quantitative reference points cannot be defined, the following
guidance allows for proxies provided they are consistent with maintaining high production:••

TRPs may be expressed as escapement goals, target harvest rates, or fishing mortality targets:o

The goals may take the form of BEGs, management escapement goals (MEGs), andsustainable escapement goals (SEGs), along with conservation unit benchmarks, etc.

o

The goals can be calculated using a variety of methods; for example, Ricker spawner recruit
analysis, yield analysis, spawning habitat capacity, or sustained yield analysis.

oTRPs may be single points or ranges.

oAny method of analysis is acceptable as long as the goal is maintaining high production or
achieving a high probability of maintaining a substantial population over the long term; forexample, a population that is > BMSY over the long term. See examples in Table GSC2.

LRPs are only sometimes explicitly defined in salmon fisheries and may take the form of minimum
stock size threshold, Sgen, or others as defined by management. See examples in Table GSC2.

Where an LRP is not defined, a default LRP should be an escapement of at least 50% of the S MSY
escapement goal, or some other proxy of high abundance as described in above 103.
For escapement goals expressed as ranges, the team should consider:•

Whether the range is quantitatively derived.

•

The logic by which the range was established.

The team should determine whether:•

The range will maintain the population around SMSY.

•

The default LRP is more appropriately defined as:o

50% of the lower bound of the range.

102 Pestal, G., Huang, A-M., Cass, A., and the Fraser River Sockeye Spawning Initiative (FRSSI) Working Group.

(2012) Updated methods for assessing harvest rules for Fraser River Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).
Research Document 2011/133, Pacific Region, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
103 Portley, N, and Geiger, H.J. (2014) Limit Reference Points for Pacific Salmon Fisheries, North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 34:2, 401–410, DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2014.882453.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 118© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0o

50% of the midpoint of the range.

Table GSC2 shows example target and LRPs for salmon fisheries in selected jurisdictions. This list is
not all-inclusive. The team may use other reference points if they are consistent with an annual
percent harvest rate that achieves MSY or SMSY.
Table GSC2: Example TRPs and LRPs for salmon fisheries in selected jurisdictions
Management
regionExisting TRPs

Existing LRPs

Suggested proxy limit
reference points when
LRPs are notestablished bymanagement

AlaskaAny of these 3 types of
escapement goal,
expressed in numbers offish, can potentially be
used based on the data
available and themethod:• Biologicalescapement goals.

Minimum stock size
thresholds for stocks
harvested by theSoutheast Alaska troll
fishery: 50% of theescapement goal’s
lower bound with the
exception of those
Chinook salmon
escapement goals thathave been reviewed
by the Pacific Salmon
Commission’s
Chinook TechnicalCommittee. For thesestocks, the minimum
threshold amounts to
50% of the midpoint
between theescapement goal
upper and lower
bounds.

50% of the escapement
goal SMSY point estimate.

Various escapement
goals, expressed in
numbers of fish, andspecific to particular
fisheries:• Management
escapement goals.

••

Sgen, if abenchmarking result
is available.

•

50% of theescapement goal
SMSY point estimate.

•Interim escapement
goals.

••

Minimum
escapement goals.

Total allowablemortality rule cutoffs for Fraser
River, B.C.
sockeye.

•Escapement goals.

••

Slim: 85% of theescapement that
produces MSY – for
Chinook.

Tyee test fisheryescapement cutoff for Skeena
River, B.C.
sockeye.

British Columbia

Russia•Sustainableescapement goals.

•

Optimalescapement goals.

Escapement goals,
generally expressed inDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Sgen, currently
integrated into the
HCRs for the
Barkley Sound,
B.C. fishery, andforeseen in otherfisheries.

None defined.

35–50% filled habitat
capacity.

Page 119© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Management
regionExisting TRPs

Existing LRPs

Suggested proxy limit
reference points when
LRPs are notestablished bymanagement

Minimum stock size
thresholds, generally
50% of escapement
goals, but with some
exceptions describedin Amendment 16 of
the West Coast
Salmon ManagementPlan.

50% of the escapement
goal SMSY point estimate.

terms of habitat
capacity: 70–100% filled
habitat capacity.
Pacific Northwest

Various escapement
goals expressed in
numbers of fish andspecific to particular
fisheries, including:• Escapement goals.
•

Upper management.

•

Thresholds.

Scoring issue (f) – stocks with lower productivity ▲At SG80 and SG100, stocks with lower productivity are those with a higher conservation risk.

Scoring issue (g) – definition of stock management units ▲In this scoring issue, the team should consider the following at SG60:•

Knowledge of the physical habitat, such as lakes and rivers, and the wild populations that inhabit
them.

•

A rationale for choosing those populations as the basis for an SMU, taking into account theobjective of maintaining diversity and productivity of component populations.

Additional information is expected at SG80, including:•Identification and description of wild populations.

•

Description of which wild populations have management goals.

•

Description of which wild populations are monitored.

•

Rationale for the choice of wild populations having goals and monitoring, based on theirrepresentativeness of the complete range of productivity and diversity amongst populations in the
SMU.

GSC2.7.1 ▲The team should assess the adequacy of SMU reference points for SMUs with higher numbers of
populations, which are characterised by substantial population diversity and varying productivities, ascompared to simpler and more homogeneous SMUs.
•

If the SMU is composed of a single population, the concepts of single-stock management apply,
and the reference points of the SMU should apply to the population.

•

If the SMU is composed of multiple populations, the team may define establishment of reference
points as an aggregate for the components. However, the team should verify that aggregate
reference points and management strategies for the SMU ensure that the wild production

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 120© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

components are maintained at a level that ensures a high probability of their persistence overtime.

GSC2.7.1.1 ▲For salmon fisheries that are influenced by artificial production, the team should:•

Base reference points only on natural-origin, wild fish.

•

When evaluating reference points, consider the potential for artificially produced fish to confoundevaluation.

•

Consider the relative abundance of artificially produced versus wild salmon (both presence andabundance of artificially produced fish in the fishery and on the spawning grounds).

The intent of management should be to maintain high production of the wild SMU and productivity ofcomponent populations to the extent that the natural environment will allow.

GSC2.7.2 ▲Within a watershed, geographic proximity and habitat type are predictors of correlations in abundanceof component populations104.
Therefore, indicator populations should:•

Be distributed geographically throughout the SMU.

•

Contain representative numbers of various spawning habitat types found within the watershed.

In assessing coherence and correlation, the CAB should interpret:•“Some evidence of coherence” at the SG80 level to be a mean pairwise correlation of at least
0.4.

•“Well correlated” at the SG100 level to be a mean pairwise correlation of at least 0.6 or by similarmeans that determine the same level of certainty.

GSC2.7.3 ▲A well-defined SMU is one that managers can influence directly through management actions andharvest controls, which implies an understanding of how changes to harvest patterns impact
escapement.
As an SMU is typically defined to aggregate populations for the purpose of defining a management
objective for practical fishery decision-making, inclusion of populations within an SMU should bebased on sharing, to some extent, similar characteristics such as:•

Run timing.

•

Common region of origin.

•

Genetic characteristics.

•

Coastal migration patterns (exposure to interception fisheries).

104 Stewart, I. J., Hilborn, R., and Quinn, T. P. (2003) Coherence of observed adult sockeye salmon abundance

within and among spawning habitats in the Kvichak River watershed. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 10:28–41.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 121© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Population productivities.

•

Exposure to environmental conditions that affect annual survival rates.

GSC2.7.3.1 ▲Enhancement increases the chance of overharvesting the less-abundant and/or less-productive
salmon stocks that migrate through fishing areas at the same time as the artificially produced fish.
The team should assess whether wild and artificially influenced components are clearly distinguished:•

In defining SMUs.

•

When evaluating their adequacy to support establishment of reference points and management
strategies.

In the special case of side-channel enhancement facilities, in order to estimate SMU status, it isimportant to identify the overall channel and wild stock contributions to catch and escapement. The
team can assess these contributions in a number of ways:•

Using run-reconstruction techniques; for example, back calculating relative contributions ofcomponent populations at various prior times and areas based on relative spawning escapement
abundances.

•

By periodic evaluation of juveniles produced from the channels in relation to the number of adults
spawning.

•

In some cases, depending on the population differences within a river system, by estimating thecontribution of spawning channel fish by use of genetic stock-identification techniques.

•

By considering how similar the channel environmental conditions are relative to the naturalenvironmental conditions; for example, by looking at flow, temperature, complexity, competitors,
and predators.

GSC2.8General requirements for enhancement PIs ▲Table GSC3: Enhancement terms and definitions
Term

Definition

Habitat enhancement

May take the form of spawning channels, lakefertilisation, predator removal, artificial gravel
beds, etc.

“Integrated” hatchery production

This is typically used for supplementation andrecovery-type programs.

Hatchery-origin fish contributing to the natural
spawning population (pHOS)

These fish may be strays or may be the result of
returns of hatchery fish that were intended.

“Segregated” hatchery production

This type is typically used for harvest
augmentation hatcheries.

GSC2.9Enhancement outcomes PI (PI 1.3.1) ▲Potential negative impacts may include:•

Outbreeding depression due to translocation of dissimilar brood stock into locally adapted
populations.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 122© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Inbreeding depression or loss of native genetic diversity due to directed or inadvertent hatcheryselection or domestication.

•

Excessive impact on wild fish for hatchery broodstock.

•

Reduced natural juvenile survival due to predation, competition, and other ecological interactions.

•

Increased natural adult pre-spawn mortality due to handling and migration delays resulting from
effects of weirs.

•

Changes in spawning distribution due to weir effects resulting in reduced reproductive success.

•Increased prevalence and impacts of disease.

•

Reduction in smolts per spawner due to increased density-dependent effects.

The risks of these impacts, including probabilities as well as magnitudes of various negative effects,
are a function of:•

Adult broodstock collection sources and their level of influence from natural populations.

•Hatchery mating, incubation, and rearing practices.

•

Juvenile release numbers, life stage at release, size, acclimation, and geographical distribution.

•

Straying of returning adults: hatchery fish to natural spawning grounds and natural-origin fishused for hatchery broodstock.

Scoring issue (a) – enhancement impacts ▲In scoring issue (a), the CAB may consider the following situations:••

In systems subject to low levels of artificial production, the comprehensiveness of the studies
required for the team to judge that outcomes are likely being met can be considerably less than incases with substantial artificial production programmes. Low-level systems of artificial production
will be characterised by the following, although this not an exhaustive list:o

The proportion of hatchery releases or production of juveniles from artificial habitat compared
to total artificially produced and wild production in a unit of certification is relatively small, <10%.

o

The management system has implemented measures and strategies that are known to beeffective at limiting the level and spatial extent of straying.

oUnique wild populations are unlikely to interact with hatchery fish spawning naturally.

Recovery hatchery programs are artificial production programs designed for the specificconservation purpose of preventing the extirpation of severely depressed populations. These are
generally subject to more stringent design characteristics and performance benchmarks thanother hatchery programs. The goal of a recovery hatchery is typically to increase the number ofnaturally spawning adults in the population. Consequently, the standard default assumptions (Box
GSC1 below) do not apply. Recovery hatchery programs:o

Are implemented only after targeted commercial fishing on the population has been
eliminated or severely restricted.

o

Are temporary.

o

Are intended to supplement depressed natural populations or provide fish for artificial
recolonisation of streams that have experienced local or brood-year extinctions, to maintaingenetic diversity within and among stocks, and to conserve valuable or rare genes andgenotypes.

oMay, or may not, rely on captive broodstock to accomplish these goals.

oAttempt to minimise or eliminate negative effects common to fish culture, resulting in as close
to wild fish as possible. Primary success criteria are:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 123© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

a. Increased abundance of spawners and/or outmigrants.
b. Increased abundance of natural origin spawners.
c. Maintained or increased long-term fitness: productivity and life history.
d. Lowered chance of extinction.
e. Recolonisation of a self-sustaining population.
f.
•

Brood-year reconstruction, while avoiding negative hatchery impacts as much as
possible.

Spawning channels differ from hatchery programs but the team should score them in a similarway.

In these systems, the entire natural reproduction life cycle occurs in a natural habitat, with the main
artificial production interventions being enhanced spawning gravel habitat and controlled channel
flows. Once fish enter the spawning channel, all reproduction processes, such as mate selection, reddbuilding, incubation, and any rearing, occur without human intervention.
Because the consequences of straying of adult returns would typically not present the same concerns
as hatcheries, the team should not assess the potential impacts of spawning channels according to
Box GSC1 if the channel:•

Is isolated from other spawning populations genetically dissimilar to the population beingenhanced in the spawning channel, or•

Exactly or very closely mimics the natural environment.

However, when assessing the likelihood that the spawning channel operation could be having asignificant impact on genetic and life-history diversity of wild populations, the team should consider
the size of the programme and similarity with nearby populations, based on expected straying
distances.

GSC2.9.1.1 ▲“Relevant studies” may include, but are not limited to:•Studies on the same species as the UoA.

•

Studies in the same or similar geographic area.

•

Studies in the same or similar habitat.

GSC2.9.1.2 ▲Box GSC1 presents default acceptable impact guidelines for artificial production.
The guidance in Box GSC1 establishes default criteria for evaluating whether the proportions of
pHOS and of wild populations/spawning areas being affected by artificial production are “likely” tohave significant negative impacts on wild stocks. If other system-specific benchmarks have been
adopted by the fishery management system, the team should evaluate their appropriateness indelivering similar levels of performance to those in Box GSC1.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 124© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Box GSC1 was developed from specific “best practice” considerations and science developed from
fitness modelling and empirical studies of yearling smolts released from riverine species such as
Chinook, coho, and steelhead hatcheries105.
Specific studies on chum and pink salmon are rare, but the Recovery Implementation Science
Team106 concluded that hatchery strategies that involve release of fish at earlier life stages probably
lead to smaller genetic changes than strategies that involve release of fish at later life stages. It may
therefore be reasonable to modify pHOS criteria for pink and chum salmon because their hatcheryrearing is the shortest. While the magnitude of relaxation will be situation-specific, the team should
provide rationale to support its decisions.
If the CAB considers additional evidence from species-specific studies to be more relevant to a
specific situation, it should provide justification for having adjusted the default impact guidelines.
Box GSC1: Default acceptable impact guidelines for artificial production
The intent of this guidance is to help ensure that the majority of genetic diversity and productive
capacity of the SMU is protected from the risks of enhancement activities in freshwater production
areas. The guidelines below are primarily derived from studies on Chinook, coho, sockeye, andsteelhead. The team may relax impact guidelines from these levels for pink and chum with
sufficient justification (see above).
For SG60•

Regardless of hatchery production strategy, pHOS at the level of the population should be
negligible (< 1%) in more than 50% of populations, and these populations should be
representative of the productivity and genetic diversity of populations within an SMU.

•

pHOS at the level of the SMU should be:o

No more than 10% for segregated hatchery programs. Individual population pHOS values
above 10% would be expected to occur only in areas in closer proximity to hatcheryfacilities, where values might be affected by smaller wild spawning populations that are notimportant potential contributors to the wild diversity or productive capacity of the SMU.

oNo more than 33% for integrated hatchery programs.

•

The level of enhancement in the remaining populations is unspecified at SG60.

For SG80
Further pHOS at the level of the SMU should be:•

For segregated hatchery programs:o•No more than 5%.

For integrated hatchery programs:oWhere the proportion of natural-origin, wild fish contributing to the hatchery broodstock(pNOB) is no more than 5%.

105 Ford, M.J. (2002) Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild.

Conservation Biology 16:815–825.
Grant, S.W. (ed). (1997) Genetic effects of straying of non-native fish hatchery fish into natural populations:proceedings of the workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30. (In particular, see‘Conclusions of Panel’, 140–157.
Paquet, P.J., Flagg, T., Appleby, A., Barr, J., Blankenship, L., Campton, D., Delarm, M., Evelyn, T., Fast, D.,
Gislason, J., Kline, P., Maynard, D., Mobrand, L., Nandor, G., Seidel P., and Smith, S. (2011) Hatcheries,
conservation, and sustainable fisheries—achieving multiple goals: results of the Hatchery Scientific Review
Group's Columbia River basin review. Fisheries 36:11, 547–561.
106 RIST (2009) Hatchery reform science: a review of some applications of science to hatchery reform issues.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 125© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

oEqual or less than pNOB, where 10% > pNOB > 5%.

oNo more than 10% for programs where pNOB is < 20%.

o

No more than 0.5 x pNOB for programs operating between 20% and 40% pNOB.

o

No more than 20% for programs operating at pNOB > 40%.

The limits for integrated hatchery programs are presented graphically in Figure GSC2.
Figure GSC2 depicts the maximum allowable average pHOS within an SMU at SG80, in relation to
the pNOB. These guidelines are based primarily on studies of riverine species such as Chinook,coho, and steelhead. The team may modify these guidelines for pink and chum salmon, and forother species, with sufficient reasoned justification.

Figure GSC2: Maximum allowable pHOS for overall SMU at SG80
At the SG100 level
pHOS should be < 1% in all populations in an SMU.
Further guidance in application of Box GSC1:•

If there are both segregated and integrated hatchery fish spawning naturally within the SMU,
the team should consider the limits above in its assessment.

•

If there are hatchery-origin spawners on the spawning grounds of the SMU under assessmentthat originate from outside this SMU, the team should assess them using the segregatedcriteria limits above. Strays from outside the SMU present a greater genetic risk than thoseoriginating within the SMU and are therefore only permitted at lower limits.

GSC2.9.1.3 ▲If there are no scientific studies available and no information or estimates of pHOS or pNOB, the teamshould carefully consider the potential impact based on:•

The magnitude of hatchery origin fish released, orDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 126© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

The percentage of hatchery fish in the harvest of the SMU.

Scoring should be precautionary. The team should provide sufficient justification as to why themagnitude or percentage of hatchery fish is “likely” to have a small impact with minimal hatcheryorigin fish reaching the spawning grounds (i.e. a small pHOS). The team might consider:•

Whether the hatchery type is an integrated or segregated hatchery program.

•

Whether there is differential harvesting to avoid hatchery fish appearing on the spawning grounds.

•

The location of the hatchery.

•

The release site.

•

Where the fish are eventually harvested.

•

Whether the management agency removes hatchery fish prior to accessing the spawning
grounds.

GSC2.10Enhancement management PI (PI 1.3.2)

Scoring issue (a) – management strategy in place ▲To achieve the SG80 outcome, the team should reasonably expect the management system todesign and manage its hatchery-program outcomes with an understanding of:•

The wild population structure.

•

Characteristics that its hatchery programs could be expected to affect.

The management system should also develop basic hatchery management objectives with respect tolimits on impacts within this context. The team should consider:•

Identification and description of populations within the SMU.

•

The level and spatial distribution of genetic and life-history diversity; for example, run timing,
spawning timing, age structure, juvenile life-history forms, and other unique phenotypic traits.

•

Populations with unique characteristics.

•

The relative abundance of wild populations: magnitude and spatial distribution.

•

Expected spatial distribution and magnitude of natural spawning of hatchery returns in relation towild population abundance and diversity.

•

Objectives/Intent for limiting the magnitude and spatial distribution of pHOS consistent withprotecting the diversity and productive capacity of the SMU and its component wild populations.

GSC2.10.1 ▲The team should expect the use and evaluation of proven artificial production and harvest
management strategies to help minimise the numbers and proportions of hatchery fish interbreedingwith wild fish in natural spawning areas. Common examples typically include:•

Siting of hatchery facilities in areas that are isolated from areas of high wild salmon abundanceand diversity for the species being produced.

•

Ensuring release at sites and with strategies that are likely to maximise imprinting and homing.

•

Identifying high-value watersheds where hatcheries are not used.

•

Fishing strategies that result in differential harvest rates between hatchery and wild fish to limit
straying and ensure sustainable wild harvest rates.

•

Marking hatchery fish releases so that the distribution and composition of hatchery and wild fish
can be monitored in fisheries, spawning grounds, and in hatchery broodstock.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 127© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Active exclusion of marked hatchery fish from spawning in the wild through management ofpassage through weirs.

•

Scaling hatchery release numbers to a level that is consistent with not exceeding hatchery straybenchmarks in concert with other strategies.

GSC2.11

Enhancement information PI (PI 1.3.3) ▲Marking and monitoring programs will be particularly relevant to evaluations of sufficiency for thisindicator. The team should expect that important information, such as the amount of fry emigratingfrom these habitats, is monitored annually to help gauge the potential impact on wild populations.

Scoring issue (a) – information adequacy ▲•For SG60, the team should interpret “some relevant information” to mean that some
artificially produced fish carry recognisable marks, such as fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolithmarks, parent-based tagging (PBT), or thermal marks. These should enable the team to makeapproximate estimates of contributions of hatchery salmon to harvests, hatchery broodstocks, andspawning populations.
o•

For SG80, the team should interpret “sufficient relevant qualitative and quantitative
information” to mean a large representative fraction of artificially produced fish-carryrecognisable marks, such as fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolith marks, PBT, or thermal marks, toaccurately estimate contributions of hatchery salmon to harvests, hatchery broodstocks, spawning
populations, and escapes. For large hatchery programs this may be up to 100%.
o•

It is reasonable to expect that these estimates are currently being made via data collected
through associated harvest, hatchery, and escapement monitoring programs at a level ofprecision and accuracy necessary to support the harvest management strategy. As the levelsof hatchery-origin spawners approach the limits stated in Box GSC1, the necessary sampling
frequency increases to achieve the required accuracy of estimates of pHOS. The team should
supplement direct estimates with other analytical methods.

For SG100, the team should interpret “comprehensive range of relevant quantitative
information” to mean that all artificially produced fish, regardless of program size, carry marks,
such as fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolith marks, PBT, or thermal marks, allowing highly accurate
and precise estimates of hatchery salmon to harvests, hatchery broodstocks, spawning
populations, and escapes.
o•

It is reasonable to expect these contribution estimates are being made or can be reasonably
inferred from an understanding of the dynamics of the fishery and enhancement programs,
including from an existing understanding of size, location, and general release-to-adultcontribution rates.

It is reasonable to expect that these estimates of hatchery and wild contributions are currently
made through associated harvest, hatchery, and escapement monitoring programs, at a scale
and intensity of temporal and spatial coverage that provides comprehensive information andunderstanding.

“Total escapement” in SG60, SG80, and SG100 should be interpreted to mean both wild andenhanced.

GSC2.11.1 ▲The team should expect artificially produced fish to be marked and monitored in catch andescapement, in sufficient quantities to enable the fishery to define TRPs for wild salmon populations
and SMUs, implement harvest strategies, and evaluate levels of interaction between hatchery andwild fish on spawning grounds. Requirement of this information is implicit within the evaluation ofstock status and reference points, which do not include artificially produced salmon.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 128© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Only enhancement information should be explicitly scored in this PI.

GSC2.11.2 ▲The marking requirements described above do not routinely apply to fish produced from artificial
spawning channels, because:•

The monitoring and information tools available for hatcheries are not available for spawning
channels.

•

The absence of confined hatchery methods for incubation and rearing within a spawning channel
limits the practical marking tools available.

However, where there is an increased likelihood of interactions between spawning channel strays anddissimilar wild populations in areas of potential interaction, the team should expect that the
management system would assess those risks via:•

Visual marking of juveniles at emigration from the weir, or•Genetic marking techniques.

The need for such information and monitoring would be greater where:•

The conditions of spawning channels differ greatly from the natural environment, or•

The magnitude of adult production originating from the spawning channel exceeds the natural
production of wild populations with which the spawning channel fish might interact.

GSC3 Principle 2
GSC3.13

Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.3.1)

Scoring issue (c) – impacts due to enhancement activities within the UoA ▲In this scoring issue, the team should consider the following as examples to demonstrate that
hatchery facilities are “highly unlikely” to have adverse impacts at the SG80 level:•

Facility design, construction, and operations limit effects on the riparian corridor and areconsistent with fluvial geomorphology principles; for example, they avoid bank erosion orundesired channel modification.

•

Water withdrawals and in-stream water diversion structures for artificial production facility
operation do not:oPrevent access to natural spawning areas.

oAffect spawning behaviour of natural populations.

oImpact the juvenile-rearing environment.

For example, in‐stream flows between diversion and discharge return points, as well as further
flow impacts downstream, are not significantly diminished.
•

Effluents from artificial production facilities conform with accepted or required levels that do not
detrimentally affect natural populations.

•

Weir/trap operations used to collect hatchery broodstock do not:oPrevent access to natural spawning areas.

oAffect spawning behaviour or success of wild fish.

oResult in significant stress, injury, or mortality in natural spawners.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 129© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

A record of compliance with applicable environmental laws that are designed to protect natural
populations and habitats from potential adverse impacts of artificial production program operation.

GSC3.13.1.c ▲For example, physical features, spawning and rearing flows, and water temperatures.

GSC3.13.2.1 ▲Habitat modifications due to salmon enhancement activities can include:•

Physical changes to the river course, such as spawning channels.

•

Changes to water quality due to hatchery discharge.

•

The use of a range of man-made structures associated with the rearing habitat.

Examples of adverse impacts include:•

Delay in reaching spawning grounds that reduces spawning success.

•

Blockage of access to spawning habitat from weirs used for hatchery broodstock collection.

•

Dewatering of downstream water channels used for spawning and rearing.

•

Increased water temperature from human activities that increases fish mortality rate.

•

Improper screening of water-intake systems that cause mortality or entrainment of wild fish.

•

Discharge of effluents or pollutants contrary to water quality standards.

GSC3.14

Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ▲Enhancement facilities typically operate under a wide set of environmental regulations and review
requirements with respect to their potential impacts on aquatic habitat, such as:•

Use of drugs.

•

Fish-passage requirements.

•

Water-discharge permits.

•

Water-withdrawal authorisation.

The team should examine evidence to determine whether these requirements are in place and arebeing met as part of the overall strategy for meeting the habitat status outcome.

Scoring issue (b) – management strategy effectiveness ▲For scoring issue (b) at the SG60 level, some examples of “plausible argument” are generalexperience, theory, or comparison with similar UoAs or habitats.

GSC3.14.1 ▲Physical features, spawning and rearing flows, and water temperatures can be affected byenhancement activities.
The team should expect to see management strategies that seek to meet the typical outcomes in
GSC3.13.
Examples of such strategies could include:
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 130© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Facility design or maintenance plans and construction permit applications that specificallyconsider and avoid known impacts.

•

Routine, regular inspections; maintenance and assessment activities of physical parameters suchas flows, screen, and weir operations; and a record of taking actions in response to these
activities.

•

Implementation of withdrawal permit operating requirements. Or, if the system does not operate
under a formal permitting system, similar operating criteria are being applied.

•

Implementation of regular fish-passage procedures based on explicit hatchery objectives, whichpass naturally spawning fish above any hatchery weir and sustain natural production consistent
with available habitat capacity.

•

Implementation of fish-handling protocol, and staff provided with associated training/guidelines;
for example, to ensure that captured adult wild fish are not injured and that upstream migration
delays are minimised.

•

Active implementation and maintenance of water quality management strategies to meet effluent
discharge requirements.

Annual or periodic reports that demonstrate review and mitigation actions for any such impacts can beused to confirm that these strategies are being utilised.
Enhanced salmon fishery interventions may also include:•

Lake fertilisation to enhance natural food production.

•

Removal of predators or competitors to maximise early-stage salmon survival.

The team should evaluate these impacts as per PI 2.4.1.

GSC3.15

Habitats information PI (PI 2.3.3)

GSC3.15.1 ▲The team may expect information on enhancement activities to include:•

The proportion of diversion of total stream flow between intake and outfall water.

•

Withdrawals compared to applicable passage criteria and to juvenile-screening criteria.

•

Discharge water quality monitoring data required by, or equivalent to, any environmental permit
provisions.

•

Water flow and temperature data above the hatchery intake and below the discharge.

•

Logs of periodic inspection above any hatchery weirs to ensure the passage of fish upstream is
not being impeded.

•

The number of adult fish aggregating and/or spawning immediately below water-intake points,
compared to the number of adult fish passing water intake points.

•

Records of any fish mortalities or injuries of fish or other aquatic resources in the hatchery
weir/traps, and in the natural habitat near or within a zone of influence of the hatchery.

GSC3.16

Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.4.1)

Scoring issue (b) – impacts due to enhancement ▲In this scoring issue, the team should consider:•

The scale and size of the programs being assessed as part of creating a general risk framework.

•

Objective evidence for negative interactions, or lack of negative interactions.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 131© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

In this context, the team may consider the magnitude of releases and returns of artificially produced
fish in the area being assessed, compared to the wild production from the same area.
If artificially produced fish constitute a significant proportion of either juveniles or returning adults to an
area, the team should require a higher level of evidence to make a judgment about likelihood, taking
into account:•

The likelihood that hatchery releases coincide in space and time with the presence of juvenile wild
salmon.

•The level of total species production in the UoA compared to historic levels.

•

Potential changes in current habitat conditions and natural reproduction capacity compared tohistoric levels.

•

Indicators of any density-dependent processes that could potentially be related to theenhancement program, because they are known to overlap in space and time with species orstocks that are exhibiting demonstrated changes in population dynamics.

GSC3.16.1 ▲The team should consider interactions at any life stage in both freshwater and marine habitats.
The team should consider the ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities across the entire
geographic range of the salmon populations.

GSC3.16.2 ▲Disease transmission and predation/competition are issues requiring very different levels of active
management and information, monitoring and compliance requirements, and capacities.
The team should assess the degree of likelihood that enhancement activities have minimal negative
effect on the productive capacity of wild salmon and other aquatic populations as a result of predationand competition for resources, such as prey or spawning habitat.

GSC3.17

Ecosystem management PI (PI 2.4.2) ▲Current “best practice” for disease management in enhancement facilities involves a very rigorous
monitoring and adaptive management system using well-established policies, guidelines,
performance indicators, benchmarks, and procedures, which are designed to carefully protect
hatchery and natural fish populations from the importation, dissemination, and amplification of fish
pathogens and disease conditions.
The team should assess and verify the degree to which the hatchery management system isimplementing an approved, proven protocol in a manner that ensures the likelihood of meeting theseobjectives and related outcome for PI 2.4.1.

Scoring issue (b) – “plausible argument” ▲Examples of “plausible argument” used in scoring issue (b) may include general experience, theory,or comparison with similar UoAs/ecosystems.

Scoring issue (d) – management of enhancement activities ▲In this scoring issue, the team should focus on management of potential impacts of the release of fishfrom large-scale artificial production operation; in particular, the strategies for avoiding adverse
competition and predation effects on the receiving ecosystems, including:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 132© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

Inter-species and intra-species competition, both inshore and offshore.

•

Issues of carrying capacity.

GSC3.17.1 ▲Management measures could include practices that minimise overlap in time and space between
hatchery releases and the wild component.
ExamplesExamples of strategies for minimising ecological risk include:•

Methods to minimise disease transmission.

•

Hatchery programs scaled to fit carrying capacity of the watershed or basin.

•

Coordination with other hatcheries to limit releases at a regional scale; for example, the North
Pacific, Columbia Basin, or major sub-basins.

•

Releasing only smolts that will promptly out-migrate, unless the release of other life stages ispart of a specific biological objective.

•

The use of acclimation ponds and volitional releases as a means to minimise residual fish andstraying of returning adults.

•

Careful timing of releases; for example, release of predatory hatchery fish after wild salmon
reaches large enough sizes to avoid being consumed.

•

Careful consideration of both the timing and magnitude of releases because high concentrationof hatchery fish in time and space may attract predators and may have an offsetting effect tosome unknown extent by “swamping” the predators with so much prey that the percent mortality
on wild fish is also reduced.

•

Rigorous marking and monitoring of hatchery fish and adaptive management.

GSC3.18

Ecosystem information PI (PI 2.4.3)

GSC3.18.1 ▲For hatchery operations, the team may use the following to enable its understanding of the impacts on
the receiving ecosystem:•

Information on environmental health conditions.

•Culture and general health histories.

•

Information on pathogen detection collected at a relevant level of accuracy.

•

Information covering the complete artificial production cycle consistent with requirements ofimplementing the disease management strategy.

•

Information on the distribution and size of artificially produced and wild fish at various life-cycle
stages in freshwater and marine areas, to identify the times and areas where artificially produced
fish could compete with or prey upon wild fish of the same species or with other aquatic species.
These potential interactions need to be understood at a level of detail relevant to the scale andsize of the enhancement programs.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 133© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section GSD: Introduced species-based fisheries ▲Background
Assessment of introduced species at Principle 1 is potentially complicated because of the varying, butvalid ecological objectives that can exist for fisheries that are based on introduced species.
In most introduced species-based fisheries, objectives are set to ensure optimum productivity of thetarget introduced species. In certain other fisheries, objectives may be set to keep populations of theintroduced species at a level that ensures wider ecosystem objectives are met. These wider
ecosystem objectives may include keeping the target stock at sub-MSY levels in order to allow forsome level of restoration of biodiversity.

GSC4 Principle 3
GSC4.1

General requirements for Principle 3

GSC4.1.1 ▲In Principle 3, the following Performance Indicators have modifications to the requirements: PI 3.1.2,
3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4. PI 3.1.1 should still be scored in accordance with Section SA.
The CAB should apply:•

All Section SA requirements.

•

All Section GSA guidance.

•

Modifications in Section SC.

•

Supplemental guidance in Section GSC.

GSC4.1.2 ▲This requirement is to ensure there is an institutional and operational framework for these activities,
appropriate to their size and scale, for implementing the related provisions of Principles 1 and 2
capable of delivering sustainable outcomes. When undertaking this additional assessment, the teamshould:•Examine specific relevant evidence.

•

Document its consideration of this evidence relative to the scoring process.

The team may assess the size and scale of enhancement activities by considering a roughcomparison of the magnitude of releases and returns of artificially produced fish in the area being
assessed, compared to the wild production.

GSC4.4

Consultation, roles, and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2)

GSC4.4.1 ▲The team should assess whether the management system has effective consultation processes thatare open to stakeholders and related to aspects of both the fishery and the enhancement activities.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 134© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSC4.5Long-term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3)

GSC4.5.1 ▲It is necessary for the salmon management agency to demonstrate that its key ecological objective forits enhancement activities is managing sustainable wild salmon populations while minimisingpotentially adverse effects of enhancement activities. The high-level or broad management policy
context should incorporate a precautionary approach that places the burden on the enhancement
programs to demonstrate that:•

They are minimising adverse impacts identified in Principle 1 and 2 indicators.

•

This burden increases as the size of the enhancement activities, individually and cumulatively,
increases.

That burden of proof will also be higher for hatcheries than for other forms of artificial production thatgenerally have lower impacts.

GSC4.7

Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1)

GSC4.7.1 ▲The CAB should interpret “clear objectives” to mean that a management system with any significant
level of enhancement has documented enhancement objectives and operational requirements, which
are designed to minimise various impacts on natural population components and ecosystem function.
These are to be contained in a clear operational plan.

GSC4.8

Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2)

GSC4.8.1 ▲If enhancement programs are significant, and uncertainties exist about the level of program impacts,
the team should consider whether the management system is making decisions about production,measures, and strategies in a precautionary manner.
For example, the team may consider:•

Decisions about increasing or decreasing release levels.

•

Whether measures are being implemented and evaluated that could be expected to reduce thescale and magnitude of potential interactions between wild and enhanced populations.

•

Whether monitoring and evaluation programs are being initiated and/or maintained to collectessential information to inform future decisions.

In marine fisheries, it is widely recognised internationally that an ideal way to increase the chance ofmeeting management objectives, improving future decision making, and increasing fairness is toconduct thorough evaluations of a wide range of management options, data collection procedures,and in some cases methods of data analysis 107. These are done through probabilistic simulation

107 Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.D. (2004) Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, N.J., 399 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 135© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

models/risk assessments. Some such analyses, variously called management strategy evaluations108
and closed-loop simulations109, have been done for Pacific salmon 2012110.
The most comprehensive examples of management strategy evaluations take into account:•

Time dynamics of fish populations.

•Dynamics of the fishery.

•

Observation error.

•

Implementation uncertainty, reflecting when regulations are followed imperfectly.

•

Other sources of uncertainty.

The outcome of such evaluations is the identification of state-dependent decision-making rules thatwill best meet complex management objectives in the presence of these uncertainties. For a given
fishery, the state-dependent rules are identified prior to the fishing and/or enhancement-activity
season and are the agreed-upon method for altering regulations based on in-season updates to thestates of the system. Those rules are not subject to in-season change based on lobbying by special
interest groups.
Most decisions in salmon management involve trade-offs between long-term conservation objectives
and short-term fish-harvesting objectives, and trade-offs between user groups. Learning which
decisions work best for meeting such complex objectives can be facilitated by decision-makers
publicly documenting the reasons for various decisions on fishing regulations and enhancement
activities, and comparing the expectations against outcomes.
The team should, in its scoring, consider whether such public documentation is provided.

GSC4.9Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ▲No modifications to Section GSA.

GSC4.10

Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI 3.2.4)

Scoring issue (b) – Internal and/or external review ▲At SG60, information should be available internally for hatchery program performance review.
At SG80, information should be available externally and publicly to enable external scrutiny ofhatchery performance.

108 Sainsbury K.J., Punt, A.E., and Smith, A.D.M. (2000) Design of operational management strategies forachieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:731–741.
109 Walters, C.J. (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan, New York, 374pp.
110 Collie, J.S., Peterman, R.M. and Zuehlke, B.M. (2012) A fisheries risk-assessment framework to evaluate
trade-offs among management options in the presence of time-varying productivity. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 69(2):209–223, plus supplement.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 136© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSC5

Allowances for inseparable or practicably inseparable catches insalmon fisheries

GSC5.1.2 ▲For pink salmon, which have a 2-year life history, the team should calculate the average catch acrossthe most recent years of each cycle line.
For longer-lived salmon species, the team should calculate average recent catches across periods
appropriate to their life history in the region of the fishery.
Where different salmon species are in consideration as target and inseparable or practicably
inseparable (IPI) species, the team should first calculate average catches based on data from thenumber of years appropriate to each species and then determine the percentage catches.
End of Section SC GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 137© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSD1 General▲
The team does not need to follow FCP 7.10.5 when adding an additional scoring issue andcorresponding guideposts, as per SD3.1.3 and/or SD3.1.4.

GSD2 Principle 1
GSD2.1

General requirements for Principle 1

GSD2.1.2 ▲A fishery may choose to set its TRPs for the introduced species either at levels consistent with MSY,
or at lower levels aimed at mitigating the impact on other species. SD2.1.2.1 requires that where
TRPs are adjusted in this way, it may be appropriate to make a modification to the default tree toreflect that modification (in PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b) and PI 1.2.2). SD2.1.2.1.a further requires thatthe levels should not be set below the “PRI”, because in this case, the fishery would not be able tomaintain sustainable catches.

GSD3 Principle 2
GSD3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

GSD3.1.2–4 ▲SD3.1.2 requires that CABs revise PI 2.4.2 (ecosystem management) in order to be able to evaluate
the efforts of the fishery to minimise the impacts of the introduced species. Additionally, SD3.1.3
requires CABs to address the collection of information important to understanding and preventing
further impact of the introduced species on biodiversity. In cases where no actual measures are inplace and there is no corresponding ecosystem information being collected, SD3.1.4 allows CABs toprovide a rationale as to why this is the case and the additional scoring issues are not required. The
team should provide a robust rationale in this situation. The team should support this rationale with
scientific evidence or logical argument that no more impacts are occurring and that further impact isunlikely. The rationale should justify why measures are not necessary.

Ecosystem stability
For introduced species that have been in place for long enough that the ecosystem has stabilised, but
the new system is dramatically different from the original, SD3.1.2-4 are still relevant. The spread of
the species to new areas is still a possibility, even if the ecosystem of the current area has stabilised.

End of Section SD GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 138© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Section GSE: Principle 1 for stocks managed by Regional
Fisheries Management Organisations
GSE1

General requirements for section SE

GSE1.1.1 ▲Section SE applies to stocks managed by the following RFMOs 111:•

CCAMLR: Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

•

CCSBT: Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.

•

GFCM: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

•

IATTC: Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

•

ICCAT: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

•

IOTC: Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.

•

IPHC: International Pacific Halibut Commission.

•

NAFO: Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

•

NEAFC: North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

•

NPFC: North Pacific Fisheries Commission.

•

SEAFO: South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

•

SIOFA: South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement.

•

SPRFMO: South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.

•

WCPFC: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

The list of RFMOs above has been modified from Løbach et al. (2020)112 and represents the relevant
RFMOs recognised by the FAO at the time Section SE was developed (i.e. 2022). RFMOs thatmanage salmon stocks are not included in this list because salmon fisheries are scored within Section
SC.
The assessment team can use Section SE on a voluntary basis to score UoAs that include P1 stocks
not managed by the above RFMOs. Applying Section SE voluntarily would be particularly relevant to:•Multi-jurisdictional or shared stocks, or•

Stocks managed by RFMOs that become established after the release of these requirements.

GSE1.1.2.2 ▲The MSC’s intent is that whilst the decision would apply to UoAs and UoCs, only UoCs are
responsible for deciding if to apply Section SE.

111 Løbach, T., Petersson, M., Haberkon, E. and Mannini, P. (2020) Regional fisheries management

organizations and advisory bodies. Activities and developments, 2000–2017. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 651. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7843en
112 Løbach, T., Petersson, M., Haberkon, E. and Mannini, P. (2020) Regional fisheries management
organizations and advisory bodies. Activities and developments, 2000–2017. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 651. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7843en
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 139© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSE1.1.3 ▲If the target stock(s) is not managed by an RFMO but undertakes the scoring of Section SE voluntarily(SE1.1.2), evidence should come from the management agency responsible for the target stock.
Evidence that the RFMO/management agency is committed to the development and adoption of aharvest strategy that includes an MP tested within an MSE framework, is a key piece of information todemonstrate the milestones within Section SE are achievable.

GSE2
GSE2.1.1

Harvest Strategy PI 1.2.1 ▲As used in PI 1.2.1 scoring issue (b) (Table SA4) at the 100 level, “evaluated” means quantitative
management strategy evaluation as appropriate to the fishery.
For evaluating scoring issue (b) at the harvest-strategy level, the team should consider the fullinteractions between different components of the harvest strategy, including:•

The HCRs.

•

Use of information.

•

Assessment of stock status.

GSE2.2

HCRs and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ▲For LTL species, the TRPs and LRPs need to take into account the ecological role of the stock for thefishery to score 60 or above under PI 1.1.1A. The harvest strategy, HCRs, information requirements,
and assessment need to be consistent with this distinction. When PI 1.1.1A is scored, references to
PI 1.1.1 in the guidance below should interpreted as PI 1.1.1A and the objectives required therein.
There may be conceptual differences in the reference points when scoring PI 1.1.1 and PI 1.2.2. Thisis because fisheries may use different reference points for measuring stock status and as triggers inthe HCRs113. For example, a fishery that uses an explicit BMSY reference point as a target for thefishery biomass may have TRPs for adjusting F at values of biomass either at BMSY, or above or below
BMSY. The focus in this PI is thus on the reference points used in a fishery to trigger changes inmanagement actions, and how they work in combination to achieve the outcomes required in PI 1.1.1.

Scoring issue (a) – HCR design and application ▲The team should consider the basis for plausibility and practicality of design in relation to the scale
and intensity of the fishery; for example, using:•

Empirical information.

•

Relevant science.

•

Model-based approaches, such as management procedures and management strategy
evaluation.

The team should score HCRs against their ability to deliver the levels expressed in scoring issue (a).

113 Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Smith, A.D.M., Sainsbury, K. (2015) Guidelines fordeveloping harvest strategies for data-poor species and fisheries. Fisheries Research 171 pp 130-140.
Dowling, N.A., Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Dichmont, C.M., and Smith, A.D.M. Harvest Strategies for Data-Poor
Fisheries: A Brief Review of the Literature. CSIRO.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 140© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0•

At SG60, HCRs should be “likely” to ensure that stocks will be maintained above the PRI.

•At SG80, HCRs should also ensure that the stock is “likely” to fluctuate around a BMSY level.
Testing may show that this is achieved by the inclusion of a BMSY consistent reference point as a
trigger in the HCRs, such as an inflection in a “hockey stick” form, at a point that would deliver
BMSY in the long term.

•

At SG100, greater certainty is required. The team should regard fisheries with HCRs that target
stock levels above BMSY, for example BMEY, as at least meeting the 80 level. Projections in thefishery may show that the HCR would “likely” achieve the higher SG100 score by fluctuating more
above than around BMSY.

HCRs will usually include some form of dynamic rule, requiring that a change of some sort will bemade in response to a fishery indicator moving above or below one of the TRPs. In lightly exploitedfisheries, it may be that some reference points are set to trigger changes in data collection orassessment approaches, as certain thresholds are reached 114.
HCRs are often applied on a frequent basis, such as with the annual setting of TAC or effort
restrictions.
•

Such HCRs respond dynamically to the monitoring data from the fishery with regular adjustments
to input/output type management measures.

•

In data-poor fisheries that are managed without such input/output controls, management may
comprise only technical measures such as size limits, gear restrictions, closed seasons, andclosed areas.

•oIn these cases, the specific terms of the technical measures are usually set and fixed for a
relatively long period of time (several years), based on occasional strategic stock
assessments that are shown to deliver defined TRPs or LRPs.

o

The team may regard such an arrangement as equivalent to a dynamic HCR operating over alonger time scale in cases where some indicators are monitored to confirm that the HCRs aredelivering the intended targets for the stock.

For “highly productive” species, the design of the HCR should consider life history, as this canaffect performance of the control rule115. Given the propensity for changes in productivity withthese species, adaptive and responsive control rules are key to assist with detecting andresponding to changes in biomass116.

At SG80 in scoring issue (a), the team should expect “well-defined” HCRs to explicitly include theconditions under which the technical measures in the fishery would be expected to be revised in the
future.
ExampleRelatively sedentary bivalves often have fishery management trigger points based on population
densities collected through systematic surveys, where these index densities are established basedon the species population dynamics and the inherent productivity of the habitat and environmental
conditions.

114 Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Smith, A.D.M., Sainsbury, K. (2015) Guidelines fordeveloping harvest strategies for data-poor species and fisheries. Fisheries Research 171 pp 130-140
115 Siple, M., Essington, T, & Plaganyi, E. (2018). Forage fish fisheries management requires a tailored approachto balance trade-offs. Fish and Fisheries. 20.
116 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,
Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012). Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp..
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 141© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

There may be no formal stock assessment, but yield is calculated on a proportion of the observed
biomass, and the harvested fraction determined on empirical evidence from historical catches andtheir consequences.
The team should note that, while such arrangements can work, HCRs based on taking a constantpercentage of the year’s estimated biomass should not be regarded as meeting the requirement of
avoiding the PRI unless some lower threshold is defined.

The CAB should not always interpret the requirement that an HCR reduces exploitation rates as the
LRP is approached as requiring the control rule to deliver an exploitation rate that is a monotonicallydecreasing function of stock size:•

Any exploitation rate function may be acceptable if it acts to keep the stock above an LRP thatavoids possible recruitment failure and attempts to maintain the stock at a TRP that is consistent
with BMSY or a similar “highly productive” level.

•

This outcome includes the requirement that the HCR should act to cause stocks to rebuild to the
TRP when they are below it. Maintenance of a stock at a level just above the LRP would not be
acceptable.

•

A reduction of exploitation rate may not always mean that the control rule requires a reduction in“total” exploitation rate, but instead could involve reducing exploitation rate on parts of the stock;for example, by age or sex.

•

The team should assume that reductions in exploitation rate refer primarily to reductions incatches and effort, and not to gear modifications unless these have the effect of reducing
catches/effort.

As noted in the guidance on PI 1.1.1, HCRs may include both explicit and implicit reference points.
ExampleIf a management strategy is based solely around a TRP, the HCR, when combined with TRP,
should ensure that the stock remains well above the PRI. This should ensure that the exploitation
rate is reduced as this point is approached. This is an implied LRP.
Equally, a management strategy based solely around an LRP should imply that there is a TRP
close to or at BMSY, or some other measure or surrogate that maintains the stock at highproductivity, and at a level that is well above the LRP.

“Generally understood” HCRs at SG60 vs “well-defined” HCRs at SG80
For “generally understood” and in-place HCRs, there should be at least some implicit agreement
supported by past management actions that demonstrates that “generally understood” rules exist.
There should be the expectation that management will continue to follow such “generally understood”
rules in future and act when changes in explicit or implicit reference points are identified.
When determining whether a “generally understood” HCR is in place in the fishery under assessment,
the team needs to determine whether the fishery will in future take appropriate management action inline with what they perceive as the “generally understood” rule. The team should consider evidence of
positive action being taken in the past as evidence that there is a “generally understood” rule in place.
The team should provide clear reference to documents or other evidence that actions were taken on
specific dates.
The team should provide evidence and examples of the positive actions taken in response to“generally understood” HCRs for the target stock, in the case that “generally understood” HCRs are“in place” or for other stocks in the case that they are “available”.
The team should apply a precautionary approach to scoring when there is uncertainty over whether
an HCR meets the requirements of “generally understood” and whether there is sufficient evidence tosupport this. Note, the full definition for HCRs in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary should only apply at the
SG80 level, given the term ‘well-defined’ is used in this definition.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 142© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

The team should not consider the following as evidence that an HCR is in place:•

A poorly defined commitment such as “we agree to implement an HCR sometime in the future”.

•

General regulations, such as convention texts or references to the Fish Stocks Agreement.

•

However, binding commitments such as those in national law may be used as evidence, if
supported by evidence of management action.
oScientific recommendations on HCRs or reference points that have not yet been adopted by
the actual management agency.

The team should not expect that “in place” arrangements require formal indefinite binding agreement.
For example, CMMs approved by RFMO Commissions are regarded as “active” resolutions and may
thus be accepted as in place even though they may be overturned in the future.

Scoring issue (b) – scoring uncertainty in the HCRs ▲The SGs reflect the degree of confidence there is in the HCR performance in relation to risks causedby known and unknown factors.
Known factors include:•

Observation and process errors that are often accounted for in stock assessments.

Unknown factors include:•

Unpredictable effects from climate.

•

Environmental or anthropogenic non-fishery related factors, which could, for example, lead toperiods of low recruitment or growth.

•High natural mortality.

•

Migration.

These and other changes to the population dynamics may not have been fully accounted for in thestock assessment or projections. Another important reason for limited confidence in an HCR is that it
has not been fully agreed by stakeholders, and it is uncertain whether the fishing community willcomply with the HCR. This last issue is important to ensure HCRs are not only theoretical rules on
paper but are applied in practice.
The team can use testing to support the requirement that the control rules and/or management
actions are designed to take into account uncertainty. Testing can include:•

The use of experience from analogous fisheries.

•

Empirical testing; for example, practical experience of performance or evidence of past
performance.

•

Simulation testing; for instance, using computer-intensive modelling such as management
strategy evaluation.

It may generally be the case that limit reference points are set at the point that reproductive capacity
starts to be appreciably impaired, for some fisheries, especially those for small pelagic species andannual species where the stock recruit relationship is very steep. However, management may choose
to set a limit reference point above this level. Maintaining a buffer can allow for adaptability tochanges in production117. Where this results in more precautionary management, it may assist thefishery in meeting SG80 or SG100 for scoring issue (b).

117 Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D.,

Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. (2012). Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a
Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 143© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

HCRs in small-scale fisheries may still achieve high scores if uncertainties are well considered. The
team may thus score simple HCRs linked to reliable indices of stock status highly on this issue
without management strategy evaluations.

PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (c) – Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs ▲For Section SE, scoring can consider the overall history of effectiveness of the tools used in thefishery prior to the implementation of the harvest strategy that was “designed”. At SG80, the teamshould also assess the effectiveness of the implemented HCR within the “designed” harvest strategy(see SE3), in terms of:•

The likelihood of achieving the desired exploitation rates and biomass levels.

•

The current status.

If under scoring issue (a) the “available” language is used, effectiveness should be assessed in termsof the HCR applied to the other U
oA. If F < FMSY is demonstrated in the other fishery, this is not sufficient evidence on its own that
HCRs and tools are effective in that other fishery. Additional explanation is needed of how F < FMSY
has been achieved.
In this scoring issue, the team is required review the ability of the tools associated with the HCRs toachieve the exploitation levels. Such tools include:•

Management measures like TACs and fishing limits.

•

Arrangements for sharing TACs between participants in the fishery, including between states inshared stock fisheries.

For this examination, the team may consider the overall history of effectiveness of the tools used in
the fishery, in terms of their ability to achieve the desired exploitation rates and biomass levels, andthe current status.
SE2.2.7 requires that the team examine the current exploitation levels in the fishery, as part of theevidence that the HCRs are working; for example, through evidence that current F is equal to or lessthan FMSY. The team may also accept current F levels greater than FMSY in cases where:•

Stock biomass is currently higher than BMSY, or•

Stock assessment information is comprehensive, and it is appropriate to treat F MSY as a TRP (seeBox GSA5.

However, the team should not use F < FMSY as the sole evidence for the existence of an effective
HCR. F could, for example, be lower than FMSY just because effort is currently low, even though there
has been no management commitment or attempts to actually control effort at a level that would
constrain F to FMSY by the HCR. However, if F has been constrained at F < FMSY by the tools, the team
could accept this as part of the evidence that the HCRs are being effective. Evidence for theeffectiveness of an HCR should in fact require the consistent achievement of the target exploitationlevel, which may be well below FMSY if stocks are currently below BMSY. The team should takeparticular care when assessing the effectiveness of capacity limitation measures in fisheries, forexample, in comparison to well-monitored effort controls and catch limits, in terms of their likely ability
to meet management goals and target exploitation levels.
To avoid severe socio-economic impacts in a fishery, the team may also make allowance for thegradual adjustment of F down to appropriate levels in cases where the pace of change is limited. In
these cases, projections of stock status should confirm that the expected future adjustments in F will
still lead to fluctuations around MSY levels within a reasonable timescale.
If proxy indicators and reference points are used in the fishery instead of explicit estimates of F andFMSY (as allowed in SA2.2.3), the team should assign higher scores where greater confidence isprovided by the proxy information, similar to the scoring of PI 1.1.1. Where higher scores are justified
by the use of 2 or more proxy indicators, they should be independent of each other and expected to
be proxies of the quantity of interest, such as mean fish size in the case of exploitation rates. The
team should present a rationale for how the proxies conform to these principles.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 144© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

As with the case of using proxies for scoring stock biomass in PI 1.1.1, it may sometimes be argued
that 1 good proxy is better than 2 or more weak proxies.
Examples: SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels
Examples of how the team may justify SG60, SG80, and SG100 in these situations:•

At least SG60 is justified if 1 proxy indicates that “overfishing” is not occurring.

•

At least SG80 is justified if 1 or more proxies indicate that it is “likely” that “overfishing” is notoccurring. In this case, the extra confidence may be due to the availability of a second proxy
indicator, or when a minimum 70% probability level can be assigned to the single indicatorused, as compared to the SG60 level where this probability level may not be demonstrated.

•

SG100 is justified if 2 or more proxies indicate it is “highly likely” that “overfishing” is notoccurring.

Scoring “available” HCRs at SG60 ▲The team may provide a rationale under SE2.2.4.a that this could reasonably be “expected” for thetarget species in cases where HCRs are currently being “effectively” used by the same management
agency on at least 1 other species of similar importance, at similar average catch levels and value.
Alternatively, the team may provide a rationale under SE2.2.4.b in cases where there is some sort ofarrangement in place that clearly requires that management will put HCRs in place as and when thefishery reaches some pre-defined trigger level within the vicinity of BMSY. Such arrangements:•

Would normally relate to lightly exploited fisheries that are still in the development stage.

•

Should be explicit in requiring action at some defined point.

Although potentially driven by information and triggers, the arrangements are different to the actual
HCRs as they relate to the development of the HCRs themselves, while the HCRs define how
management measures will be adjusted in response to changes in fishery status.
Any commitment that will clearly deliver an HCR before the stock declines below BMSY is sufficient.
However, lack of evidence is not acceptable (for example, “there is no evidence that the stock will be
below BMSY at this point”). Positive evidence is required, otherwise the precautionary approach
applies.
In cases where the stock has not yet been reduced and “available” HCRs are scored as meeting
SG60, the condition assigned to this PI may allow longer than the normal 5-year time period fordelivery. While there will be advantages in designing and putting into place a “well-defined” HCR
during the certification period, it may also be acceptable to do this over a longer time period; forexample, if other conditions are being delivered first. The scoring of “available” HCRs is made on thebasis that the stock remains abundant and the criteria given in SE2.2.3 are still met. As soon as thesecriteria are no longer met, the fishery will need to have at least “generally understood” HCRs in place
to meet SG60.
Similar to the situation with the rebuilding PI (see GSA2.3), the team should allow fisheries 1 year toput HCRs in place. The team should not fail the fishery immediately if SG60 is not met in this 1st year.
If such fisheries fail to put in place either “generally understood” or “well defined” HCRs within 1 year,
the CAB should score the fishery as not meeting the SG60 level.
“Available” HCRs must be at least “generally understood” in nature. If the HCRs are “well-defined” inthe other stock, there would be more confidence that they are ‘available’ to the fishery in assessment.
CABs should note that the references to “other UoAs” in SE2.2.4.a and “other named UoAs” inSE2.2.6.a is not meant to imply that such UoAs are necessarily in assessment or certified as MSC
fisheries. Although this may be the case, they may also just be other species or stocks that are also
managed by the same management body and considered in the assessment.
If HCRs are only regarded as “available” in scoring issue (a), it is not possible to score more than 60
for issue (c) because the SG80 refers to the tools “in use” in the fishery in assessment, not the tools“in use or available”.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 145© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

Assessing informal approaches to HCRs
Within Section SE, informal approaches to HCRs are only appropriate at SG60 for scoring issue (a)and (c).

Metapopulations
The team should address uncertainties relating to the metapopulation structure. The team should notethe descriptions of different types of metapopulation in GFCP G7.5.

GSE3
GSE3.1.1

Setting conditions ▲The condition-setting requirements in Section SE are specific to setting conditions for PI 1.2.1 and PI
1.2.2 when Section SE is applied and therefore may differ from the condition setting requirements in
the FCP. Differences between Section SE and the FCP are intentional. The intent of SE 3.1.1 andSE3.1.1.1 is to ensure the CAB follows the condition-setting requirements under Section SE rather
than the condition-setting requirements in the FCP.

GSE3.2.3.2.d

Maintaining phase 1 outcomes ▲The preferred harvest strategy that is scored at the completion of the first phase does not necessarilyneed to be the same one that is adopted at the completion of the second phase. However, if they dochange, the final adopted harvest strategy still needs to meet the required scoring criteria.

GSE3.2.4

Milestones ▲Within the first milestone of the first phase, the management objectives should:•

Outline what the harvest strategy is aiming to achieve.

•

Reflect the achievement of SG80 in PI 1.1.1.

The performance indicators should reflect these management objectives and include the desired levelof risk and timelines for meeting those performance indicators. Ultimately, the performance indicators,
trade-offs, and reference points etc. are determined by the stakeholders involved in the management
strategy evaluation process.
The data needs within the first phase should outline:•

The type of data required.

•

The assessment model that is to be used to inform the management procedure.

In this phase, a pre-agreed cut-off date should be considered for the data that will be used to informthe management strategy evaluation process, including the operating models and the candidate(s)and adopted management procedure.
The completion of the first phase involves the identification of a preferred harvest strategy adhering toa management procedure approach. The evidence for this identification includes endorsement fromthe management agency or relevant body, such as a Commission.
With respect to developing and implementing a catch or effort resource-sharing agreement, this could
exist in numerous forms. These include a pre-defined stock-wide reduction or individual fleet orcountry-based allocation schemes. The key objective is that the harvest strategy has a mechanism to
reduce catches, when necessary.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 146© Marine Stewardship Council 2022

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0

GSE3.2.5 and 3.2.6

Milestone timeframes ▲Where possible, the milestones for the phased condition pathway should be completed sequentially.
The expectation is that the CAB should assess the milestones throughout each phase and not wait
until the end of each phase to assess progress.

GSE3.3.2 & GSE3.3.4.1

Condition deadline and milestone timeframes ▲The MSC’s intent is that CABs use the results of the gap analysis to set a condition deadline andmilestone timeframes that are commensurate with the time it would take to achieve the milestones,
within the time appropriate for the target stock. It is not the MSC’s intent that the maximum time isgiven as a default for the condition to be closed, regardless of the milestones that need to beachieved.

GSE3.5.1

Evaluating progress against the condition ▲The requirements for evaluating progress against the condition in section SE are specific to thecondition set for PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2 when Section SE is applied. Therefore, the requirements may
differ from the requirements for evaluating progress against conditions in the FCP. Differences
between Section SE and the FCP are intentional. The intent of SE3.1.1 and SE3.1.1.1 is to ensure
the CAB follows the requirements for evaluating progress against the condition in Section SE rather
those in the FCP.

GSE3.5.3“Behind target” ▲“Behind target” means actions, outcomes, or milestones have fallen behind the timeframes specified
in a condition. Remedial action can include the CAB setting new milestones, provided these are still
expected to achieve the condition within the timeframes identified at the time of setting the condition.

GSE3.5.3, GSE3.5.5, GSE3.5.6 & GSE3.6.2

Full assessment after suspension
related to conditions ▲The MSC’s intent is that if a fishery has failed to achieve a condition by its deadline, the fishery client
is not allowed to enter the same UoCs, or entities in the UoC(s), into (re)assessment under either thesame or an alternative name or alias where the intention is to extend the duration of the condition into
a new certification period.

GSE3.5.4

Back “on target” ▲Back “on target” means meeting the original milestones within 12 months of falling behind.

GSE3.5.7

Reporting condition progress ▲Such reports include the Surveillance Reports, Announcement Comment Draft Report, Client andPeer Review Draft Report, Public Comment Draft Report, Final Draft Report, and the PublicCertification Report.
End of Section SE Guidance
End of Guidance to the Fisheries Standard

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v3.0
Date of publication: 26 October 2022

Page 147© Marine Stewardship Council 2022