Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Fisheries Standard

Version 2.01, 31 August 2018
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 1© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council’s “MSC Fisheries Standard” and its content is copyright of“Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2018. 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 by reference 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 v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 2© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

Responsibility for these requirements
The Marine Stewardship Council 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 befound on the MSC website.
Versions published
Version No.

Date

Description Of Amendment

Consultation
Draft

17 January 2011

First publication of consolidated MSC scheme requirements,
released for consultation.

0.0

7 March 2011

First draft of revisions following MSC and CAB consultations.

0.8

19 May 2011

Draft issued to the MSC Technical Advisory Board for final
review and sign-off.

1.0

15 August 2011

First version issued for application by Conformity Assessment
Bodies.

1.1

24 October 2011

Version issued incorporating revised Group CoC requirements
and correcting typos, page numbering, wrong and missing
referencing and unreadable flowcharts.

1.2

10 January 2012

Version issued incorporating TAB 20 agreed changes regarding
reassessment, objections procedure, modifications to thedefault assessment tree to assess bivalves, implementation
timeframes and ASC requirements.
Minor edits, wrong and missing referencing, typos andunreadable Figures were corrected.

1.3

14 January 2013

Version issued incorporating TAB 21 and BoT 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 CABs
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 Fisheries Certification Process.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 3© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

Marine Stewardship Council
VisionOur vision is of the world’s oceans teeming with life, and seafood supplies safeguarded forthis and future generations.

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

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 4© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

General introduction
Fisheries certification
With international consultation with stakeholders, the MSC has developed standards forsustainable fishing and seafood traceability. They ensure that MSC labelled seafood comes
from, and can be traced back to, a sustainable fishery.
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 toclaim that its fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source.
Throughout the world fisheries are using good management practices to safeguard jobs,
secure fish stocks for the future and help protect the marine environment. The sciencebased MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing offers fisheries a way to confirm
sustainability, using a credible, independent third-party assessment process. It means
sustainable fisheries can be recognised and rewarded in the marketplace, and gives anassurance to consumers that their seafood comes from a well-managed and sustainablesource.
The MSC Fisheries Standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scoperequirements provided in MSC Fisheries Certification Process Section 7.4.
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 a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
Principle 2: Environmental impact of fishing
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function
and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologicallyrelated species) on which the fishery depends.
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 v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 5© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

Implementation timeframes
Effective date of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Publication date: 31 August 2018
Effective date for use with the FCP v2.1: 31 August 2018
This version has been produced for use with the FCP v2.1. Changes between v2.0 andv2.01 of the Fisheries Standard are restricted to aligning cross references to the FCP v2.1.
There are no changes to the Standard requirements.

Review
Changes to the MSC Fisheries Standard will only be made in accordance with the MSC
Standard Setting Procedure which is consistent with the ISEAL Standard Setting Code. The
next review of the Standard will begin in 2018.
The MSC welcomes comments on the Fisheries Standard at any time. Comments will beincorporated into the next review process. Please submit comments to standards@msc.org
More information about the MSC policy development process and MSC Standard Setting
Procedure can be found on the MSC website (msc.org).

Introduction to this document
The MSC Fisheries Standard is composed of three core Principles and has three associatedmodifications for use in different types of fishery (Annexes SA, SB, SC and SD).

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 asa 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 withthe 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 notrepeated in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.
Where guidance is provided that generally relates to the subject of a major heading, or
relates to the content of a specific clause, this icon ◙ appears at the end of the title or clausein the MSC Fisheries Standard, and if critical guidance is included, this icon ‼ appears.
These icons provide hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the MSC Guidance to theFisheries Standard.
Critical guidance is identified within the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard using a
sidebar, as illustrated in this paragraph.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 6© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

Within the guidance, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink back to the corresponding section orclause in the MSC Fisheries Standard.

Auditability of guidance
The guidance in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is not directly auditable. It is,however, expected that the critical guidance identified in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Standard will be followed by CABs where applicable unless there is a justification for notdoing so. It is likely that this critical guidance would be referenced by the accreditation bodyin any non-conformity to related clauses.
The presence of critical guidance is identified with this icon ‼ in the MSC Fisheries Standard
and includes:•

Special cases: These relate to requirements that apply to a particular type of fishery,data or situation. For example, when assessing an LTL stock the species’ role in theecosystem should be considered in reference points.

•

Additional clarification on how a clause in the MSC Fisheries Standard would usually
be expected to be implemented. The use of different methods would need to be justified.

Derogations
Derogations are indicated by a footnote including:a. The authority who made the decision on the derogation.
b. The date or meeting number of the decision.
c. The date on which the derogation came into force or expires.
d. A short description of the derogation.
A derogation indicates a measure which allows for all or part of the requirement to be
applied differently, or not at all, to certain applicants or certificate holders.

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:
1. MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard
2. MSC Fisheries Certification Process
3. MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process
4. MSC-MSCI Vocabulary

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 7© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 one
definition are defined within the text where such terms or phrases appear.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 8© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Table of contents
Annex SA: The Default Assessment Tree – Normative ............................................ 10
Scope◙ ............................................................................................................................. 10
SA1

General ................................................................................................................. 10

SA2

Principle 1 ............................................................................................................. 11

SA3

Principle 2 ............................................................................................................. 27

SA4

Principle 3 ............................................................................................................. 62

Annex SB ...............Modifications to the Default Tree for Enhanced Bivalve Fisheries –Normative ◙ .............................................................................................................. 78
SB1

General ................................................................................................................. 78

SB2

Principle 1 ............................................................................................................. 78

SB3

Principle 2 ............................................................................................................. 82

SB4

Principle 3 ............................................................................................................. 85

Annex SC: Modifications to the Default Assessment Tree for Salmon Fisheries –Normative ................................................................................................................. 86
SC1

General ................................................................................................................. 86

SC1.1

General requirements ........................................................................................... 86

SC2

Principle 1 ............................................................................................................. 87

SC3

Principle 2 ........................................................................................................... 105

SC4

Principle 3 ........................................................................................................... 122

SC5Weighting to be Applied in Enhanced Salmon Fisheries ..................................... 130

SC6Allowances for Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) Catches in Salmon
Fisheries ........................................................................................................................... 130

Annex SD: Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) – Normative ◙ ................. 132
SD1

General ............................................................................................................... 132

SD2

Initial Requirements on Assessment Issues ........................................................ 132

SD3

Introduced Species as Non-target Species ......................................................... 133

SD4Implementation of this Annex .............................................................................. 133

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex SA: The Default Assessment Tree – Normative
The default tree structure includes the PISGs for each of the three MSC Principles to be
used in fishery assessments. ◙Scope ◙To be eligible for certification against the MSC Fisheries Standard a fishery must meet thescope criteria. The normative requirements for scope criteria are presented in Fisheries
Certification Process (FCP) Section 7.4.

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 fisheries management process.
b. The management strategies implemented that aim to achieve thoseoutcomes.

SA1.1.2

CABs shall apply requirements set out in Annex PF when using the RBF.

SA1.1.3

CABs shall follow subsequent standard annexes for species that require the useof a modified default tree.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2

Principle 1

Figure SA1: Principle 1 Default Tree Structure
Marine Stewardship Council
Default Assessment Tree Structure

MSC Fisheries Standard

Principle 1

Principle 2

OutcomeHarvest Strategy(Management)

PI 1.1.1: Stock Status

Principle 3

PI 1.2.1: Harvest Strategy

PI 1.2.2: Harvest Control Rules & Tools

PI 1.1.2: Stock Rebuilding

PI 1.2.3: Information/Monitoring

PI 1.2.4: Assessment of Stock Status

SA2.1

General requirements for Principle 1 ‼

SA2.1.1

In Principle 1, teams shall score the whole of the target stock(s) selected forinclusion in the Unit of Assessment (UoA).

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.2

Stock status PI (PI 1.1.1) ◙Table SA1: PI 1.1.1 Stock status PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Outcome

Stock status(a)
Stock status
relative torecruitment
impairment.

It is likely thatthe stock isabove thepoint whererecruitment
would beimpaired(PRI).

It is highly
likely that thestock is above
the PRI.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatthe stock isabove the PRI

The stock is at
or fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent withMSY.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatthe stock has
been fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent withMSY or has
been above thislevel over recent
years.

1.1.1
The stock is
at a level
which
maintainshighproductivity
and has alowprobability ofrecruitment
overfishing.

(b)
Stock status
in relation toachievementof Maximum
Sustainable
Yield (MSY).

‼

Scoring stock status ‼
SA2.2.1

In P1 the terms “likely”, “highly likely” and “high degree of certainty” are used toallow for either qualitative or quantitative evaluation. In a probabilistic context
and in relation to scoring issue (a):SA2.2.1.1 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 thestock is higher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk ofrecruitment being impaired).
SA2.2.1.2 Highly likely means greater than or equal to the 80th percentile.
SA2.2.1.3 High degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 95th
percentile.
SA2.2.2

The team shall consider the biology of the species and the scale and intensity ofboth the UoA and management system and other relevant issues in determining
time periods over which to judge fluctuations. ‼

SA2.2.3

Where information is not available on the stock status relative to the Point of
Recruitment Impairment (PRI) or MSY levels, proxy indicators and reference
points may be used to score PI 1.1.1. ‼

SA2.2.3.1 Where proxy indicators and reference points are used to score PI 1.1.1,
the team shall justify their use as reasonable proxies of stock biomass for
the PRI and/or MSY. ‼
SA2.2.4

The recent trends in fishing mortality rate may be used as a means of scoringstock status. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.2.4.1 In this case, teams shall demonstrate that F has been low enough for longenough to ensure that the required biomass levels are now likely to be met.

Stock complexesSA2.2.5

Where several species or stocks are fished as stock complexes, they may betreated as separate UoAs, or as separate scoring elements within a single UoA(as in the case of multiple primary species considered under PI 2.1.1). In either
case, for each SG the team shall seek evidence that, as an outcome, the levelsof ‘likelihood’ meet the levels of ‘likelihood’ specified in SA2.2.1 for eachseparate stock. ◙SA2.2.6

Where species or stocks are fished as stock complexes, the overall target
reference points should be consistent with the intent of the PI, and maintain thehigh productivity of the stock complex.

Consideration of Environmental Variability
SA2.2.7

As ecosystem productivity may change from time to time as marine
environments change naturally, for instance under conditions of regime shift, theteam 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, teams shall accept adjustments to the reference points
consistent with such natural environmental fluctuations.
SA2.2.7.2 If fishery productivity is being affected through human-induced impacts(either directly from the UoA or from other sources such as pollution or
habitat degradation), no changes to reference points are justified.
a. The impacts should be resolved.
b. The UoA should receive a reduced score in PI 1.1.1 until the stock isabove the unadjusted reference points.

Treatment of key Low Trophic Level (LTL) 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

Teams shall treat a stock under assessment against Principle 1 as a key LTL
stock if: ◙a. It is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 and in its adult life cycle
phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets atleast two of the following sub-criteria i, ii and iii.
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 whichenergy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, suchthat a high proportion of the total energy passing between lowerand higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., theecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’).

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

b. It is not one of the species types listed in Box SA1, but in its adult life
cycle phase it meets at least two of the sub criteria in SA2.2.9a.i–iii,
and additionally meets the following criteria:i.

The species feeds predominantly on plankton; has a trophic level ofabout 3 (but potentially ranging from 2 to 4); is characterised bysmall 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);and forms dense schools.

c. . Teams shall provide evidence specifically addressing each of the subcriteria in SA2.2.9 to justify any decision to not define the stock as a
key LTL species in the ecosystem under assessment.

SA2.2.10i.

In the case where there is no information on a sub-criterion inSA2.2.9, the stock shall be assumed to meet that sub-criterion.

ii.

In providing rationales against the key LTL sub-criteria(SA2.2.9.a.i–iii), teams shall document the choice of spatial scale
and provide reasonable justification for the choice.

Teams shall determine whether a species is to be considered a key LTL species
based on its status at the time of assessment. The determination shall be
reviewed at each surveillance audit.

Box SA1: Species types that are defined by default as “key LTL stocks” for the purposes of an
MSC assessment. See ASFIS List of Species for species included in different families andorders (http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en)

Box SA1: Species types that are defined by default as “key LTL stocks” for the
purposes of an MSC assessment. ◙See ASFIS List of Species for species included in different families and orders(http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en)•

Family Ammodytidae (sandeels, sandlances)•

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

Family Engraulidae (anchovies)•

Family Euphausiidae (krill)•

Family Myctophidae (lanternfish)•

Family Osmeridae (smelts, capelin)•

Genus Scomber (mackerels)•

Order Atheriniformes (silversides, sand smelts)•

Species Trisopterus esmarkii (Norway pout)

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Outcome

Stock status

(a)
Stock
statusrelative toecosystem
impairment.

It is likely thatthe stock isabove the point
where serious
ecosystem
impacts could
occur.

It is highly
likely that thestock is above
the point whereseriousecosystem
impacts could
occur.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatthe stock isabove the point
where serious
ecosystem
impacts could
occur.

The stock is at
or fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent withecosystemneeds.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatthe stock has
been fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent withecosystemneeds or has
been above thislevel over recent
years.

1.1.1AThe stock is
at a level
which has alowprobability ofseriousecosystem
impacts.

(b)
Stockstatus inrelation to
ecosystemneeds.

SA2.2.11

Stocks identified as key LTL stocks shall be scored using Table SA2 and asdetailed in SA2.2.12 to SA2.2.16 below.

SA2.2.12

When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the point where serious ecosystem
impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the
point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species
in a single species context. ◙a. Such point may be analytically determined from ecosystem models, but inany case shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would
be expected in the absence of fishing.

SA2.2.13

When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (b), the expectations for key LTL species
shall be as given below: ◙a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs shall be
75% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence offishing.
b. A higher or lower target level, down to a minimum allowed 40% of thespawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing, may
still achieve an 80 level score if it can be demonstrated, through the use ofcredible ecosystem models or robust empirical data for the UoA/ecosystembeing assessed, that the level adopted: ◙i.

Does not impact the abundance levels of more than 15% of the otherspecies and trophic groups by more than 40% (compared to their state in
the absence of fishing on the target LTL species); andDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ii.

Does not reduce the abundance level of any other species or trophic
group by more than 70%.

SA2.2.14

At SG100 in scoring issue (b) a higher degree of certainty is required when
considering the ecological impact of the UoA on the stock.
a. For key LTL species to score 100 the expectations for ecosystem needs
reference levels may remain as specified at SG80, but teams shalldemonstrate that biomass levels are fluctuating “above” the required level.

SA2.2.15

Where proxy indicators and reference points are used 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 thelevel consistent with ecosystem needs. ‼
a. Where fishing mortality rate is used to score stock status, the default fishingmortality required to maintain a stock fluctuating around the level consistent
with ecosystem needs shall take the value of 0.5M or 0.5 FMSY, where FMSY
has been determined in a single species context.
b. Proxy fishing mortalities required to maintain the stock above the point whereserious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be lower than assumed to beable to keep the population above the point where recruitment would be
impaired.
c. Departures from these default levels may be justified if it can bedemonstrated that SA2.2.13.b is met.

SA2.2.16

Performance against these reference points shall be judged (in PI 1.1.1A) in thecontext of recruitment variability typical for the given species in its ecosystem. ◙Consideration of uncertain information
SA2.2.17

The consideration of the status of the stock in P1 shall include mortality that isobserved and mortality that is unobserved.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ‼

Table SA3: PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

Outcome

Stock
Rebuilding(a)Rebuilding
timeframes

A rebuilding
timeframe isspecified for thestock that is theshorter of 20
years or 2
times its
generation
time. For cases
where 2
generations isless than 5
years, therebuilding
timeframe is up
to 5 years. ‼

(b)
Rebuilding
evaluation

Monitoring is inplace todeterminewhether therebuilding
strategies are
effective inrebuilding thestock within thespecified
timeframe.

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

SG80

SG100
The shortest
practicablerebuilding
timeframe isspecified which
does not exceed
one generation
time for thestock.

There isevidence thatthe rebuilding
strategies arerebuilding
stocks, or it islikely based on
simulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates orprevious
performancethat they will beable to rebuild
the stock within
the specified
timeframe.

There is strong
evidence thatthe rebuilding
strategies arerebuilding
stocks, or it ishighly likely
based onsimulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates orprevious
performancethat they will beable to rebuild
the stock within
the specified
timeframe.

SA2.3.1

Teams shall only score this PI when Stock Status PI 1.1.1 does not achieve an
80 score.

SA2.3.2

In cases where stocks score 80 or above on PI 1.1.1 at the time of assessment,
but scores are then reduced during a certification cycle, the team shall ensurethat rebuilding strategies and monitoring are put in place within one year of
becoming aware of the reduced status, (or as early as practicable in stocks thatare not assessed on an annual basis). ‼

SA2.3.3

The team shall require that where a score of between 60 and 80 is awarded, thesubsequent conditions are fulfilled within one certification period. ‼

SA2.3.4

In scoring issue (b), where fishing mortality rate is available for the UoA: ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.3.4.1 Current F shall be “likely” to be less than FMSY to justify an 80 score; andSA2.3.4.2 Current F shall be “highly likely” to be less than FMSY to justify a 100 score.
SA2.3.4.3 A UoA need not meet the above requirements if there is alternative clear
evidence that the stocks are rebuilding.
SA2.3.5

In UoAs that use assessments and reference points that are regarded as proxies
of FMSY and/or BMSY, teams shall take account in their scoring of any differences
between the proxy reference levels and MSY levels and shall provide justificationthat the assigned Scoring Guidepost (SG) level is met.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 SG80.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of thestock and theelements of theharvest strategy
work together
towards
achieving stock
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of thestock and isdesigned toachieve stock
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80.

(b)
Harveststrategy
evaluation

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

The harvest
strategy may nothave been fully
tested but
evidence existsthat it isachieving its
objectives.

The
performance ofthe harvest
strategy has
been fully
evaluated andevidence exists
to show that it isachieving its
objectives
including being
clearly able tomaintain stocks
at target levels.

(c)
Harveststrategy
monitoring

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

1.2.1
There is arobust andprecaution
ary harvest
strategy inplace.

(d)Harveststrategyreview(e)
Shark finning

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

The harvest
strategy isperiodicallyreviewed andimproved asnecessary.
It is likely thatshark finning is
not taking
place.

It is highly
likely that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatshark finning is
not taking place.

page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01(f)
Review ofalternative
measuresSA2.4.1

There hasbeen a reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock.

There is aregular reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of thetarget stock andthey areimplemented as
appropriate.

There is abiennial reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of thetarget stock, andthey areimplemented, as
appropriate.

Teams shall interpret: ◙SA2.4.1.1 “Evaluated” at SG100 to mean ‘tested for robustness to uncertainty,
appropriate to the scale and intensity of the UoA’.
SA2.4.1.2 “Tested” at SG80 to mean the involvement of some sort of structured
logical argument and analysis that supports the choice of strategy.
SA2.4.2

If conditions are set, changes to the Harvest Control Rules or assessment
method may be needed to make these conditions operational. If new HCRs or
assessment methods require different or additional information, the team shallensure that it shall be either already available or shall be made part of thecondition.

Shark finning ◙SA2.4.3

If the target species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (e) to ensurethat shark finning is not being undertaken in the fishery.

SA2.4.4

In scoring issue (SI) (e) the terms “likely”, “highly likely” and “high degree ofcertainty” are used to allow for either qualitative or quantitative evaluation.

SA2.4.4.1 The team shall consider how the level of external validation andregulations in place work together to deliver the required confidence thatshark finning is not taking place.
SA2.4.5

When scoring SI (e) at SG60, the expectation shall be that one of the following
subparagraphs applies:

SA2.4.5.1 If fins are cut on board:a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks; ◙b. Shark fins and carcasses shall be landed together in compliance with aratio specifically relevant for the species, fishing fleet and initial postcatch processing (e.g., fresh/frozen/dried); and ◙i.

The team shall document the justification for using the specificratio.

c. Good external validation of the vessels’ activities is available to confirm
that it is likely that shark finning is not taking place. ‼
SA2.4.5.2 If sharks are processed on board: ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks;b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies andbody parts; andc. Some external validation of the vessel’s activities is available to confirm
that it is likely that shark finning is not taking place.
SA2.4.6

When scoring SI (e) at SG80, the expectation shall be that one of the following
subparagraphs applies:

SA2.4.6.1 All sharks are landed with fins naturally attached;
SA2.4.6.2 If sharks are processed on board:a. There are regulations in place governing the management of sharks;b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies andbody parts; andc. Good external validation of the vessels’ activities is available to confirm
that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.
SA2.4.7

When scoring SI (e).at SG100, the expectation shall be that one of the following
subparagraphs applies:

SA2.4.7.1 If sharks are landed with fins naturally attached, there is some external
validation such that there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is
not taking place.
SA2.4.7.2 If sharks are processed on board
a. There are comprehensive regulations in place governing themanagement of sharks;b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies andbody parts; andc. Comprehensive external validation of the vessels’ activities is available
to confirm with a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking
place.

Unwanted catch
SA2.4.8

Scoring issue (f) requires that UoAs review whether the use of alternative
measures could reduce the mortality arising from unwanted catches from thetarget stocks.

SA2.4.8.1 Teams shall apply scoring issue (f) to target stocks in P1 in the same way
as applied to species in P2, noting sections SA3.5.3 and related guidance.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 oravailable thatare expected toreduce theexploitation rate
as the point of
recruitment
impairment(PRI) isapproached.

Well defined
HCRs are inplace that
ensure thattheexploitation
rate is reduced
as the PRI is
approached,
are expected
to keep thestock
fluctuatingaround atarget levelconsistent with(or above)
MSY, or for
key LTL
species a levelconsistent withecosystemneeds.

The HCRs are
expected tokeep the stock
fluctuating at
or above atarget levelconsistent with
MSY, or anothermore
appropriate leveltaking into
account theecological roleof the stock,
most of thetime.

The HCRs arelikely to berobust to themainuncertainties.

The HCRs takeaccount of awide range of
uncertainties
including theecological roleof the stock, andthere isevidence thatthe HCRs arerobust to themainuncertainties.

Available
evidence
indicates thatthe tools in
use areappropriate
and effectivein achieving
theexploitationlevels required
under the
HCRs.

Evidence
clearly showsthat the tools in
use are effectivein achieving the
exploitationlevels required
under the
HCRs.

1.2.2
There arewell definedand effective
harvestcontrol rules(HCRs) inplace.

(b)
HCRs
robustness touncertainty ◙

(c)
HCRs
evaluation ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There is someevidence thattools used oravailable toimplement
HCRs areappropriate andeffective incontrolling
exploitation.

page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.5.1

Teams should require additional precaution to be built into the HCR at SG100 so
the HCR keeps stocks well above limit reference points.

Scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 ‼
SA2.5.2

In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs
(instead of HCRs that are ‘in place’) in cases where: ‼
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 2 generation 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 to date by the measures in use at levels that have not declined
significantly over time, nor shown any evidence of recruitment impairment.

SA2.5.3

Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation
rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where: ‼
a. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control ofthe same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; orb. An agreement or framework is in place that requires the management bodyto adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY.

SA2.5.4

In scoring issue (a) at the SG100 level, where quantitative simulation testing isavailable, “most of the time” should be interpreted as the stock being maintainedat or above MSY or some ecologically more relevant target point at least 70% of
the time. ◙SA2.5.5

In scoring issue (c) at the SG60 level, where HCRs are recognised as ‘available’,teams shall include in their rationale: ‼
a. Evidence that HCRs are being ‘effectively’ used in other named UoAs, also
managed by the same management body, including the basis on which they
are regarded as ‘effective’; orb. A description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the
management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will
require the development of HCRs.

Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs ◙SA2.5.6

In scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of thecurrent levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishingmortality rate or harvest rate, where available. ◙SA2.5.7

Where information is not available on the exploitation rate consistent withachieving a long term MSY, proxy indicators and reference points may be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of HCRs in scoring issue (c). ◙SA2.5.7.1 Where proxies are used to score scoring issue (c), the team shall justify
their use as reasonable proxies of the exploitation rate.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.6

Information and monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) ◙Table SA6: PI 1.2.3 information and monitoring PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Harveststrategy

Information /monitoring(a)
Range ofinformation

Some relevant
information
related tostock
structure,stock
productivity
and fleetcomposition isavailable tosupport theharveststrategy.

Sufficient
relevant
information
related to stock
structure, stock
productivity,
fleet
composition andother data are
available tosupport theharvest strategy.

Acomprehensive
range ofinformation (onstock structure,stock
productivity,
fleet
composition,stockabundance,
UoA removals
and other
information suchasenvironmental
information),including somethat may not bedirectly relevantto the current
harvest strategy,
is available.

(b)

Stock
abundanceand UoA
removals aremonitored andat least one
indicator isavailable andmonitored with
sufficientfrequency tosupport theharvest control
rule.

Stock
abundance andUoA removals
are regularly
monitored at alevel ofaccuracy andcoverageconsistent withthe harvest
control rule,and one or
moreindicators areavailable andmonitored with
sufficientfrequency tosupport theharvest control
rule.

All information
required by theharvest control
rule is monitoredwith highfrequency and ahigh degree ofcertainty, andthere is a goodunderstandingof the inherent
uncertainties in
the information[data] and therobustness ofassessment andmanagement tothis uncertainty.

1.2.3
Relevant
informationis collected
to support
the harvest
strategy.

Monitoring ◙(c)Comprehensiveness of
information◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There is good
information on
all other fisheryremovals fromthe stock.

page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA2.6.1

The team should identify which information from the information categories inSA2.6.1.1 is relevant to both the design and effective operational phases of theharvest strategy, Harvest Control Rules and tools, and their evaluation should bebased on this information. ‼

SA2.6.1.1 The team shall determine a combined score for this PI on the quality ofdata available, weighted by information category on the relevance to theharvest strategy, HCR and management tools. Information categories
include:a. Stock structure;b. Stock productivity;c. Fleet composition;d. Stock abundance;e. UoA removals;f.

Other data.

SA2.6.2

Teams 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.

SA2.6.3

Teams shall interpret “a comprehensive range of information” and “allinformation” at the SG100 level to include information provided by a strategic
research plan.

SA2.6.3.1 This information shall go beyond the immediate short-term management
needs to create a strategic body of research relevant to the long-term UoAspecific management system.
SA2.6.4

The teams shall also consider the veracity of information.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 stockstatus(a)
Appropriaten
ess ofassessment
to stockunder
consideration

1.2.4
There is anadequate
assessmentof the stock
status.

SG60

SG80

SG100

The
assessment isappropriate forthe stock andfor the harvest
control rule.

The assessment
takes into accountthe major features
relevant to the
biology of thespecies and thenature 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
in theassessment

The
assessment
identifies
major
sources of
uncertainty.

The
assessment
takes
uncertainty
into account.

(d)Evaluation ofassessment(e)Peer review
ofassessment

SA2.7.1

The assessment
takes into accountuncertainty and isevaluating stock
status relative toreference points
in a probabilisticway.
The assessment
has been tested
and shown to berobust. Alternative
hypotheses andassessment
approaches havebeen rigorously
explored.

The
assessment ofstock status issubject to peer
review.

The assessment
has beeninternally andexternally peer
reviewed.

For SG80, when considering an assessment which covers multiple sub-stocks ofa single species or a complex of several different species, the team should take
into account that the level of assessment required for individual stocks within thestock complex should reflect their ecological importance.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3

Principle 2

Figure SA2: Principle 2 Assessment Tree StructureDefault Assessment Tree Structure

MSC Fisheries Standard

Principle 1

Primary Species

Principle 2

Secondary Species

Principle 3

ETP Species

Habitats

Ecosystem

PI 2.1.1: Outcome (O)PI 2.2.1: O

PI 2.3.1: O

PI 2.4.1: O

PI 2.5.1: O

PI 2.1.2: Management (M)PI 2.2.2: M

PI 2.3.2: M

PI 2.4.2: M

PI 2.5.2: M

PI 2.1.3: Information (I)PI 2.2.3: I

PI 2.3.3: I

PI 2.4.3: I

PI 2.5.3: I

SA3.1

General requirements for Principle 2 ◙SA3.1.1

The team shall determine and document under which component P2 species will
be assessed prior to scoring the Unit of Assessment (UoA). ◙SA3.1.1.1 Teams shall provide both the common and the scientific name for eachmain species in a P2 assessment. If applicable, the stock component thateach species belongs to shall also be outlined in the report.
SA3.1.2

The team shall consider each P2 species within only one of the primary species,
secondary species or ETP species components. ◙SA3.1.3

The team shall assign primary species in P2 where all the following criteria are
met: ◙

SA3.1.3.1 Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are notincluded in the UoA;
SA3.1.3.2 Species that are within scope of the MSC program as defined in FCP
Section 7.4; andSA3.1.3.3 Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended toachieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target
reference points.
a. In cases where a species would be classified as primary due to the
management measures of one jurisdiction but not another that overlaps
with the UoA, that species shall still be considered as primary.
SA3.1.4

The team shall assign secondary species in P2 as species in the catch that arewithin scope of the MSC program but are not covered under P1 because they
are not included in the Unit of Assessment and: ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.1.4.1 Are not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; orSA3.1.4.2 Species that are out of scope of the program, but where the definition of
ETP species is not applicable.
SA3.1.5

The team shall assign ETP (endangered, threatened or protected) species asfollows: ◙SA3.1.5.1 Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation;
SA3.1.5.2 Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: ◙a. Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the
CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is notendangered.
b. Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS), including:ii.

Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross andPetrels (ACAP);

iii. Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird
Agreement (AEWA);
iv. Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic
and North Seas (ASCOBANS);v. Annex 1, Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of theBlack Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area
(ACCOBAMS);
vi. Wadden Sea Seals Agreement;vii. Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species
concluded under this Convention.
SA3.1.5.3 Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds andmammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU),
endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).
SA3.1.6

In PIs 2.1.2 and 2.2.2, the term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the teamas 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. ◙SA3.1.7

The team shall consider species used as bait in the UoA, whether they werecaught by the UoA or purchased from elsewhere, as either primary or secondary
species using the definitions provided under SA 3.1.3 and SA 3.1.4 respectively.

SA3.1.8

The consideration of the impact of the UoA on all components in P2, including
unwanted catch, shall include mortality that is observed and mortality that is
unobserved. ◙SA3.1.9

The team shall interpret key words or phrases used in P2 as shown in Table
SA8. ◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table SA8: Principle 2 Phrases

Term

Definition and discussion

Biologically
based limits

There is a benchmark against which status of a component can beevaluated, and the benchmark is chosen to provide a high probability ofpersistence of the species over time.
For many fish species this will be equivalent to the point below which
recruitment may be impaired (PRI). For others (e.g., out of scope
species) this should have the same general intent but alternatives suchas minimum viable population size (MVP), Potential Biological Removal(PBR) or other metrics which help determine the sustainability of a
population, may be used.
The benchmark should be derived from biological information that isrelevant to the ecosystem feature and UoA, although the information
does not necessarily have to come from the specific area.

Broadly
understood

There is a general knowledge of the component’s status, the UoA’s
impact on the component, the component’s distribution or the key
elements of the component. This general knowledge can be acquired
from diverse sources that are relevant to the component and UoA but
does not have to be locally derived information.

Does nothinder

The impact of the UoA is low enough that if the species is capable ofimproving its status, the UoA will not hinder that improvement. It does
not require evidence that the status of the species is actually improving.

If necessary

The term “if necessary” is used in the management strategy PIs at
SG60and SG80 for the primary species, secondary species, habitats
and ecosystems components. This is to exclude the assessment of
UoAs that do not impact the relevant component at these SG levels.

In place

When a measure or strategy is “in place” the measure or strategy has
been implemented, and if multiple measures have been identified toaddress an impact of the UoA, there is a specified process with a clear
timetable and endpoint for implementation of all of the measures.

Information isadequate“Adequate” refers to the quantity and quality of information needed tojustify the level of risk or certainty associated with the specific Scoring
Guidepost (SG). The adequacy of information may vary for the different
information scoring issues and SGs, depending on what the information
is used to support.

Measures /PartialStrategy/
Strategy/Comprehensive
Strategy“Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage
impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of
the component under assessment having been designed to manage
impacts elsewhere.
A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may
comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they workto achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change themeasures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been
designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.
A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which
may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/theywork to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage
impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to beappropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery andDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Term

Definition and discussion
should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in thelight of the identification of unacceptable impacts.
A “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is acomplete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses,
and management measures and responses.

MSC UoAs

Those UoAs that are in assessment or certified at the time the UoA
announces its assessment or reassessment on the MSC website.

Objective Basisfor Confidence“Objective basis for confidence”, as used at the SG80 level in the P2
management PIs (Management Strategy Evaluation scoring issue)refers to the levels of information required to evaluate the likelihood thatthe management partial strategy will work.
• The SG60 level for these PIs requires “plausible argument” basedon expert knowledge;•

The SG80 level requires expert knowledge augmented by some
information collected in the area of the UoA and about the specificcomponent(s) and/or UoA;•

The SG100 level requires all preceding information augmented byrelatively complete information on the component, much of whichcomes from systematic monitoring and/or research.

Serious or
irreversible
harm to“structure andfunction”

Serious or irreversible harm to “structure or function” means changes
caused by the UoA that fundamentally alter the capacity of the habitator ecosystem to maintain its structure and function.
For the habitat component, this is the reduction in habitat structure,
biological diversity, abundance and function such that the habitat would
be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure,
biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were tocease entirely.
For the ecosystem component, this is the reduction of key features
most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions
and ensuring that ecosystem resilience and productivity is notadversely impacted. This includes, but is not limited to, permanentchanges in the biological diversity of the ecological community and theecosystem’s capacity to deliver ecosystem services.

Within“Within” means on the precautionary side of a limit, for example, above
BLIM or below FLIM.

SA3.2

General requirements for outcome PIs ◙SA3.2.1

If a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shallreceive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI.

SA3.2.2

The team shall consider both the current outcome status and the resilience ofhistorical arrangements to function adequately and deliver low risk under future
conditions when scoring outcome PIs.

SA3.2.3

The definitions of required probability in P2 shall be those in Table SA9. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table SA9: Probability required at different scoring guideposts. The language of probability in
PI 2.4.1 and 2.5.1 is reversed, but holds the same probability expectation as for PI 2.2.1
Performanceindicator

SG60 probability
requirement

SG80 probability
requirement

SG100 probability
requirement

PI 1.1.1

Likely = > 70th %ile

Highly likely = > 80th %ile

High degree of certainty= > 95th %ile

PI 2.1.1

Likely = > 70th %ile

Highly likely = > 80th %ile

High degree of certainty= > 90th %ile

PI 2.2.1

Likely = > 60th %ile

Highly likely = > 70th %ile

High degree of certainty= > 80th %ile

PI 2.3.1

Likely = > 70th %ile

Highly likely = > 80th %ile

High degree of certainty= > 90th %ile

PI 2.4.1

Unlikely = < 40th %ile

Highly unlikely = < 30th %ile

Evidence of highly
unlikely = < 20th %ile

PI 2.5.1

Unlikely = < 40th %ile

Highly unlikely = < 30th %ile

Evidence of highly
unlikely = < 20th %ile

SA3.2.4

The team shall interpret the phrase ‘above the point where recruitment would be
impaired’ in the SGs for primary species as outlined in SA2.2.3 under Principle 1.

SA3.3

General requirements for information PIs ‼

SA3.3.1

If a team determines that the UoA has no impact on a particular component andhas therefore scored 100 under the Outcome PI, the Information PI shall still bescored.

SA3.3.2

Teams shall interpret the SG100 level relating to “information adequate tosupport a strategy” to include information provided by a strategic research plan,that addresses the information needs of management. This information shall go
beyond the immediate short-term management needs to create a strategic bodyof research relevant to the long-term fishery-specific management system.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.4

Primary species outcome PI (PI 2.1.1)

Table SA10: PI 2.1.1 Primary species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Primary
species

Outcome
Status(a)
Main primary
species stock
statusMain primary
species arelikely to be
above the PRI.

Main primary
species arehighly likely tobe above the
PRI.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatmain primary
species areabove PRI and
are fluctuatingaround a levelconsistent with
MSY.

2.1.1

OR

The UoA
aims tomaintainprimary
species
above thepoint whererecruitment
would beimpaired(PRI) anddoes nothinderrecovery ofprimary
species ifthey arebelow thePRI.

OR
If the species
is below the
PRI. the UoA
has measuresin place thatare expected
to ensure that
the UoA does
not hinder
recovery andrebuilding.

(b)
Minor
primary
species stock
statusIf the species isbelow the PRI,
there is either
evidence ofrecovery or ademonstrably
effective
strategy in place
between all
MSC UoAs
which
categorise thisspecies as
main, to ensurethat theycollectively do
not hinder
recovery andrebuilding.

Minor primary
species arehighly likely tobe above the
PRI.
OR
If below the PRI,
there isevidence that
the UoA does
not hinder therecovery andrebuilding ofminor primary
species.

SA3.4.1

The team shall determine and justify which primary species are considered‘main’ and which are not. ◙SA3.4.2

A species shall be considered ‘main’ if: ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.4.2.1 The catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of thetotal catch of all species by the UoA, or;SA3.4.2.2 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. ‼
a. Teams shall use one or both of the following criteria to determine
whether a species should be classified as ‘Less resilient’

SA3.4.3i.

The productivity of the species indicates that it is intrinsically of low
resilience, for instance, if determined by the productivity part of a
PSA that it has a score equivalent to low or medium productivity; orii.

Even if its intrinsic resilience is high, the existing knowledge of thespecies indicates that its resilience has been lowered due toanthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history. ◙In the case where individuals are released alive they shall not contribute to thedefinition of ‘main’.‼
a.

Teams shall provide strong scientific evidence of a very low postcapture mortality.

SA3.4.4

In cases where a species does not meet the designated weight thresholds of 5%
or 2% as defined in SA3.4.2.1 and SA3.4.2.2, the assessment team shall stillclassify 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 theaffected stocks/populations. ◙SA3.4.5

All other primary species not considered ‘main’ shall be considered ‘minor’
species.

SA3.4.6

At the SG80 level, where a species is below the level at which recruitment could
be impaired, the team shall recognise “evidence of recovery” or a “demonstrably
effective strategy” as being in place such that all MSC UoAs do not collectively
hinder recovery of the species using any or a combination 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 statusindicative of the state of the whole stock.
c. Indicators, proxies or absolute estimates of exploitation rate that show thatfishing mortality experienced by the stock is lower than FMSY.
d. Direct evidence that the proportion of combined catch by all MSC UoAs
relative to the total catch of the stock does not hinder recovery.

SA3.4.7

When assessing scoring issue (a), the team shall take into account whether
there are any changes in the catch or mortality of unwanted species resulting
from the implementation of measures to minimise their mortality (PI 2.1.2 scoring
issue (e)). ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.5

Primary species management strategy PI (PI 2.1.2) ‼

Table SA11: PI 2.1.2 Primary species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Primary
speciesManagement
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace ◙

There aremeasures inplace for the
UoA, ifnecessary,that areexpected tomaintain or
to not hinder
rebuilding of
the mainprimary
species at/tolevels which
are likely tobe above the
PRI.

There is apartial strategy
in place for the
UoA, ifnecessary, thatis expected tomaintain or to
not hinder
rebuilding of themain primary
species at/tolevels which arehighly likely tobe above the
PRI.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA formanaging mainand minor
primary species.

(b)Management
strategy
evaluationThe
measuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoAs/
species).

There is some
objective basis
for confidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work, basedon someinformation
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved.

Testing
supports highconfidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy will
work, based on
information
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved.

There is someevidence thatthe measures/
partial strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy is being
implemented
successfully
and isachieving its
overallobjective as
set out inscoring issue(a).

It is highly
likely that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatshark finning is
not taking place.

2.1.2
There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned tomaintain or
to not hinder
rebuilding ofprimary
species; andthe UoA
regularly
reviews andimplements
measures,asappropriate,
to minimise
the mortalityof unwanted
catch.

(c)
Management
strategy
implementation◙(d)
Shark finning◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

It is likelythat sharkfinning is nottaking place.

page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01(e)Review ofalternative
measures ◙SA3.5.1

There is areview of thepotential
effectivenessandpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of main
primary
species.

There is aregular reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of main
primary species
and they are
implemented as
appropriate.

There is abiennial reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of all
primary species,
and they are
implemented, as
appropriate.

Teams shall score this PI even if the UoA has no impact on this component. ‼

Shark finning
SA3.5.2

If the primary species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (d) (following
SA2.4.3–SA2.4.7) to ensure that shark finning is not being undertaken in the
UoA. ◙

Reviewing measures for unwanted catch
SA3.5.3

If there is unwanted catch as defined in SA3.1.6, the team shall assess scoring
issue (e). ‼

SA3.5.3.1“Alternative measures” in scoring issue (e) shall be interpreted by the teamas alternative fishing gear and/or practices that have been shown tominimise the rate of incidental mortality of the species or species type tothe lowest achievable levels. ‼

SA3.5.3.2“Regular review” in scoring issue (e) shall mean at least once every 5
years. ◙SA3.5.3.3 ‘‘As appropriate” in scoring issue (e) in the context of implementing
reviewed measures shall be interpreted by the team as situations where
potential alternative measures reviewed are: ‼
a. Determined to be more effective at minimising the mortality ofunwanted catch than current fishing gear and practices,b. Determined to be comparable to existing measures in terms of effecton target species catch, and impacts on vessel and crew safety,c. Determined to not negatively impact on other species or habitats, andd. Not cost prohibitive to implement. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.6

Primary species information PI (PI 2.1.3) ◙Table SA12: PI 2.1.3 Primary species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Primary
species

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
main primary
species ◙Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on themain primary
species withrespect tostatus.

Somequantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toassess theimpact of the
UoA on themain primary
species withrespect tostatus.

Quantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toassess with ahigh degree ofcertainty the
impact of the
UoA on main
primary species
with respect tostatus.

2.1.3
Informationon the nature
and amountof primary
speciestaken isadequate todetermine
the risk
posed by the
UoA and theeffectivenessof thestrategy tomanageprimary
species.

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.1.1 for the
UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate
productivity
andsusceptibility
attributes formain primary
species.

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.1.1 for the
UoA:
Some
quantitative
information isadequate toassessproductivity andsusceptibility
attributes formain primary
species.

(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
minor
primary
speciesSomequantitative
information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on minor
primary species
with respect tostatus.

◙(c)
Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage main
primary
species.

Information isadequate tosupport apartial strategy
to manage main
primary species.

Information isadequate tosupport a
strategy tomanage all
primary species,and evaluatewith a highdegree ofcertainty
whether the
strategy ispage 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100
achieving its
objective.

SA3.6.1

For any data-deficient scoring elements that have been scored using the RBF,
the team shall use the second part of Scoring Issue (a) for those elements.

SA3.6.2

The team shall report the catch and UoA-related mortality of all main species
taken by the UoA together with a description of the adequacy of the information,
including identifying data sources used and indicating whether they are
qualitative or quantitative.

SA3.6.2.1 Where a coefficient of variation (CV) or precision of an estimate is known,
this shall be included in the description of adequacy of the informationdelivered.
SA3.6.2.2 Where a species or proportion of the catch of a species has beenassessed by the team to be ‘unwanted’ as determined under SA3.1.6, theestimates of the proportion of the catch that are unwanted for each ofthese species shall be indicated.
SA3.6.3

In scoring issues (a) and (b) teams shall consider the following when determining
the adequacy of the information in relation to its ability to determine and to detectchanges in the outcome indicator score: ‼

SA3.6.3.1 That higher quality information shall be required to demonstrate adequacy
as the importance, or difficulty, of estimating the true impact of the UoA ona species in relation to its status increases. ‼
SA3.6.3.2 That in determining the adequacy of the methods used for data collection,
the team shall consider: ◙a. The precision of the estimates (qualitative or quantitative);b. The extent to which the data are verifiable (on their own or in
combination with other data sources);
c. Potential bias in estimates and data collection methods;
d. Comprehensiveness of data; ande. The continuity of data collection.
SA3.6.4

For scoring issue (c) teams shall 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 main species, e.g., due tochanges in the operation of the UoA or the effectiveness or implementation of
the management system. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.7

Secondary species outcome PI (PI 2.2.1)

Table SA13: PI 2.2.1 Secondary species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Secondaryspecies

Outcome
Status(a)Mainsecondaryspecies stock
statusMainsecondaryspecies arelikely to beabove
biologically
based limits.

Main secondary
species arehighly likely tobe abovebiologically based
limitsThere is ahigh degreeof certainty
that main
secondaryspecies areabovebiologically
based limits

2.2.1
The UoA
aims tomaintainsecondaryspecies
above abiologically
based limit
and does nothinderrecovery of
secondaryspecies ifthey arebelow abiologically
based limit.

OROR
If belowbiologically
based limits,
there aremeasures inplace
expected toensure that theUoA does nothinderrecovery andrebuilding.

(b)
Minor
secondaryspecies stock
statusDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

If belowbiologically based
limits, there iseither evidenceof recovery or ademonstrably
effective partial
strategy in placesuch that the UoA
does not hinder
recovery andrebuilding.
AND
Where catches ofa main secondary
species outside of
biological limits
areconsiderable,
there is either
evidence ofrecovery or a,demonstrably
effective
strategy in place
between those
MSC UoAs thathaveconsiderable
catches of thespecies, toensure that theycollectively do nothinder recovery
and rebuilding.
Minorsecondaryspecies arehighly likely tobe abovebiologically
based limits.

page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

OR
If belowbiologically
based limits
there isevidence that
the UoA does
not hinder therecovery andrebuilding ofminor
secondaryspecies.

SA3.7.1

The team shall determine and justify which secondary species are considered‘main’ and which are not. ◙SA3.7.1.1 For species that are defined as ‘in scope’, the requirements in SA3.4.2–
SA3.4.5 shall apply here.
SA3.7.1.2 For species that are defined as ‘out of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds,
mammals) that are not classified as ETP, all species impacted by the UoA
shall be considered ‘main’.
a. The requirements in SA3.4.3 shall also apply hereSA3.7.2

The team shall evaluate the evidence of recovery or the demonstrable
effectiveness of the strategy in place by following the general approach outlinedin SA3.4.6. ‼

SA3.7.2.1 In the last part of scoring issue (a) at SG80, teams shall consider only the
impacts of those MSC UoAs with ‘considerable catches’.
SA3.7.2.2 Considerable catches should be interpreted as those where main
secondary species comprise more than 10% of the catch by weight of the
UoA.
SA3.7.3

When assessing scoring issue (a), the team shall take into account whether
there are any changes in the catch or mortality of unwanted species resulting
from the implementation of measures to minimise their mortality (PI 2.2.2 scoring
issue (e)) ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.8

Secondary species management strategy PI (PI 2.2.2) ‼

Table SA14: PI 2.2.2 Secondary species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

SecondaryspeciesManagement
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,
which areexpected tomaintain or
not hinder
rebuilding ofmain
secondaryspecies at/tolevels which
are highly
likely to beabove
biologically
based limits
or to ensurethat the UoA
does nothinder theirrecovery.

There is apartial strategy
in place, if
necessary, for
the UoA that is
expected tomaintain or nothinder rebuildingof mainsecondaryspecies at/tolevels which arehighly likely tobe abovebiologically
based limits or
to ensure that
the UoA does
not hinder theirrecovery.

There is a
strategy inplace for the
UoA formanaging mainand minor
secondaryspecies.

The
measuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoAs/
species).

There is some
objective basis
for confidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work, basedon someinformation
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved.

Testing
supports highconfidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy will
work, based on
information
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved.

There is someevidence thatthe measures/
partial strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy is being
implemented
successfully
and isachieving its
overallobjective as
set out inscoring issue
(a).

2.2.2

◙
There is a
strategy inplace formanaging
secondaryspecies thatis designed
to maintainor to nothinderrebuilding of
secondaryspecies; andthe UoA
regularly
reviews andimplements
measures,asappropriate,
to minimise
the mortalityof unwanted
catch.

(b)
Management
strategy
evaluation(c)Management
strategy
implementation◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01(d)Shark finning ◙(e)Review ofalternative
measures tominimisemortality ofunwantedcatch

It is likelythat sharkfinning is nottaking place.

It is highly
likely that sharkfinning is nottaking place.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatshark finning is
not taking place.

There is areview of thepotential
effectivenessandpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality ofunwantedcatch of main
secondaryspecies.

There is aregular reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of main
secondaryspecies andthey areimplemented as
appropriate.

There is abiennial reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted
catch of all
secondaryspecies, andthey areimplemented, as
appropriate.

SA3.8.1

The team shall score this PI even if the UoA has no impact on this component.

SA3.8.2

If the secondary species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (d)(following SA2.4.3–SA2.4.7) to ensure that shark finning is not being undertakenin the UoA.

SA3.8.3

For this PI, in addition to determining unwanted catch as defined in clauseSA3.1.6, the team shall consider all species that are out of the scope of the
programme as defined in FCP Section 7.4 as unwanted catch.

SA3.8.4

In assessing scoring issue (e), clause SA3.5.3 and its sub-clauses shall apply
here.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.9

Secondary species information PI (PI 2.2.3) ◙Table SA15: PI 2.2.3 Secondary species information PISGs
Component

PI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Secondaryspecies

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
mainsecondaryspecies ◙Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate theimpact of the
UoA on themainsecondaryspecies withrespect tostatus.

Somequantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toassess theimpact of the
UoA on themain secondary
species withrespect tostatus.

Quantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toassess with a highdegree ofcertainty the
impact of the UoA
on main secondary
species withrespect to status.

2.2.3
Informationon thenature andamount ofsecondaryspeciestaken isadequate todetermine
the risk
posed bythe UoA
and theeffectiveness of thestrategy tomanagesecondaryspecies.

OR
OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.2.1 for the
UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate
productivity
andsusceptibility
attributes formain
secondaryspecies.

If RBF is used
to score PI
2.2.1 for the
UoA:
Some
quantitative
information isadequate toassessproductivity andsusceptibility
attributes formain secondary
species.

(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impact on
minor
secondaryspecies ◙(c)Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Some quantitative
information isadequate toestimate the impactof the UoA on
minor secondary
species withrespect to status.
Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage main
secondaryspecies.

Information isadequate tosupport apartial strategy
to manage main
secondaryspecies.

Information isadequate tosupport a strategy
to manage all
secondary species,and evaluate with ahigh degree ofcertainty whether
the strategy isachieving its
objective.

page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.9.1

Clauses SA3.6.1–SA3.6.4 shall apply here also, noting that where those clauses
refer to primary species they apply here to secondary species. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.10 ETP species outcome PI (PI 2.3.1)
Table SA16: PI 2.3.1 ETP species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Outcome
Status(a)
Effects of the
UoA onpopulation/
stocks within
national orinternational
limits, whereapplicable

Where
national and/orinternational
requirements
set limits for
ETP species,
the effects of
the UoA on
the population/
stock areknown andlikely to bewithin theselimits.

Wherenational and/orinternational
requirements
set limits for
ETP species,
the combined
effects of the
MSC UoAs on
the population/stock are
known andhighly likely
to be withinthese limits.

Where national
and/orinternational
requirements set
limits for ETP
species, there is ahigh degree ofcertainty that the
combined
effects of the
MSC UoAs arewithin these limits.

Known direct
effects of the
UoA are likely
to not hinder
recovery of
ETP species.

Direct effectsof the UoA are
highly likely
to not hinder
recovery of
ETP species.

There is a highdegree ofconfidence that
there are no
significant
detrimental
direct effects of
the UoA on ETP
species.

Indirect effects
have been
considered for
the UoA andare thought tobe highly
likely to notcreateunacceptable
impacts.

There is a highdegree ofconfidence that
there are no
significant
detrimental
indirect effectsof the UoA on
ETP species.

2.3.1
The UoAmeets
national andinternational
requirementsfor protectionof ETP
species.
The UoA
does nothinderrecovery of
ETP species.

‼

(b)
Direct effects(c)Indirecteffects

SA3.10.1

In scoring issue (a), “where national and/or international requirements set limits”
refers to limits set for protection and rebuilding, provided through the national
legislation or binding international agreements, as defined in SA3.1.5 andsubclauses.

SA3.10.1.1 If there is no applicable national legislation or binding international
agreement, scoring issue (a) shall not be scored.
SA3.10.2

The team’s scoring shall reflect the likelihood that the UoA meets theserequirements and its likelihood of causing unacceptable impacts.

SA3.10.2.1 The team shall interpret the requirement for the UoA to be “within national
or international limits” as:Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

a. At SG60, where it is likely that the UoA meets the requirements, there
is some evidence that requirements for protection and rebuilding arebeing achieved.
b. At SG80, where it is highly likely that the combined MSC UoAs meetthe requirements, there would be direct demonstration that
requirements for protection and rebuilding are being achieved.
c. At SG100, there should be full compliance with all requirements, andmortality of ETP species caused by the combined impacts of MSC
UoAs should be negligible. In addition, if there are no ETP species
caught in the MSC UoAs then the UoA would meet SG 100.
SA3.10.3

When assessing scoring issue (a) and (b), the team shall take into account
whether there are any changes in the catch or mortality of ETP species resulting
from the implementation of measures to minimise their mortality (PI 2.3.2 scoring
issue (e)). ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.11 ETP species management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ‼
Table SA17: PI 2.3.2 ETP species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace (national
andinternational
requirements)

There aremeasures inplace thatminimise the
UoA-related
mortality of
ETP species,
and areexpected tobe highly
likely toachievenational andinternational
requirements
for theprotection of
ETP species.

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging the
UoA’s impact
on ETP
species,
includingmeasures tominimisemortality,
which isdesigned to behighly likely
to achieve
national andinternational
requirements
for theprotection of
ETP species.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace formanaging the
UoA’s impact on
ETP species,
includingmeasures tominimisemortality, which
is designed toachieve above
national andinternational
requirements forthe protection of
ETP species.

(b)Management
strategy inplace(alternative)

There aremeasures inplace thatare expected
to ensure the
UoA does
not hinder
the recovery
of ETP
species.

There is a
strategy inplace that is
expected toensure the
UoA does nothinder therecovery of
ETP species.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace formanaging ETP
species, toensure the UoA
does not hinder
the recovery of
ETP species.

(c)Management
strategy
evaluationThe
measuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoAs/
species).

There is anobjective
basis forconfidence
that the partial
strategy/
strategy will
work, basedoninformation
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
species
involved.

The strategy/
comprehensive
strategy ismainly based on
information
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved, and aquantitative
analysis
supports highconfidence thatthe strategy will
work.

There is someevidence thatthemeasures/strat
egy is being

There is clear
evidence thatthe strategy/
comprehensive
strategy is being

2.3.2
The UoA has
in placeprecautionary
management
strategies
designed to:- meet national
andinternational
requirements;
and- ensure the
UoA does nothinderrecovery of
ETP species.
Also, the UoA
regularly
reviews andimplements
measures, as
appropriate, tominimise themortality of
ETP species.

(d)Management
strategy
implementationDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01(e)Review ofalternative
measures tominimisemortality of
ETP species

SA3.11.1

There is areview of thepotential
effectivenessandpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise
UoA-related
mortality of
ETP species.

implemented
successfully.

implemented
successfully andis achieving its
objective as
set out inscoring issue(a) or (b).

There is aregular reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated
mortality of
ETP species
and they are
implemented
as appropriate.

There is abiennial reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortality
ETP species,
and they are
implemented, as
appropriate.

When scoring the ETP Management Strategy PI SGs teams shall consider theneed to minimise mortality. ‼

SA3.11.1.1 All sources of direct mortality shall be considered, including, but not limited
to, direct deaths and injuries leading to death.
SA3.11.2

The team shall evaluate either scoring issue (a) or scoring issue (b) on the ETP
species management strategy:

SA3.11.2.1 Where there are requirements for protection and rebuilding provided
through national ETP legislation or international agreements, the teamshall score scoring issue (a).
SA3.11.2.2 Where there are no requirements for protection and rebuilding provided
through national ETP legislation or international agreements, the teamshall score scoring issue (b).
SA3.11.3

In assessing scoring issue (e), clause SA3.5.3 and its sub-clauses shall apply
here, noting that where those clauses refer to mortality of unwanted species they
apply here to mortality of ETP species. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.12 ETP species information PI (PI 2.3.3) ◙Table SA18: PI 2.3.3 ETP species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Information(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate the
UoA related
mortality on
ETP species.

Somequantitative
information isadequate toassess the UoA
related mortality
and impact andto determine
whether the
UoA may be athreat toprotection andrecovery of the
ETP species.

Quantitative
information isavailable toassess with ahigh degree ofcertainty themagnitude of
UoA-related
impacts,
mortalities andinjuries and theconsequences
for the statusof ETP species.

2.3.3
Relevant
informationis collected
to support
themanagementof UoAimpacts on
ETP species,
including:- information
for thedevelopmentof themanagement
strategy;- information
to assess theeffectivenessof themanagement
strategy; and- information
to determine
the outcome
status of
ETP species

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.3.1 for the
UoA
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate
productivity
andsusceptibility
attributes for
ETP species.

(b)
Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage theimpacts on
ETP species

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.3.1 for the
UoA:
Some
quantitative
information isadequate toassessproductivity
andsusceptibility
attributes for
ETP species.
Information isadequate tomeasure trends
and support a
strategy tomanage impacts
on ETP species

Information isadequate tosupport acomprehensive
strategy tomanageimpacts,
minimizemortality andinjury of ETP
species, andevaluate with ahigh degree ofcertainty
whether astrategy isachieving its
objectives.

page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.12.1

The team should interpret “UoA related mortality” for SG60 and SG80 to mean
the mortality in the UoA under assessment.

SA3.12.2

SA3.6.1–SA3.6.4 shall apply here (except SA3.6.2.2) noting that the paragraphs
apply to all ETP species (i.e., there is no ‘main’ for ETP).

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.13 Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.4.1) ◙Table SA19: PI 2.4.1 Habitats outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Outcomestatus(a)Commonly
encounteredhabitat status

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

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of thecommonly
encounteredhabitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that the
UoA is highly
unlikely to reduce
structure andfunction of thecommonly
encounteredhabitats to a point
where there
would be serious
or irreversible
harm.

(b)
VME habitat
statusThe UoA is
unlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of
the VME
habitats to apoint where
there would
be serious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of the
VME habitats
to a point
where there
would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that the
UoA is highly
unlikely to reduce
structure andfunction of the
VME habitats to apoint where there
would be serious
or irreversible
harm.

2.4.1
The UoA does
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm to habitat
structure andfunction,
considered on
the basis of
the areacovered by thegovernancebody(s)responsible forfisheries
managementin the area(s)where the UoA
operates.

(c)
Minor habitat
statusSA3.13.1

There isevidence that the
UoA is highly
unlikely to reduce
structure andfunction of theminor habitats toa point where
there would beserious or
irreversible harm.

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. ◙SA3.13.1.1 Where the team does not have enough information to assess SA3.13.1,
the RBF (CSA) shall be used. ◙SA3.13.1.2 The RBF (CSA) may be used even when there is sufficient information toassess SA3.13.1 but is not mandatory under these circumstances.
SA3.13.2

If a benthic habitat is being assessed, the team shall recognise habitat
categories based on the following habitat characteristics: ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

a. Substratum – sediment type (e.g., hard substrate)e. Geomorphology – seafloor topography (e.g., flat rocky terrace)f.
SA3.13.3

Biota – characteristic floral and/or faunal group(s) (e.g., kelp-dominatedseagrass bed and mixed epifauna, respectively)

The team shall determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered,vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats). ◙SA3.13.3.1 A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that
regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the
spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range
within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s)relevant to the UoA. ◙SA3.13.3.2 A VME1 shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v)of the FAO Guidelines2 (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.2). This definition
shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth. ◙SA3.13.4

The team shall interpret “serious or irreversible harm” as reductions in habitat
structure and function (as defined in Table SA8) such that the habitat would beunable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if
fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely. ‼

SA3.13.4.1 In the case of VMEs the team shall interpret “serious or irreversible harm”
as reductions in habitat structure and function below 80% of theunimpacted level. ◙SA3.13.5

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, the team shallconsider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international
governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where
the UoA operates (the “managed area” for short). ‼

SA3.13.5.1 The team shall use all available information (e.g., bioregional information)
to determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration
and whether this distribution is entirely within the “managed area” orextends beyond the “managed area”.
SA3.13.5.2 In cases where a habitat’s range falls within the “managed area”, the teamshall consider the habitat’s range inside the “managed area”.
SA3.13.5.3 In cases where a habitat’s range overlaps the “managed area”, the teamshall consider the habitat’s range both inside and outside the “managed
area”.
SA3.13.6

The team shall interpret the terms ”unlikely”, ”highly unlikely” and ”evidence” inSG60, SG80 and SG100 as in Table SA9.

1 Throughout the requirements and guidance, the term “VME” also includes “potential VME” to cover situations

when a governance body uses a precautionary approach (e.g., where there is doubt over whether a habitat is a
VME or not) and when a habitat is being treated as a potential VME.
2 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 Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.14 Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2) ◙Table SA20: PI 2.4.2 Habitats management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in place

2.4.2

◙

There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned toensure the
UoA does
not pose arisk ofserious or
irreversible
harm to thehabitats.

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,that areexpected toachieve theHabitatOutcome 80
level ofperformance.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected toachieve theHabitatOutcome 80
level ofperformanceor above.

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

(b)
Management
strategy
evaluationThe
measuresareconsidered
likely towork, basedon plausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoAs/
habitats).

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work,
based oninformation
directly about
the UoA
and/orhabitats
involved.

Testing
supports highconfidence thatthe partial
strategy/strategy
will work, basedon information
directly about
the UoA and/or
habitats
involved.

There is somequantitative
evidence thatthe measures/
partial strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
quantitative
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/strategy
is being
implemented
successfully andis achieving its
objective, as
outlined inscoring issue(a).

There is somequantitative
evidence that
the UoA
complies withboth its
management
requirements
and with
protection
measures

There is clear
quantitative
evidence that
the UoA
complies withboth its
management
requirements
and with
protection
measures(c)
Management
strategy
implementation(d)Compliance withmanagement
requirements
and other MSC
UoAs’/non-MSC
fisheries’
measures toprotect VMEs

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There isqualitative
evidencethat the UoA
complies withits
management
requirements
to protect
VMEs.

page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoring issues

SG60

SG80

SG100

afforded to
VMEs by other
MSC UoAs/
non-MSCfisheries,
where
relevant.

afforded to
VMEs by other
MSC UoAs/
non-MSCfisheries, where
relevant.

SA3.14.1

The team shall score this PI even if the UoA has no impact on this component. ◙SA3.14.2

The team shall consider the differences between measures, partial strategy, andstrategy as they apply to habitat management. ‼

SA3.14.2.1 In scoring issue (a) at the SG100 level, the “strategy” for a UoA thatencounters VMEs 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 VMEs. ◙SA3.14.2.2 In scoring issue (a) at the SG80 level, the “partial strategy” for a UoA thatencounters VMEs shall include, at least, the following points: ‼
a. Requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs
(e.g., designation of closed areas).
b. Implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid
encounters with VMEs, such as scientifically based, gear- and habitatspecific move-on rules or local area closures to avoid potential serious
or irreversible harm on VMEs.
SA3.14.2.3 In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, “measures” for a UoA thatencounters VMEs shall include, at least, the following points: ◙a. Requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs
(e.g., designation of closed areas);b. Implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid
encounters with VMEs, based on commonly accepted move-on rules.
SA3.14.3

The team shall score scoring issue (d) if the UoA impacts a VME and/or if
another MSC UoA or non-MSC fishery, where relevant, impacts a VME within
the UoA’s “managed area” (as defined in SA3.13.5). ◙SA3.14.3.1 To avoid the possibility that the cumulative impact of MSC UoAs could
cause serious or irreversible harm to VMEs, for scoring issue (d), the teamshall assess the extent to which the UoA:
a. Takes into account and implements, where relevant, precautionary
protection measures implemented by other MSC UoAs (such as closed
areas arising from move-on rules);b. Takes into account information from non-MSC fisheries, whereavailable and where relevant.
SA3.14.3.2 A determination of “where relevant” shall include: ◙a. Consideration only of areas where closure is clearly aimed (i.e., basedon scientific rationale and best practice) at precautionary protection of
VMEs and not closures that are designed for other purposes;

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

b. Avoidance of closed areas arising from move-on rules andconsideration of other 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 (e.g., made publicly
available by the non-MSC fisheries’ management entity).
SA3.14.4

When assessing scoring issue (d), the team shall interpret the different levels of“evidence” in relation to the availability of electronic or other verified dataconsistent with the scale and intensity of the UoA, which enables the UoA to
implement the requirements effectively with respect to VMEs. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.15 Habitats information PI (PI 2.4.3) ‼
Table SA21: PI 2.4.3 Habitats information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Information/ monitoring(a)
Information
quality

The types
anddistribution of
the mainhabitats arebroadly
understood.

The nature,
distribution andvulnerability ofthe main habitats
in the UoA area
are known at alevel of detailrelevant to thescale andintensity of the
UoA.

The distribution of
all habitats is
known over theirrange, withparticularattention to theoccurrence ofvulnerable
habitats.

2.4.3
Informationis adequate
todetermine
the risk
posed tothe habitatby the UoA
and theeffectivene
ss of thestrategy tomanageimpacts on
the habitat.

OR
If CSA is
used toscore PI
2.4.1 for the
UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate thetypes and
distribution of
the mainhabitats.
(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe nature of
the main
impacts ofgear use on
the mainhabitats,
includingspatialoverlap ofhabitat withfishing gear.

OR
If CSA is used toscore PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Some quantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toestimate the types
and distribution of
the main habitats.
Information isadequate to allow
for identification of
the main impactsof the UoA on themain habitats,and there isreliable
information on thespatial extent ofinteraction and on
the timing andlocation of use of
the fishing gear.

The physicalimpacts of thegear on all
habitats havebeen quantified
fully.

OROR
If CSA is
used toscore PI
2.4.1 for the
UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

If CSA is used toscore PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Some quantitative
information isavailable and isadequate toestimate theconsequence andpage 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

estimate theconsequenceand spatial
attributes ofthe mainhabitats.

spatial attributesof the main
habitats.

(c)
Monitoring

‼

SG100

Adequate
information
continues to becollected to detect
any increase inrisk to the main
habitats.

Changes in all
habitatdistributions overtime aremeasured.

SA3.15.1

The team shall score this PI even if the UoA has no impact on this component.

SA3.15.2

The team shall determine and justify which habitats are considered “main” andwhich are not. SA3.13.3.1 and SA3.13.3.2 apply here. ◙SA3.15.3

For any data-deficient scoring elements that have been scored using the CSA,
the team shall use the second part of the scoring issues (a) and (b) for the SG60
and SG80 levels. ‼

SA3.15.4

The team shall interpret “vulnerability” for the SG80 and SG100 levels to mean
the combination of:SA3.15.4.1 The likelihood that the gear would encounter the habitat, andSA3.15.4.2 The likelihood that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between
the gear and the habitat did occur.
SA3.15.5

The SG100 level does not include the qualifier “main”, and the team shallconsider all habitats in the assessment.

SA3.15.6

For UoAs encountering VMEs, scoring issue (b) at the SG80 level should, atleast, include the following information:a. Maps and specific position information relating to the UoA’s footprint.
b. Position of closed areas to protect VMEs.
c. Position of closed areas that were established by the UoA, other MSC UoAs,
and non-MSC fisheries fishing in the area as a precautionary measure,
subject to the provisions of SA3.14.3.2.
d. Catch and catch rates of VME-indicator organisms and information to support
the scientific definition of precautionary trigger levels, where these are used.

SA3.15.6.1 The level of detail required by SA3.15.6 shall be judged against therequirements of the partial strategy or strategy and against the scale andsize of the UoA.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.16 Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.5.1) ◙Table SA22: PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

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

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

There isevidence that the
UoA is highly
unlikely to disrupt
the key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to a point
where there
would be aserious or
irreversible harm.

2.5.1
The UoA does
not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm to the
key elementsof ecosystem
structure andfunction.

SA3.16.1

The team shall score the other components of the assessment (i.e., P1 target
species, primary species, secondary species, ETP species and habitats)separately to this PI, which considers the wider ecosystem structure andfunction.

SA3.16.2

The team shall interpret serious or irreversible harm to structure and function as
outlined in Table SA8. ◙SA3.16.3

The team should note that “key” ecosystem elements are the features of an
ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its
characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale andintensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity ofits structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilienceand productivity.

SA3.16.4

The team shall interpret the terms “unlikely”, “highly unlikely” and “evidence for”
in SG60, SG80 and SG100 as in Table SA9.

SA3.16.5

The team should make sure that:SA3.16.5.1 Where the team uses qualitative analysis and/or expert judgements inscoring a UoA at the SG60 and SG80 SGs this should be approximately
equivalent to the quantitative probability interpretation given in Table SA9.
a. The justification for equivalence shall be provided.
b. A range of informed viewpoints or alternative hypotheses may be used
to make qualitative judgements about the probability interpretation of
the SG.
c. The team may consider using the SICA to assess this PI as a means ofobtaining the range of viewpoints and constructing the probability
interpretation of the SG.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.17 Ecosystem management strategy PI (PI 2.5.2) ◙Table SA23: PI 2.5.2 Ecosystem management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary
which take into
account thepotential
impacts of the
UoA on key
elements oftheecosystem.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,
which takes
into accountavailable
informationand isexpected torestrain
impacts of the
UoA on theecosystem so
as to achieve
the Ecosystem
Outcome 80
level ofperformance.

There is a
strategy thatconsists of aplan, in place
which contains
measures toaddress all main
impacts of the
UoA on theecosystem, and at
least some ofthese measures
are in place.

(b)
Management
strategy
evaluation

The measures
are considered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoAs/
ecosystems).

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work,
based onsome
information
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
ecosystem
involved

Testing supports
high confidence
that the partial
strategy/ strategy
will work, basedon information
directly about the
UoA and/or
ecosystem
involved

There is someevidence thatthemeasures/parti
al strategy is
being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence that thepartialstrategy/strategy
is being
implemented
successfully andis achieving its
objective as set
out in scoring
issue (a).

2.5.2
There aremeasures inplace toensure the
UoA does
not pose arisk ofserious or
irreversible
harm toecosystem
structure andfunction.

(c)Management
strategy
implementation

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.17.1

The team shall note that the measures required by SG60 may exist primarily to
manage the impact on target species or other components, but have the capacity
to achieve ecosystem outcomes.

SA3.17.2

The team shall note that the plan and measures in place at SG100 should bebased on well-understood functional relationships between the UoA and thecomponents and elements of the ecosystem.

SA3.17.2.1 The plan should provide for the development of a full strategy that restrains
impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the UoA does not cause serious or
irreversible harm.
SA3.17.3

The team shall note that for SG80 and SG100, partial strategies and strategies
respectively may also contain measures designed and implemented to address
impacts on components that have been evaluated elsewhere in this framework.

SA3.17.3.1 If the measures address specific ecosystem impacts effectively enough tomeet the appropriate standard, then it is not necessary to have special“ecosystem measures” to address the same impacts.
SA3.17.3.2 It may not be necessary to have a specific “ecosystem strategy” other thanthat which comprises the individual strategies for the other components
under P1 and P2.
SA3.17.3.3 If there are ecosystem impacts that may not be addressed effectively byexisting measures, it may be necessary to add new measures orstrengthen existing ones to address those impacts.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA3.18 Ecosystem information PI (PI 2.5.3)
Table SA24: PI 2.5.3 Ecosystem information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Ecosystem

Information /monitoring(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
on these key
ecosystem
elements canbe inferredfrom existing
information,
but have notbeen
investigatedin detail.

Main impactsof the UoA on
these keyecosystem
elements canbe inferredfrom existing
information,and some
have been
investigatedin detail.

Main interactions
between the UoA
and these
ecosystem
elements can beinferred fromexisting
information, andhave been
investigated indetail.

(c)
Understandingof component
functions

The mainfunctions of
thecomponents(i.e., P1 target
species,primary,
secondary and
ETP species
and Habitats)in theecosystem are
known.

The impacts of
the UoA on P1
target species,
primary,
secondary and
ETP species andHabitats are
identified and themain functions ofthese
components inthe ecosystem
are understood.

(d)
Information
relevance

Adequate
information isavailable on
the impacts of
the UoA on
thesecomponents toallow some of
the mainconsequences
for theecosystem to
be inferred.

Adequate
information isavailable on theimpacts of the
UoA on thecomponents andelements to allow
the mainconsequences forthe ecosystem to
be inferred.

(e)Monitoring

Adequate data
continue to becollected todetect any

Information isadequate tosupport thedevelopment ofstrategies to

2.5.3
There isadequateknowledge ofthe impactsof the UoA
on theecosystem.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

SG100

page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Component

SA3.18.1

PI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

increase in risk
level.

manageecosystem
impacts.

In scoring issue (b), the team shall: ◙SA3.18.1.1 Require some information of “the main impacts of the UoA on these key
ecosystem elements” at the SG80 level.
SA3.18.1.2 Focus on the “main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystemelements” at the SG100 level. At this level:
d. UoAs should be capable of adapting management to environmental
changes as well as managing the effect of the UoA on the ecosystem.
e. Monitoring the effects of environmental change on the natural
productivity of the UoAs should be considered best practice and should
include recognition of the increasing importance of climate change.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4

Principle 3

Figure SA3: Principle 3 default tree structure

SA4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ◙SA4.1.1

Teams shall determine and state which jurisdictional category or combination ofjurisdictional categories apply to the management system of the UoA, including
consideration of formal, informal and/or traditional management systems whenassessing performance of UoAs under Principle 3, including: ‼
a. Single jurisdiction;b. Single jurisdiction with indigenous component;c. Shared stocks;
d. Straddling stocks;
e. Stocks of highly migratory species (HMS);f.

Stocks of discrete high seas non-HMS.

SA4.1.2

UoAs subject to international cooperation to manage stocks as well as UoAs not
subject to international cooperation to manage stocks shall be subject toevaluation under P3 Performance Indicators.

SA4.1.3

The performance of other fisheries’ management bodies where they are also
subject to international cooperation to manage the stock shall not be individuallyassessed, except where they impact directly on P1 and P2 outcomes and/or P3
implementation. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.1.4

When scores are based on the consideration of informal or traditional
management systems, the team shall provide, in the rationale, evidence
demonstrating the validity and robustness of the conclusions by: ◙a. Using different methods to collect information.
b. Cross checking opinions and views from different segments of the
stakeholder community.

SA4.1.5

Teams 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 the Principle 3 scoring guideposts is not applicablesolely to formally codified or documented management measures andmechanisms.

SA4.2.2

The term “explicit” shall also refer to informal management measures andmechanisms that are well established and effective.

SA4.2.3

In scoring management performance in the continuum from implicit to explicit,
the team shall consider:

SA4.2.3.1 The extent to which such management measures, whether formal orinformal, are established in the UoA,
SA4.2.3.2 How well they are understood and applied by users within the UoA, andSA4.2.3.3 The extent to which such measures are considered durable andunambiguous.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.3

Legal and/or customary framework PI (PI 3.1.1) ◙Table SA25: 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 aframework forcooperation
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 withother parties
which delivers
management
outcomesconsistent withMSC Principles 1
and 2.

The
management
systemincorporates oris subject by
law to amechanism
for theresolution oflegal disputes
arising within
the system.

Themanagement
systemincorporates oris subject by
law to atransparent
mechanism
for theresolution oflegal disputes
which isconsidered tobe effective indealing withmost issues
and that is
appropriate to
the context of
the UoA.

The management
systemincorporates or issubject by law to
a transparent
mechanism forthe resolution oflegal disputes thatis appropriate to
the context of thefishery and has
been tested andproven to beeffective.

3.1.1
The
management
system exists
within an
appropriate
and effective
legal and/or
customaryframework
which
ensures thatit:
- Is capableof delivering
sustainability
in the UoA(s)- Observes
the legalrightscreatedexplicitly or
establishedby custom ofpeopledependent
on fishing forfood orlivelihood;andDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018◙(b)
Resolution of
disputes◙

page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

-Incorporates
anappropriate
disputeresolution
framework.

(c)
Respect forrightsThemanagement
system has amechanism togenerally
respect thelegal rights
createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing for foodor livelihood ina mannerconsistent withthe objectivesof MSCPrinciples 1
and 2.

The
management
system has amechanism toobserve thelegal rights
createdexplicitly or
established bycustom ofpeopledependent on
fishing for foodor livelihood ina mannerconsistent withthe objectivesof MSCPrinciples 1
and 2.

The management
system has amechanism toformally commit
to the legal rights
created explicitly
or established bycustom on people
dependent on
fishing for foodand livelihood in amannerconsistent withthe objectives of
MSC Principles 1
and 2.

SA4.3.1

The team shall focus scoring on whether or not there is an appropriate andeffective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering
sustainability in the UoA(s) in accordance with P1 and P 2.

SA4.3.2

At the SG60 level for scoring issue (a), teams shall interpret compatibility withlaws and standards as follows:

SA4.3.2.1 For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of thestock this means:a. The existence of national laws, agreements and policies governing theactions of all the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,
andb. That these laws, agreements and/or policies provide a framework forcooperation between national entities (e.g., between regional andnational management, state and federal management, indigenous andother groups) on national management issues, as appropriate for thecontext, size, scale or intensity of the UoA.
SA4.3.2.2 For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of thestock (e.g.: shared, straddling, HMS, high seas non-HMS) this means theexistence of:a. National and international laws, arrangements, agreements andpolicies governing the actions of the authorities and actors involved inmanaging the UoA, andb. A framework for cooperation with other territories, sub-regional orregional fisheries management organisations, orc. Other bilateral/multilateral arrangements that create the cooperation
required to deliver sustainable management under the obligations of
UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.3.2.3 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, andc. Development of scientific advice.
SA4.3.2.4 The flag state of participants in the UoA shall have at least cooperating
non-member status within a relevant sub-regional or regional fisheries
management organisation or other bilateral/ multilateral arrangement, if
such exists.
SA4.3.3

At the SG80 level for scoring issue (a), teams shall interpret consistency withlaws and standards as follows:

SA4.3.3.1 For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of thestock, this means:a. The existence of national laws, agreements and policy governing theactions of all the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,
andb. That these laws, agreements and/or policies also provide for organised
cooperation between national entities (e.g., between regional andnational management, state and federal management, indigenous andother groups) on national management issues.
SA4.3.3.2 For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of thestock this means: ◙a. The existence of national and international laws, agreements andpolicies governing the actions of the authorities and actors involved inmanaging the UoA,
b. That effective regional and/or international cooperation creates acomprehensive cooperation under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles
63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8,c. That cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10
paragraphs relating to the collection, sharing and dissemination ofscientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status anddevelopment of management advice, the agreement and delivery ofmanagement actions consistent with this sustainable management
advice, and on monitoring and control, andd. That the flag state of fishery participants in the UoA shall be membersof the relevant organisation or participants in the arrangement, or agree
to apply the conservation and management measures established by
the organisation or arrangement if such organisation or arrangement
exists.
SA4.3.4

At the SG100 level for scoring issue (a), teams shall interpret consistent withlaws and standards as follows:

SA4.3.4.1 For a UoA not subject to international cooperation for management of thestock, this means:a. The existence of national laws, agreements and policies governing theactions of all the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA;
and

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

b. That these laws, agreements and/or policies also provide for a formal
system for the cooperation between national entities (e.g., between
regional and national management, state and federal management,
indigenous and other groups) on national management issues.
SA4.3.4.2 For a UoA subject to international cooperation for management of thestock, this means:a. The existence of national laws, agreements and policies governing theactions of the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,
b. 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, andc. That cooperation under the RFMO/arrangement, and the actions of the
RFMO, shall demonstrably and effectively deliver UNFSA Article 10.
SA4.3.4.3 The team shall interpret across SGs 60, 80 and 100 that “effective national
legal system” means that the client can provide objective evidence thatmost of the essential features and elements needed to deliver sustainablefisheries are present in:a. A coherent, logical set of practices or procedures, orb. Within a coherent, logical supporting ‘rule-making’ structure.
SA4.3.5

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

SA4.3.5.1 The use of the term “treaties”, in relation to scoring issue (c), shall notinclude international treaties or treaties between states or nations, and islimited, 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 meanthat there is some evidence that the legal rights created explicitly or establishedby custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood, and their longterm interests, are considered within the legal and/or customary framework for
managing fisheries. ◙SA4.3.7

The team shall interpret “observe” in scoring issue (c) at SG80 to mean that:SA4.3.7.1 There are more formal arrangements such as bylaws or regulation thatmake explicit the requirement to consider the legal rights created explicitly
or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; andSA4.3.7.2 Those peoples’ 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 meanthat the client can demonstrate a mandated legal basis where rights are fully
codified within the fishery management system and/or its policies andprocedures for managing fisheries under a legal framework.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.4

Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2) ◙Table SA26: PI 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policy

Consultation,
roles and
responsibilities(a)
Roles and
responsibilities

Organisations
and individuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles and
responsibilities
are generally
understood.

Organisations
and individuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles and
responsibilities
are explicitly
defined andwellunderstoodfor key areasofresponsibility
andinteraction.

Organisations
and individuals
involved in the
management
process havebeen
identified.
Functions,roles and
responsibilities
are explicitly
defined andwellunderstoodfor all areasofresponsibility
andinteraction.

The
management
systemincludesconsultation
processes thatobtainrelevant
informationfrom the main
affected
parties,
including local
knowledge, toinform the
management
system.

The
management
systemincludesconsultation
processes that
regularly
seek and
acceptrelevant
information,
including local
knowledge.
Themanagement
systemdemonstrates
considerationof theinformation
obtained.

Themanagement
systemincludesconsultation
processes that
regularly
seek and
acceptrelevant
information,
including local
knowledge.
Themanagement
systemdemonstrates
considerationof theinformationand explains
how it is used
or not used.

◙
3.1.2
The
management
system has
effective
consultation
processes thatare open tointerested andaffected
parties.
The roles andresponsibilitiesoforganisations
and individuals
who areinvolved in the
management
process areclear and
understood by
all relevant
parties.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018(b)
Consultation
processes ◙page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(c)
Participation

SG60

SG80

SG100

The
consultation
process
providesopportunity
for allinterested andaffected
parties to be
involved.

The
consultation
process
providesopportunity
andencourageme
nt for all
interested andaffected
parties to be
involved, andfacilitates
their effective
engagement.

SA4.4.1

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

Teams shall not focus scoring under this PI on the type of information obtained,or on mandating for what or how it must be used.

SA4.4.3

Teams shall verify that consultation processes within the management system
include consideration of consultation processes at the management system level
as well as fishery-specific management systems that occur within it. ◙SA4.4.4

Consultation processes that exist at a multinational level and a national level
shall be included and considered, subject to SA4.1.3. ◙SA4.4.5

Teams shall interpret “local knowledge” to mean: qualitative, and/or anecdotal,
and/or quantitative information, and/or data that come from individuals or groups
local to the fisheries managed under the UoAs’ management system. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.5

Long term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3) ◙Table SA27: PI 3.1.3 Long term objective PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Governanceand policy

Long term
objectives(a)
Objectives

Long term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, are
implicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear longterm
objectives that
guide
decisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areexplicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear long term
objectives thatguide decisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard and theprecautionary
approach, areexplicit within
and required bymanagement
policy‼
3.1.3
Themanagement
policy has
clear long-term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking thatare consistent
with MSC
Fisheries
Standard, andincorporates
theprecautionary
approach.

SA4.5.1

The team shall interpret management policy to mean outside the specific UoA(i.e., at a higher level or within a broader context than the fishery-specificmanagement system).

SA4.5.2

The team shall interpret the precautionary approach for the purposes of scoring
this PI to mean being cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable orinadequate 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.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.6

Fishery-specific management system PIs

SA4.6.1

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

SA4.7

Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1) ◙Table SA28: PI 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemFisheryspecificobjectives(a)
Objectives

Objectives,
which arebroadly
consistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1
and 2, are
implicit within
the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

Short andlong term
objectives,
which areconsistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fisheryspecificmanagement
system.

Well defined andmeasurable
short and longterm objectives,
which aredemonstrably
consistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s Principles
1 and 2, areexplicit within thefishery-specificmanagement
system.

3.2.1
The fisheryspecificmanagement
system has
clear,
specific
objectives
designed toachieve theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1
and 2.

SA4.7.1◙

The team shall verify that the individual harvest or management strategies thatare scored in PIs under P1 and P2 are consistent with the fishery-specificobjectives being scored under P3.

SA4.7.1.1 The objectives shall be assessed under this PI and the strategies that
implement the objectives shall be assessed under P1 and P2.
SA4.7.2

The team shall interpret “measurable” at SG100 to mean that in addition tosetting fishery-specific objectives that make broad statements objectives areoperationally defined in such a way that the performance against the objective
can be measured. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.8

Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2) ◙Table SA29: PI 3.2.2 Decision making processes PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemDecisionmaking
processes(a)Decisionmaking
processes

3.2.2

‼

There aresomedecisionmaking
processes inplace that
result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve thefishery-specificobjectives.

There areestablisheddecisionmaking
processes that
result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve thefishery-specificobjectives.

Decisionmaking
processes
respond toseriousissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation andconsultation, ina transparent,
timely andadaptivemanner andtake someaccount of thewider
implications ofdecisions.

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

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

(b)
Responsiveness ofdecisionmaking
processes(c)
Use ofprecautionary approach(d)Accountability andtransparencyofmanagement
system anddecision

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

SG100

Decision-making
processes
respond to allissues identified
in relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation andconsultation, in atransparent,
timely andadaptive mannerand take accountof the wider
implications ofdecisions.

Decisionmaking
processes use
theprecautionary
approach andare based onbest available
information.
Some
information on
the fishery’s
performanceandmanagement
action is
generally

Informationon thefishery’s
performanceandmanagement
action isavailable on

Formal reporting
to all interested
stakeholders
providescomprehensive
information on
the fishery’s
performance andpage 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

makingprocess

available on
request to
stakeholders

request, andexplanations
are provided
for any actions
or lack ofactionassociatedwith findings
and relevant
recommendati
ons emerging
from research,monitoring
evaluation andreview activity.

management
actions anddescribes how the
management
systemresponded tofindings andrelevant
recommendations
emerging fromresearch,monitoring,evaluation andreview activity.

Although the
management
authority or
fishery may besubject tocontinuing
court
challenges, it
is notindicating adisrespect ordefiance of thelaw byrepeatedly
violating thesame law or
regulationnecessary forthesustainability
for the fishery

The
management
system or
fishery is
attempting tocomply in atimely fashion
with judicial
decisionsarising fromany legal
challenges.

The management
system or fisheryacts proactively to
avoid legal
disputes or rapidly
implements
judicial decisions
arising from legal
challenges.

‼

(e)Approach todisputes‼

SA4.8.1

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

SA4.8.2

The team shall interpret that at SG80 and SG100 the precautionary approach inthis PI to mean that decision-making processes use caution when information is
uncertain, unreliable or inadequate.

SA4.8.3

The team shall verify that at SG100 resulting measures and strategies fromdecision-making processes should involve comprehensive, integrated measuresor holistic strategies, rather than individual or single measures.

SA4.8.4

In assessing the performance and management actions of the fishery in scoring
issue (d) “Accountability and transparency of management system and decision
making process”, the team should consider the extent to which transparency andaccountability is embedded within the management system.

SA4.8.4.1 Teams should consider public access to information on the fishery’s
performance and fisheries data.
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.8.4.2 The team should consider availability of information to stakeholders on
actions taken by management that have implications for sustainable use offisheries resources.
SA4.8.4.3 The team should consider the transparency of the decision making
process, so that it is clear to all stakeholders that decisions were arrived atbased on available evidence and due process.
SA4.8.5

At the SG60 level, at least a general summary of information on subsidies,
allocation, compliance and fisheries management decisions should be available
to stakeholders on request.

SA4.8.6

At the SG80 level, in addition to the information provided at the SG60 level,
information on decisions, fisheries data supporting decisions, and the reasons for
decisions, should be made available to all stakeholders on request.

SA4.8.7

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

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.9

Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ◙Table SA30: PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Fisheryspecificmanagement
systemComplianceandenforcement(a)MCS
implementation

Monitoring,
control andsurveillancemechanisms
exist, and are
implemented
in the fisheryand there is areasonable
expectationthat they are
effective.

A monitoring,
control andsurveillancesystem has
been
implemented
in the fisheryand hasdemonstrated
an ability to
enforcerelevant
management
measures,strategies
and/or rules.

A
comprehensive
monitoring,
control andsurveillancesystem has been
implemented in
the fishery andhas demonstrated
a consistentability to enforce
relevant
management
measures,strategies and/or
rules.

(b)

Sanctions todeal with noncomplianceexist and there
is someevidence thatthey areapplied.

Sanctions todeal with noncomplianceexist, areconsistently
applied andthought toprovideeffective
deterrence.

Sanctions to deal
with noncompliance exist,
are consistently
applied anddemonstrably
provide effective
deterrence.

Fishers are
generally
thought tocomply withthemanagement
system underassessment,
including,when required,providinginformation ofimportance tothe effective
managementof the fishery.

Someevidence
exists todemonstrate
fishers comply
with themanagement
system underassessment,
including,when required,providinginformation ofimportance tothe effective
managementof the fishery.

There is a highdegree ofconfidence thatfishers comply
with themanagement
system underassessment,
including,providinginformation ofimportance to theeffective
management of
the fishery.

3.2.3
Monitoring,
control andsurveillancemechanisms
ensure themanagement
measures in
the fisheryare enforced
and complied
with.

Sanctions ◙(c)Compliance◙(d)
Systematic
noncompliance

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There is noevidence ofsystematic
noncompliance.

page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.9.1

In scoring issue (c) the team should consider whether “fishers cooperate, where
necessary, with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard andother information that is of importance to the effective management of theresources and the fishery” as one of the elements that should influence scoring.
◙SA4.9.2

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

SA4.9.3

The team shall, at SG100 for scoring issue (a), consider if the monitoring, control
and surveillance systems are comprehensive in relation to their coverage, theindependence of the systems and the internal checks and balances.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SA4.10 Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI
3.2.4) ◙Table SA31: 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 inplace toevaluate someparts of thefishery-specificmanagement
system.

There aremechanisms inplace toevaluate key
parts of thefishery-specificmanagement
system.

There aremechanisms inplace to evaluate
all parts of thefishery-specificmanagement
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
to regularinternal andexternal review.

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

SA4.10.1

Teams shall interpret “external review” at SG80 and 100 to mean external to thefishery specific management system, but not necessarily international. ◙SA4.10.2

Teams should interpret “occasional” and “regular” relative to the intensity of the
UoA.

End of Annex SA

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex SB
Modifications to the Default Tree forEnhanced Bivalve Fisheries – Normative ◙Modifications to the default tree structure to be used in enhanced bivalve fisheryassessments.

SB1

GeneralSB1.1

Modifications to the default tree

SB1.1.1

Teams shall apply Annex SB as a supplement to Annex SA in all enhanced
bivalve fishery assessments.

SB1.1.2

Only additions or modifications to the default assessment tree and requirements
in Annex SA are included in this Annex.

SB1.1.2.1 Unless specifically noted, all other Annex SA PISGs and requirements
apply.

SB2

Principle 1

SB2.1

General requirements for Principle 1 ◙SB2.1.1

Teams shall clearly define in the “Announcement Comment Draft Report” (FCP
Section 7.10) which type of enhanced bivalve fishery will be assessed.

SB2.1.2

Teams shall make an initial evaluation of whether there is evidence that anenhanced catch-and-grow (CAG) bivalve fishery negatively impacts the parent
stock. ◙SB2.1.3

Teams shall assume that CAG fisheries that involve translocations may impact
the parent stock. ◙SB2.1.4

If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery does not involve translocations, and there isno evidence that it negatively impacts the parent stock, teams may choose not toscore Principle 1.

SB2.1.4.1 The team shall include a rationale for this decision in the MSC Notification
Report Form, and Full Assessment Report.
SB2.1.4.2 If Principle 1 is not to be scored, Row 1 in FCP Table PC3 is notapplicable.
SB2.1.5

If there are translocations within an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery, Principle 1
PIs shall be scored in accordance with the RBF requirements.

SB2.1.5.1 The assessment shall be conducted on all sources of seed stock used in
the fishery.
SB2.1.5.2 Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries that involve translocations shall also bescored against the Genetic outcome PI 1.1.3.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SB2.1.6

Bivalve fisheries involving hatchery enhancement assessed as hatch-and-catch(HAC) fisheries shall be scored against Principle 1 PIs in accordance with thedefault assessment tree or the RBF requirements specified in Annex SA or FCP
Annex PF, respectively.

SB2.1.6.1 Enhanced HAC bivalve fisheries shall also be scored against the Genetics
PIs 1.1.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.6.

SB2.2

Genetics

Table SB1: PI 1.1.3 Genetics component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
Outcome(a)
Genetic
impact ofenhancement activity

The fishery is
unlikely toimpact genetic
structure ofwild
populations toa point where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

The fishery ishighlyunlikely toimpact genetic
structure ofwild
populations toa point where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

An independentpeer-reviewed
scientificassessment
confirms with ahigh degree ofcertainty that
there are no risks
to the genetic
structure of thewild population
associated withthe enhancement
activity.

1.1.3
The fisheryhas
negligible
discernible
impact on thegenetic
structure ofthepopulation.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table SB2: PI 1.2.5 Genetics component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
Management(a)
Genetic
management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary,
which areexpected tomaintain thegenetic
structure of the
population atlevelscompatible
with the SG80
Genetic
outcome levelof
performance(PI 1.1.3).

There is apartial strategy
in place, if
necessary,
which isexpected tomaintain thegenetic structureof the population
at levels
compatible with
the SG80
Genetic
outcome level of
performance (PI1.1.3).

There is a
strategy inplace tomaintain thegenetic
structure of the
population atlevelscompatible
with the SG80
Genetic
outcome levelof
performance(PI 1.1.3).

(b)
Genetic
management
strategy
evaluation

The measures
are considered
likely to work
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory, or
comparison
with similar
fisheries/
species).

There is some
objective basis
for confidence
that the partial
strategy will
work based on
information
directly relevantto thepopulation(s)involved.

The strategy isbased on indepth
knowledge ofthe genetic
structure of the
population,and testingsupports highconfidence
that thestrategy will
work.

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

There is clear
evidence thatthe strategy is
being
implemented
successfully.
There is someevidence thatthe strategy isachieving its
overallobjective.

1.2.5
There is a
strategy inplace formanaging thehatcheryenhancement
activity suchthat it does notpose a risk ofserious or
irreversible
harm to thegenetic
diversity of thewild
population.

(c)Genetic
management
strategy
implementation

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table SB3: PI 1.2.6 Genetics component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Genetics

Genetic
Information(a)
Information
quality

Qualitative or
inferential
information isavailable on
the genetic
structure of the
population
Information isadequate tobroadly
understand thelikely impact of
hatcheryenhancement.

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

The genetic
structure of the
population isunderstood in
detail.
Information is
sufficient toestimate theimpact ofhatcheryenhancement witha high degree ofcertainty.

(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 acomprehensive
strategy tomanage thegenetic impacts ofthe enhancement
activity on thestock andevaluate with ahigh degree ofcertainty whether
the strategy isachieving its
objective.

1.2.6
Informationon thegenetic
structure ofthepopulation isadequate todetermine
the risk
posed by theenhancement activity andtheeffectivenessof themanagementof genetic
diversity.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SB3

Principle 2

SB3.1

General requirements for Principle 2 ◙SB3.1.1

Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries based solely on spat collection shall not be
scored for the primary or secondary species PIs. ◙SB3.1.1.1 Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries involving dredging for seed shall bescored against the primary or secondary species PIs as per therequirements found in Annex SA.
SB3.1.2

For enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries, PIs for ETP species shall be scored as per
the requirements found in Annex SA.

SB3.1.3

For enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries, PIs for habitats and ecosystems shall bescored as per the requirements found in Annex SA with assessment teams
taking into account the specific habitat and ecosystem impacts associated withenhanced CAG bivalve fisheries.

SB3.1.3.1 For suspended culture systems, scoring shall consider the habitat impactsof bio-deposition and benthic organic enrichment and the ecosystem andcarrying capacity impacts of localized phytoplankton depletion from bivalve
filtration. ◙SB3.1.4

If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery in assessment involves the translocation ofseed or adult shellfish, the assessment team shall score the fishery against theTranslocation PISGs 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3.

SB3.1.5

Principle 2 PIs from the default tree shall be scored for all sources of seed stock
for CAG bivalve fisheries involving translocations.

SB3.2

Translocations

Table SB4: PI 2.6.1 Translocation component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Translocation

Translocation
Outcome(a)
Impact oftranslocation
activityThe
translocation
activity is
unlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species(species notalready
established intheecosystem)
into thesurrounding
ecosystem.

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

There isevidence that thetranslocation
activity is highly
unlikely tointroduce
diseases, pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species into thesurrounding
ecosystem.

2.6.1
The
translocation
activity has
negligible
discernible
impact on thesurrounding
ecosystem.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table SB5: PI 2.6.2 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 2.6.1).

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary,that isexpected toprotect thesurrounding
ecosystemfrom thetranslocation
activity atlevelscompatible
with the SG80
Translocation
outcome levelof
performance(PI 2.6.1).

There is a
strategy in place
for managing theimpacts oftranslocation on
the surrounding
ecosystem.

(b)Translocation
management
strategy
evaluation

The measures
are considered
likely to work
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory, or
comparison
with similar
fisheries/species).

A validdocumented
risk
assessment orequivalentenvironmental
impactassessment
demonstrates
that thetranslocation
activity ishighlyunlikely tointroduce
diseases,
pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species intothesurrounding
ecosystem.

An independentpeer-reviewed
scientificassessment
confirms with ahigh degree ofcertainty that
there are no risks
to the surrounding
ecosystem
associated withthe translocation
activity.

2.6.2
There is a
strategy inplace formanaging
translocations such thatthe fisherydoes notpose a risk ofserious or
irreversible
harm to thesurrounding
ecosystem.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(c)Translocation
contingency
measures

SG80

SG100

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

A formalised
contingency
plan in the caseof an accidental
introduction of
diseases, pests,
pathogens, or
non-native
species due to thetranslocation is
documented andavailable.

Table SB6: PI 2.6.3 Translocation component
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Translocation

Translocation
Information(a)
Information
quality

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

Information is
sufficient toadequately
inform the risk
and impact
assessments
required in the
SG80
Translocation
managementlevel ofperformance(PI 2.6.2).

Information fromfrequent andcomprehensive
monitoring
demonstrates noimpact fromintroduced
diseases, pests,
and non-native
species with ahigh degree ofcertainty.

2.6.3
Informationon the impactof thetranslocation
activity on
theenvironmentis adequate
to determine
the risk
posed by thefishery.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SB4

Principle 3

SB4.1

General requirements for Principle 3 ◙SB4.1.1

With the exception of CAG fisheries where P1 is not scored, enhanced bivalve
fisheries shall be scored against Principle 3 PIs as per the requirements found in
Annex SA.

SB4.1.2

In cases where P1 is not scored, assessment teams shall focus P3 scoring onwhether or not the appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework is
capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with P2 PISGs.

End of Annex SB

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex SC: Modifications to the Default Assessment Treefor Salmon Fisheries – Normative
Modifications to the default tree structure, including the PISGs for each of the three MSC
Principles to be used in salmon fishery assessments. ◙SC1GeneralSC1.1

General requirements

SC1.1.1

CABs shall apply Annex SC as a supplement to Annex 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 herein.
SC1.1.2

Salmon fisheries shall be scored against all scoring issues and PIs presented in
Annex SC. ◙SC1.1.3

The team shall interpret key words or phrases as used in Annex SC as shown in
Table SC1. ◙Table SC1: Terms and Definitions

Term

Definition

Artificial Production

The artificial propagation of fish that are released into thenatural environment. Artificial production is commonly used toincrease the number of fish available to be caught or torebuild depleted populations. It includes hatchery operations.

Artificially produced fish

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

Diversity (of salmon)

The genetic variation and adaptations to different
environments that have accumulated between populations ofsalmon.

Enhancement

Artificial intervention in the natural life cycle of salmon. This
may include artificial production as defined above or othermeasures such as spawning channels, and lake fertilization.

Population

A component of an SMU. Population refers to the wild
production components which may occupy different locations
at different times. A population could be a group ofinterbreeding salmon that is relatively isolated (i.e., relatively
demographically uncoupled from other such groups and islikely adapted to the local habitat).

Production (of salmon)

Recruits per spawner x total spawners. i.e., total production of
the population.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Term

Definition

Productivity (of salmon)

The number of recruits per spawner. The term productivity isused in Annex SA to mean productivity at the stock, notindividual level. Assessment teams should consider this whenassessing salmon fisheries.

Productivity (related tothe ecologicalcommunity or the
ecosystem)

The rate of biomass production per unit area per time.

Stock Management Unit
(SMU)

A group of one or more salmon populations. Generally,
fishery management goals have been established by the
management agency at this aggregate level. SMU is a broad
management concept; not every population with a definedgoal need be an individual SMU, but may be part of an SMU.
For salmon fishery assessments ‘stock’ in Annex SA refers to
the SMU level.

Wild fish

Fish whose parents spawned in the wild, regardless ofparental lineage (F1 generation); also referred to as naturalorigin fish.

SC2

Principle 1

Figure SC1: Principle 1 Modified Default Tree Structure for salmon fisheries
Marine Stewardship Council
Default Assessment Tree Structure

MSC Fisheries Standard

Principle 1

Principle 2

OutcomeHarvest Strategy(Management)

Principle 3

Enhancement

PI 1.1.1: Stock Status

PI 1.2.1: Harvest Strategy

PI 1.3.1: Enhancement Outcome

PI 1.1.2: Stock Rebuilding

PI 1.2.2: Harvest Control Rules & Tools

PI 1.3.2: Enhancement Management

PI 1.2.3: Information/Monitoring

PI 1.3.3: Enhancement Information

PI 1.2.4: Assessment of Stock Status

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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

For salmon assessments Stock Management Units (SMUs) shall be regarded as
equivalent to single stocks in other contexts.

SC2.1.3

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

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 the limit
reference point(LRP).

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

There is a highdegree ofcertainty that the
SMU is above the
LRP.

The SMU is at
or fluctuatingaround its
TRP.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty that the
SMU has been
fluctuating around
its TRP, or has
been above its
target reference
point, over recent
years.

1.1.1
The stock
management
unit (SMU) is
at a level
which
maintainshighproduction
and has alowprobability offalling below
its limit
referencepoint (LRP).

(b)
Stock status
in relation to
the target
referencepoint (TRP
e.g., target
escapement
goal or target
harvest rate)(c)
Status ofcomponent
populations

The majority ofcomponent
populations in the
SMU are within
the range of
expected
variability.

Scoring stock status ‼
SC2.2.1

In scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon fisheries the level of the limit and target reference
points shall be consistent with the intent in SA PI 1.1.1 for the outcome PIs. ◙SC2.2.1.1 The limit reference point (LRP) shall be a level at which the SMU has ahigh probability of persistence in the presence of directed fishing and ofrecovery to high production in the absence of directed fishing.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.2.1.2 The target reference point (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).
SC2.2.2

In an enhanced fishery, the team shall assess status based solely on the wild
salmon in the SMU. ◙SC2.2.2.1 Artificially-produced fish shall not be counted toward meeting spawningescapement goals, or other surrogate reference points. ◙SC2.2.2.2 Where no distinction is made between wild fish and artificially produced
fish in estimates of spawning escapements or other surrogate reference
points, stock status shall be scored lower than in cases where wild fish areenumerated separately. ◙SC2.2.3

In scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon and reflecting the periodic recruitment patterns ofthese species the assessment team shall consider the following: ‼

SC2.2.3.1 Stock status: Taking into consideration the specific dynamics of salmon
stocks, a fishery shall meet the SG60 requirement in PI 1.1.1 scoring issue(a) if the average SMU spawning stock size is above the limit reference
point (LRP). The terms “likely”, “highly likely” and “high degree of certainty”
are used to allow for qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Where timeseries data are available:
a. “Likely” shall be interpreted to mean at ≥60% of the 15 most recent
years, i.e., 9 of the 15 years.
b. “Highly likely” shall be interpreted to mean ≥80% of the 15 most recent
years, i.e., 12 of the 15 years.
c. “High degree of certainty” shall be interpreted to mean >90% of the 15
most recent years.
SC2.2.3.2 Stock status in relation to Target Reference Points: In scoring issue (b) of
PI 1.1.1, where time series data are available:
a. “Fluctuating around” at the SG80 level means an SMU meeting its
target reference point in ≥50% of the 15 most recent years.
b. A “high degree of certainty” at the SG100 level shall be interpreted tomean that the SMU has met its target reference point ≥ 80% of the last
15 years.
SC2.2.3.3 Status of component populations: Scoring issue (c), ‘majority of component
populations in the SMU’ allows for qualitative and/or quantitative analysis.
Where population specific reference points are neither defined, norindividual populations monitored, assessment teams may make areasoned argument based on expert judgement and qualitative information
to score this scoring issue. Fishing should allow for the persistence ofcomponent populations, recognizing that at any point in time there is likely
to be some populations at low and high productivity in the absence offishing.
SC2.2.4

SA2.2.2 – SA2.2.7 shall also apply.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 89© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.3

Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ‼

Table SC3: PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

Outcome

Stock
Rebuilding(a)Rebuilding
timeframes

A rebuilding
timeframe isspecified for
the SMU thatis the shorterof 20 years or
2 times its
generation
time. Forcases where 2
generations isless than 5
years, therebuilding
timeframe is
up to 5 years.

(b)
Rebuilding
evaluation

Monitoring isin place todeterminewhether thefishery –basedrebuilding
strategies are
effective inrebuilding the
SMU within
the specified
timeframe.

There isevidence thatthe fisherybased
rebuilding
strategies are
being
implemented
effectively, or
it is likely
based onsimulation
modelling,
exploitation
rates orprevious
performancethat they will
be able torebuild the
SMU within
the specified
timeframe.

There is strong
evidence that therebuilding
strategies are
being
implemented
effectively, or it ishighly likely
based onsimulation
modelling,
exploitation rates
or previous
performance thatthey will be able
to rebuild the
SMU within thespecified
timeframe.

(c)
Use ofenhancement
in stockrebuilding ‼

Enhancement
activities are
not routinely
used as astock
rebuilding
strategy but
may betemporarily inplace as aconservation
measure topreserve or

Enhancement
activities arevery seldom
used as astock
rebuilding
strategy.

Enhancement
activities are notused as a stock
rebuilding
strategy.

1.1.2
Where thestock
management
unit (SMU) is
reduced,there isevidence ofstockrebuilding
within a
specified
timeframe.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

SG80

SG100
The shortest
practicablerebuilding
timeframe isspecified which
does not exceed
one generation
time for the SMU.

page 90© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

restore wild
diversity
threatened byhuman ornaturalimpacts.

SC2.3.1

Teams shall only score this PI when stock status does not meet the SG80 levelin PI 1.1.1 due to 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 (c):a. ‘Routinely’ shall be interpreted as built into a long-term management strategy
or utilized in lieu of wild salmon population management;b. ‘Very seldom’ shall be interpreted as used only for short term emergency
cases, and not forming part of a long term management or rebuilding
strategy.

SC2.3.4

Annex SA2.3.2–SA2.3.5 shall also apply.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 91© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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
includingmeasures that
addresscomponent
population
status issues.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive tothe state of the
SMU and theelements of
the harvest
strategy work
together
towards
achieving
SMU
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80
includingmeasures that
addresscomponent
population
status issues.

The harvest
strategy is
responsive to thestate of the SMU
and is designed
to achieve SMU
management
objectives
reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80
includingmeasures that
addresscomponent
population statusissues.

(b)
Harveststrategy
evaluation

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

The harvest
strategy may
not have been
fully tested but
evidence
exists that it isachieving its
objectives.

The performanceof the harvest
strategy has been
fully evaluatedand evidence
exists to showthat it is achieving
its objectives
including being
clearly able tomaintain SMUs attarget levels.

(c)
Harveststrategy
monitoring

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

1.2.1
There is arobust andprecautionar
y harvest
strategy inplace.

(d)Harveststrategyreview

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

The harvest
strategy isperiodicallyreviewed andimproved asnecessary.

page 92© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(e)
Shark finning

It is likely thatshark finning is
not taking
place.

It is highly
likely thatshark finning is
not taking
place.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thatshark finning is
not taking place.

(f) Review
ofalternative
measures

There hasbeen a reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stock.

There is aregular reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoArelated
mortality ofunwantedcatch of thetarget stockand they are
implemented
as appropriate.

There is abiennial review ofthe potential
effectiveness andpracticality ofalternative
measures tominimise UoArelated mortalityof unwanted catchof the target
stock, and they
are implemented,
as appropriate.

SC2.4.1

In scoring issue (a), the assessment team shall evaluate whether fishery
managers attempt to minimize harvest of any weak component population(s)within the SMU through differential harvest (e.g., managers alter time, locationand effort of the fishery). ◙SC2.4.2

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

Annex SA2.4.1–SA2.4.8 shall also apply.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 93© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.5

Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ‼

Table SC5: 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 oravailable
which areexpected toreduce theexploitation
rate as the
SMU LRP isapproached.

Well defined
HCRs are inplace that
ensure thattheexploitation
rate is reduced
as the LRP isapproached,
and areexpected tokeep the SMU
fluctuatingaround atarget levelconsistent withMSY.

The HCRs are
expected to keep
the SMU
fluctuating at or
above a target
level consistent
with MSY, oranother more
appropriate leveltaking into
account theecological role ofthe stock, most of
the time.

The HCRs arelikely to berobust to themainuncertainties.

The HCRs takeaccount of a wide
range ofuncertainties
including theecological role of
the SMU, andthere is evidence
that the HCRs arerobust to the main
uncertainties.

1.2.2
There arewell definedand effective
harvestcontrol rules(HCRs) inplace.

(b)
HCRs
robustness touncertainty

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

(c)
HCRs
evaluation

There is someevidence thattools used oravailable toimplement
HCRs areappropriate
and effective
in controlling
exploitation.

Available
evidence
indicates thatthe tools in
use areappropriate
and effectivein achieving
theexploitationlevels required
under the
HCRs.

Evidence clearlyshows that thetools in use are
effective inachieving the
exploitation levels
required underthe HCRs.

(d)
Maintenanceof wild
component
populations

It is likely thatthe HCRs andtools areconsistent withmaintaining
the diversity
andproductivity of
the wild

It is highly
likely, that the
HCRs andtools areconsistent withmaintaining
the diversity
andproductivity of
the wild

There is a highdegree ofcertainty that the
HCRs and tools
are consistent
with maintaining
the diversity andproductivity of thewild component
populations.

page 94© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

component
populations.

component
populations.

SG100

SC2.5.1

In scoring issue (a), the team shall consider whether the HCRs and tools arecapable of maintaining the SMU at an abundance consistent with highproduction.

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 the likelihood that the established set of HCRs and tools will result in
the abundance and spatial/temporal distribution of component populations
consistent with maintaining their diversity and productivity. ‼

SC2.5.3

Annex SA2.5.2–SA2.5.7 shall also apply.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 95© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.6

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/ monitoring(a)
Range ofinformation

Some relevant
information
related to SMU
structure, SMU
production andfleet
composition isavailable tosupport theharveststrategy.
Indirect ordirectinformation isavailable on
somecomponent
populations.

Sufficient
relevant
information
related to SMU
structure, SMU
production,
fleet
compositionand other data
are available
to support theharveststrategy,
includingharvests andspawning
escapements
for arepresentativ
e range of
wild
component
populations.

A
comprehensive
range ofinformation ( onSMU structure,
SMU production,
fleet composition,
SMU abundance,
UoA removals
and other
information suchas environmental
information),including somethat may not be
relevant to thecurrent harvest
strategy, isavailable,
includingestimates of the
impacts offishery harvests
on the SMU andthe majority ofwild component
populations.

(b)
Monitoring

SMU wild
abundanceand UoA
removals aremonitored andat least one
indicator isavailable andmonitored with
sufficientfrequency tosupport theharvest control
rule.

SMU wild
abundanceand UoA
removals are
regularly
monitored at
a level ofaccuracy andcoverageconsistent
with theharvestcontrol rule,and one or
moreindicators areavailable andmonitored with
sufficientfrequency tosupport theharvest control
rule.

All information
required by theharvest control
rule is monitoredwith highfrequency and ahigh degree ofcertainty, andthere is a goodunderstanding of
the inherent
uncertainties in
the information[data] and therobustness ofassessment andmanagement tothis uncertainty.

1.2.3
Relevant
informationis collected
to support
the harvest
strategy.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 96© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(c)Comprehensiveness of
information

SG80

SG100

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

SC2.6.1

For scoring issue (a), at SG80 level ‘sufficient relevant information’ should
include direct evidence and/or analysis and risk assessments. ◙SC2.6.2

Annex SA2.6.1–SA2.6.4 shall also be applied.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 97© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.7

Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ‼

Table SC7: PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status PISGs
ComponentPI

ScoringissuesHarveststrategy

Assessmentof stockstatus(a)
Appropriateness ofassessment
to stockunder
consideration

1.2.4
There is anadequate
assessmentof the stock
status of the
SMU.

(b)
Assessment
approach◙(c)
Uncertainty
in theassessment

SG60

SG80

SG100

The
assessment isappropriate for
the SMU andfor the harvest
control rule.

The assessment
takes into accountthe major features
relevant to the
biology of thespecies and thenature of the UoA.

The
assessment
estimates
stock status
relative togeneric
referencepointsappropriate tosalmon.

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

The assessment
estimates with ahigh level ofconfidence bothstock status andreference points
that areappropriate to the
SMU and its wild
component
populations.

The
assessment
identifies
major
sources of
uncertainty.

The
assessment
takes
uncertainty
into account.

The assessment
takes into accountuncertainty and isevaluating stock
status relative toreference points
in a probabilistic
way.

(d)
Evaluation ofassessment(e)Peer review
ofassessment

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

The assessment
has been tested
and shown to berobust. Alternative
hypotheses andassessment
approaches havebeen rigorously
explored.
The
assessment of
SMU status,
including the
choice ofindicator
populations
and methods
for evaluatingwild salmon inenhancedfisheries issubject to peer
review.

The assessment,
including designfor using indicator
populations andmethods forevaluating wild
salmon inenhancedfisheries has beeninternally andexternally peer
reviewed.

page 98© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(f)
Representativeness of
indicator
stocksWhere
indicator
stocks areused as theprimary sourceof information
for making
management
decisions on
SMUs, there issomescientificbasis for theindicators
selection.

Where
indicator
stocks areused as theprimary sourceof information
for making
management
decisions on
SMUs, there issomeevidence ofcoherence
between thestatus of theindicator
streams andthe status of
the other
populations
they represent
within the
management
unit, including
selection ofindicator
stocks with low
productivity(i.e., thosewith a higher
conservationrisk) to match
those of therepresentative
SMU where
applicable.

Where indicator
stocks are usedas the primarysource ofinformation formakingmanagement
decisions on
SMUs, the statusof the indicatorstreams are wellcorrelated withother populations
they represent
within the
management unit,
including stocks
with lower
productivity (i.e.,
those with ahigherconservation risk).

(g)
Definition of
Stock
Management
Units (SMUs)

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

The SMUs are
well-definedand include
definitions of
the major
populations
with a clear
rationale forconservation,
fishery
management
and stockassessment
requirements.

There is an
unambiguous
description ofeach SMU that
may include thegeographic
location, run
timing, migration
patterns, and/or
genetics ofcomponent
populations with aclear rationale forconservation,
fishery
management andstock assessment
requirements.

◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 99© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.7.1

In scoring issue (b), the team shall assess whether reference points will maintainthe spawner abundance consistent with MSY (SMSY) or similarly abundant levels.
‼

SC2.7.1.1 In enhanced salmon fisheries, the team shall consider whether thereference points are based only on wild fish. ‼
SC2.7.2

In scoring PI 1.2.4 (f), indicator populations, the assessment team shall evaluate
factors such as number, spatial distribution, and migration timing of the indicator
stocks relative to the stock management unit. ‼

SC2.7.3

In scoring PI 1.2.4 (g), the definition of SMUs shall reflect an understanding of
the population structure, including information on the component populations. ‼

SC2.7.3.1 The team shall assess whether wild and artificially influenced components
are clearly distinguished in defining SMUs. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 100© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC2.8

General requirements for enhancement PIs ◙SC2.8.1

All salmon fisheries shall be scored against the enhancement PIs.

SC2.8.1.1 Where there are no enhancement activities associated with the UoA, thedefault score for these enhancement PIs should be 100.
SC2.8.2

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

Table SC8: Enhancement Terms and Definitions ◙TermDefinition

Habitat enhancement

Any modification to habitat that raises the production (with theintent of increasing fishery production) beyond the normative
processes of the habitat should be considered artificial
production. [Habitat modification intended to return habitat toits normative state may be considered restoration, and neednot be considered under the enhancement PIs]

Hatchery enhancement

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

‘Integrated’ hatcheryproduction

Where a hatchery population is associated with a wild
population and the hatchery program is managed(intentionally or in practice) in such a way that gene flow fromthe wild to the hatchery population is non-negligible.

pHOS

The proportion of Hatchery-Origin fish contributing to thenatural Spawning population. For the purpose of assessment
the simple 4-yr arithmetic mean should be used.

pNOB

The proportion of Natural-Origin (wild) fish contributing to thehatchery Broodstock. For the purpose of assessment thesimple 4-yr arithmetic mean should be used.

‘Segregated’ hatcheryproduction

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

Stray rate

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

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 101© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 likely thattheenhancement
activities do nothave significant
negative
impacts on thelocal adaptation,
reproductive
performance or
productivity anddiversity of wild
stocks.

It is highly
likely that theenhancement
activities do
not havesignificant
negative
impacts on thelocal
adaptation,
reproductive
performanceor productivity
and diversityof wild stocks.

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

1.3.1
Enhancement
activities do
not negatively
impact the wild
stock(s)SC2.9.1

The method used by the assessment team to score this PI shall depend on thelevel of available information.

SC2.9.1.1 Where relevant studies on enhancement outcomes are available,
assessment teams shall use them to score this PI. ◙SC2.9.1.2 Where no relevant studies on enhancement outcomes are available, but
pHOS and pNOB values are estimated, these shall be used to score this PI
in relation to default values appropriate to the species and type ofenhancement. ◙SC2.9.1.3 Where neither relevant studies nor estimates of pHOS nor pNOB exist, theassessment team shall use expert judgement to score this PI using aprecautionary approach. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 102© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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
negative
impacts ofenhancement.

There is apartialstrategy inplace toprotect wild
stocks fromsignificant
negative
impacts ofenhancement.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace to protect
wild stocks fromsignificant
negative
impacts ofenhancement.

(b)Management
strategy
evaluation

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 isachieving theoutcomemetrics used
to define theminimum
detrimental
impacts.

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

1.3.2
Effectiveenhancement
and fishery
strategies arein place toaddress
effects ofenhancement
activities onwild stock(s).

SC2.10.1 The team shall assess whether management seeks to minimize the number andproportion of hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish in natural spawning areas.

◙

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 103© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 ◙Some relevant
information isavailable onthecontribution ofenhanced fish
to the fishery
harvest, total
escapement(wild plus
enhanced),
and hatcherybroodstock.

Sufficient
relevant
qualitative andquantitative
information isavailable onthecontribution ofenhanced fish
to the fishery
harvest, total
escapement(wild plus
enhanced) andhatcherybroodstock.

A
comprehensive
range ofrelevant
quantitative
information isavailable on thecontribution ofenhanced fish to
the fishery
harvest, total
escapement(wild plus
enhanced) andhatcherybroodstock.

(b)
Use ofinformation inassessment

The effect ofenhancement
activities onwild stock
status,productivity
and diversity
are taken into
account
qualitatively.

A moderatelevel analysisof relevant
information isconducted andused bydecisionmakers toquantitatively
estimate theimpact ofenhancement
activities on
wild-stock
status,productivity,and diversity.

A
comprehensive
analysis of
relevant
information isconducted androutinely usedby decision
makers todetermine, witha high degree ofcertainty, thequantitative
impact ofenhancement
activities on
wild-stock
status,productivity, anddiversity.

1.3.3
Relevant
information iscollected andassessments
are adequate
to determine
the effect ofenhancement
activities onwild stock(s).

SC2.11.1 In scoring issue (a), ‘information’ shall include the marking and monitoring ofartificially produced fish. ‼
SC2.11.1.1 The assessment team shall consider the methods of artificial production in
their assessment. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 104© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3Principle 2

SC3.1

General requirements for Principle 2

SC3.1.1

Only additions and modifications are included herein, in Principle 2 all default
Annex SA requirements apply. ‼

SC3.1.2

All salmon fisheries shall score all elements of all PIs, whether or not there areenhancement activities. ‼

SC3.2–3.9 No modifications to Annex SA

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 105© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.10 ETP species outcome PI (PI 2.3.1)
Table SC12: PI 2.3.1 ETP species outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Outcome
Status(a)
Effects of the
UoA onpopulation/
stocks within
national orinternational
limits, whereapplicable

Where
national and/or international
requirements
set limits for
ETP species,
the effects of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
the population/
stock areknown andlikely to bewithin theselimits.

Wherenational and/or international
requirements
set limits for
ETP species,
the combined
effects of the
MSC UoAs
andassociatedenhancement
activities onthepopulation/sto
ck are known
and highly
likely to bewithin theselimits.

Where national
and/orinternational
requirements
set limits for
ETP species,
there is a highdegree ofcertainty thatthe combined
effects of the
MSC UoAs andassociatedenhancement
activities arewithin theselimits.

(b)
Direct effects

Known direct
effects of the
UoA including
enhancement
activities arelikely to nothinderrecovery of
ETP species.

Direct effectsof the UoA
includingenhancement
activities arehighly likely
to not hinder
recovery of
ETP species.

There is a highdegree ofconfidence that
there are no
significant
detrimental
direct effects of
the UoA
includingenhancement
activities on
ETP species.

Indirect effects
have been
considered for
the UoA
includingenhancement
activities andare thought tobe highly
unlikely tocreateunacceptable
impacts.

There is a highdegree ofconfidence that
there are no
significant
detrimental
indirect effectsof the UoA
includingenhancement
activities on
ETP species.

2.3.1
The UoA
meets national
andinternational
requirementsfor protectionof ETP
species.
The UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not hinder
recovery of
ETP species.

(c)Indirecteffects

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 106© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.11 ETP species management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2)
Table SC13: PI 2.3.2 ETP species management strategy PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy inplace (national
andinternational
requirements)

There aremeasures inplace thatminimise the
UoA related
mortality of
ETP species
due to the UoA
includingenhancement
activities, andare expected
to be highly
likely toachievenational andinternational
requirements
for theprotection of
ETP species.

There is a
strategy inplace formanaging the
UoA andenhancement
activities’
impact on ETP
species,
includingmeasures tominimisemortality,
which isdesigned to behighly likely
to achieve
national andinternational
requirements
for theprotection of
ETP species.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace formanaging the
UoA andenhancement
activities’
impact on ETP
species,
includingmeasures tominimisemortality, which
is designed toachieve above
national andinternational
requirements forthe protection of
ETP species.

(b)Management
strategy inplace(alternative)

There aremeasures inplace that are
expected toensure the
UoA including
enhancement
activities do
not hinder therecovery of
ETP species.

There is a
strategy inplace that is
expected toensure the
UoA including
enhancement
activities do
not hinder therecovery of
ETP species.

There is acomprehensive
strategy inplace formanaging ETP
species, toensure the UoA
includingenhancement
activities do nothinder therecovery of ETP
species.

(c)
Management
strategy
evaluation

The measuresareconsidered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoA/species).

There is anobjective
basis forconfidence
that themeasures/strategy will
work, basedoninformation
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
species
involved.

The strategy/
comprehensive
strategy ismainly based on
information
directly about
the UoA and/or
species
involved, and aquantitative
analysis
supports highconfidence thatthe strategy will
work.

2.3.2
The UoA andassociatedenhancement activities
have in place
precautionary
management
strategies
designed to:- meetnational andinternational
requirements
and- ensure the
UoA does
not hinder
recovery of
ETP species.
Also, theUoA
regularly
reviews andimplements
measures asappropriate
to minimisemortality of
ETP species.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 107© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60(d)Management
strategy
implementation(e)
Review ofalternative
measures tominimisemortality of
ETP species

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There is areview of thepotential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoA
relatedmortality of
ETP species.

SG80

SG100

There is someevidence thatthe measures/
strategy is
being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence thatthe strategy/
comprehensive
strategy is being
implemented
successfully andis achieving its
objective as
set out inscoring issue(a) or (b).

There is aregularreview of thepotential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoA
andenhancement
relatedmortality of
ETP species
and they are
implemented
as appropriate.

There is abiennial reviewof the potential
effectivenessand practicalityof alternative
measures tominimise UoA
andenhancement
related mortalityof ETP species,
and they are
implemented, as
appropriate.

page 108© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.12 ETP Species information PI (PI 2.3.3)
Table SC14: PI 2.3.3 ETP species information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

ETP species

Information /monitoring(a)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
relatedmortality on
ETP species.

Somequantitative
information isadequate toassess the
UoA related
mortality andimpact and to
determinewhether the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
may be athreat toprotection andrecovery of the
ETP species.

Quantitative
information isavailable toassess with ahigh degree ofcertainty themagnitude of
UoA andassociatedenhancement
relatedimpacts,
mortalities andinjuries and theconsequences
for the statusof ETP species.

2.3.3
Relevant
information iscollected tosupport the
managementof the UoA andenhancement
activities
impacts on
ETP species,
including:- information
for thedevelopmentof themanagement
strategy;- information toassess theeffectivenessof themanagement
strategy; and- information todetermine theoutcomestatus of ETP
species.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.3.1 for the
UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate
productivity
andsusceptibility
attributes for
ETP species.

OR
If RBF is used
to score PI
2.3.1 for the
UoA:
Some
quantitative
information isadequate toassessproductivity
andsusceptibility
attributes for
ETP species.

page 109© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(b)
Information
adequacy for
management
strategy

Information isadequate tosupportmeasures tomanage theimpacts on
ETP species

Information isadequate tomeasuretrends andsupport a
strategy tomanageimpacts on
ETP species

Information isadequate tosupport acomprehensive
strategy tomanageimpacts,
minimizemortality andinjury of ETP
species, andevaluate with ahigh degree ofcertainty
whether astrategy isachieving its
objectives.

page 110© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.13 Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.4.1) ◙Table SC15: PI 2.4.1 Habitats outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Outcome
Status(a)Commonly
encounteredhabitat status

The UoA is
unlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of thecommonly
encounteredhabitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of thecommonly
encounteredhabitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highly unlikely to
reduce structureand function of
the commonly
encounteredhabitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

(b)
VME habitat
statusThe UoA is
unlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of the
VME habitats
to a point
where there
would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

The UoA is
highlyunlikely to
reducestructure andfunction of the
VME habitats
to a point
where there
would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highly unlikely to
reduce structureand function of
the VME
habitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

2.4.1
The UoA andits
associatedenhanceme
nt activities
do not cause
serious or
irreversible
harm tohabitatstructure andfunction,
consideredon the basisof the area
covered bythegovernancebody(s)responsible
for fisheries
managementin the area(s)where the
UoA
operates.

(c)
Minor habitat
statusDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There isevidence that
the UoA is
highly unlikely to
reduce structureand function of
the minor
habitats to apoint where
there would beserious or
irreversible
harm.

page 111© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(d)
Impacts due toenhancement
activities within
the UoAThe
enhancement
activities areunlikely tohave adverse
impacts onhabitat.

The
enhancement
activities arehighlyunlikely tohave adverse
impacts onhabitat.

There is a highdegree ofcertainty thattheenhancement
activities do nothave adverse
impacts onhabitat.

‼

SC3.13.1 In this PI, assessment teams shall interpret ‘habitat’ to include, but not be limited
to:a. Water quality,b. Access of wild fish to spawning habitat, andc. Quality of stream habitat (such as physical features, spawning and rearing
flows and water temperatures).
SC3.13.2 The impacts of enhancement-related habitat modifications shall be assessed tothe standard that they have minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding habitats(i.e., impacts resulting from the physical operation of the culture facility and notevaluated necessarily in the context of some broader regional resource
consequence). ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 112© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.14 Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2) ‼
Table SC16: PI 2.4.2 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 80
level ofperformance.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary thatis expected toachieve theHabitatOutcome 80
level ofperformanceor above.

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

(b)
Management
strategy
evaluation

The measuresareconsidered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoA/enhance
ment activities/
habitats).

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work,
based oninformation
directly about
the UoA,enhancement
activities
and/orhabitats
involved.

Testing
supports highconfidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy will
work, based on
information
directly about
the UoA,enhancement
activities,
and/or habitats
involved.

There is somequantitative
evidence thatthe measures/
partial strategy
is being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
quantitative
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy is being
implemented
successfully andis achieving its
objective, as
outlined inscoring issue(a).

There is somequantitative
evidence that
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities
comply withboth its

There is clear
quantitative
evidence that
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities
comply withboth its

2.4.2
There is a
strategy inplace that isdesigned toensure the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities do
not pose a riskof serious or
irreversible
harm to thehabitats.

(c)
Management
strategy
implementati
on(d)Compliancewithmanagement
requirements
and other
MSC
UoAs’/nonMSC
Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

There isqualitative
evidence that
the UoA
complies withits
management
requirements

page 113© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

fisheries’
measures toprotect VMEs

to protect
VMEs.

management
requirements
and with
protection
measuresafforded to
VMEs by other
MSC
UoAs/nonMSC fisheries,
where
relevant.

management
requirements
and with
protection
measuresafforded to
VMEs by other
MSC UoAs/nonMSC fisheries,
where relevant.

SC3.14.1 Assessment teams shall consider whether management strategies forenhancement activities are in place to reduce impact on water quality, access ofnatural origin fish to spawning habitat, and quality of stream habitat (such as
physical features, spawning and rearing flows and water temperatures). ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 114© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.15 Habitats information PI (PI 2.4.3)
Table SC17: PI 2.4.3 Habitats information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Habitats

Information /monitoring(a)
Information
quality

The types anddistribution of
the mainhabitats arebroadly
understood.

The nature,
distribution
andvulnerabilityof the main
habitats in the
UoA area are
known at alevel of detailrelevant to thescale andintensity of the
UoA.
OR

The distributionof all habitats is
known over theirrange, withparticularattention to theoccurrence ofvulnerable
habitats.

2.4.3
Information isadequate todetermine therisk posed tothe habitat by
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities andtheeffectivenessof the strategy
to manage
impacts on the
habitat.

OR
If CSA is
used to score
PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate thetypes and
distribution of
the mainhabitats(b)
Information
adequacy forassessmentof impacts

Information isadequate tobroadly
understand thenature of themain impactsof gear use
andenhancement
activities usedon the main
habitats,
includingspatial overlapof habitat withfishing gear.
OR
If CSA is
used to scoreDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

If CSA is
used to score
PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Somequantitative
information isavailable andis adequate toestimate thetypes and
distribution of
the mainhabitats.
Information isadequate toallow foridentification of
the main
impacts of the
UoA andenhancement
activities on
the mainhabitats andthere isreliable
information on
the spatial
extent ofinteraction andon the timing
and location ofuse of thefishing gear.

The physicalimpacts of thegear andenhancement
activities on all
habitats havebeen quantified
fully.

page 115© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(c)
Monitoring

SG60

SG80

PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Qualitative
information isadequate toestimate theconsequenceand spatial
attributes ofthe mainhabitats.

OR

SG100

If CSA is
used to score
PI 2.4.1 forthe UoA:
Somequantitative
information isavailable andis adequate toestimate theconsequenceand spatial
attributes ofthe mainhabitats.
Adequate
information
continues tobe collected todetect any
increase in risk
to the main
habitats.

Changes in all
habitatdistributions
over time aremeasured.

SC3.15.1 Teams shall consider whether information on enhancement facilities andactivities are collected to support the outcome in PI 2.4.1. ◙SC3.15.2 In meeting SG 60 the team should verify that any information legally required byoperating permits relevant to these habitat issues is being collected.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 116© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.16 Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.5.1) ◙Table SC18: PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Outcome
Status(a)
Ecosystem
statusThe UoA is
unlikely to
disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be a seriousorirreversible
harm.

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

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

(b)
Impacts due toenhancement

Enhancement activities
are unlikely
to disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would
be a seriousorirreversible
harm.

Enhancement
activities arehighlyunlikely to
disrupt the key
elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would bea serious or
irreversible
harm.

There isevidence thattheenhancement
activities arehighly unlikely
to disrupt the
key elements
underlying
ecosystem
structure andfunction to apoint where
there would be aserious or
irreversible
harm.

2.5.1
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), assessments teams shall consider ‘key elements underlying
ecosystem structure and function’ to include the ecological productivity andabundance of wild salmon and other components of the aquatic ecosystem as aresult of predation, competition for resources, and disease transmission. ‼
SC3.16.2 The team should organize its assessment of ecological interaction risks fromenhancement programs into the following two categories: disease transmission
and predation/competition. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 117© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.17 Ecosystem management PI (PI 2.5.2) ‼
Table SC19: PI 2.5.2 Ecosystem management PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

Ecosystem

Management
strategy(a)Management
strategy in
place

There aremeasures inplace, ifnecessary
which take into
account thepotential
impacts of the
UoA on key
elements oftheecosystem.

There is apartialstrategy inplace, ifnecessary
which takes
into accountavailable
informationand isexpected torestrain
impacts of the
UoA on theecosystem so
as to achieve
the Ecosystem
Outcome 80
level ofperformance.

There is a
strategy thatconsists of aplan in place,which contains
measures toaddress all
main impactsof the UoA on
the ecosystem,
and at least
some of thesemeasures are inplace.

(b)
Management
strategy
evaluation

The measures
are considered
likely to work,
based onplausible
argument(e.g., generalexperience,
theory orcomparison
with similar
UoA/
ecosystems).

There is some
objective
basis forconfidence
that themeasures/partial strategy
will work,
based onsome
information
directly about
the UoA
and/or the
ecosystem
involved.

Testing
supports highconfidence thatthe partial
strategy/
strategy will
work, based on
information
directly about
the UoA and/or
ecosystem
involved.

There is someevidence thatthemeasures/parti
al strategy is
being
implemented
successfully.

There is clear
evidence thatthe partial
strategy/strategy
is being
implemented
successfully
and isachieving its
objective as
set out inscoring issue
(a).

2.5.2
There aremeasures inplace toensure the
UoA andenhancement
activities do
not pose a riskof serious or
irreversible
harm toecosystem
structure andfunction.

(c)Management
strategy
implementati
onDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 118© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(d)
Managementof enhancement
activities

There is anestablishedartificial
production
strategy inplace that is
expected toachieve the
Ecosystem
Outcome 60
level ofperformance.

There is atested andevaluated
artificial
production
strategy with
sufficientmonitoring inplace andevidence isavailable toreasonably
ensure withhigh likelihoodthat thestrategy iseffective inachieving the
Ecosystem
Outcome 80
level ofperformance.

There is acomprehensive
and fully
evaluated
artificial
production
strategy to verify
with certainty
that theEcosystem
Outcome 100
level ofperformance.

‼

SC3.17.1 In scoring issue (d), assessment teams shall consider whether management
measures are in place that decrease ecological risk of enhancement activities, inparticular management of disease and competition/predation. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 119© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC3.18 Ecosystem information PI (PI 2.5.3)
Table SC20: PI 2.5.3 Ecosystem information PISGs
ComponentPI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

Ecosystem

Information /monitoring(a)
Information
quality

Information isadequate to
identify the
key elementsof theecosystem.

Information isadequate tobroadly
understandthe key
elements oftheecosystem.

(b)
Investigationof the UoA
impacts

Main impactsof the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities onthese keyecosystem
elements canbe inferredfrom existing
information,
but have notbeen
investigatedin detail.

Main impactsof the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities onthese keyecosystem
elements canbe inferredfrom existing
information,and some
have been
investigatedin detail.

Main interactions
between the UoA
and associatedenhancement
activities andthese ecosystemelements can beinferred fromexisting
information, andhave been
investigated indetail.

(c)
Understanding ofcomponent
functions

The mainfunctions of
thecomponents(i.e., P1 target
species,primary,
secondary,and ETP
species andHabitats) inthe ecosystem
are known.

The impacts of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on P1
target, primary,secondary, and
ETP species andHabitats are
identified and themain functions ofthese
components inthe ecosystem
are understood.

(d)
Information
relevance

Adequate
information isavailable on
the impacts of
the UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on
thesecomponents toallow some of
the mainconsequences

Adequate
information isavailable on theimpacts of the
UoA andassociatedenhancement
activities on thecomponents andelements to allow
the mainconsequences for

2.5.3
There isadequateknowledge ofthe impactsof the UoA
andassociatedenhancement activities ontheecosystem.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

SG100

page 120© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(e)
Monitoring

SG60

SG80

SG100

for theecosystem to
be inferred.

the ecosystem to
be inferred.

Adequate data
continue to becollected todetect any
increase in risk
level.

Information isadequate tosupport thedevelopment ofstrategies tomanageecosystem
impacts.

SC3.18.1 The team shall assess whether relevant information is collected to understandthe impacts of enhancement activities on the receiving ecosystem. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 121© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC4Principle 3

SC4.1

General requirements for Principle 3

SC4.1.1

Only additions and modifications are included herein, in Principle 3 all default
Annex SA requirements apply. ◙SC4.1.2

The assessment team shall explicitly consider enhancement activities that areassociated with the fishery. ◙SC4.2–4.3 No modifications to Annex SA
SC4.4

Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2)

SC4.4.1

In scoring this PI, assessment teams shall consider whether the consultation
process covers both the fishery and enhancement activities. ‼

SC4.4.2

No modifications to Table SA26.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 122© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 policy

Long term
objectives(a)
Objectives

Long term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, are
implicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear longterm
objectives that
guide
decisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areexplicit withinmanagement
policy.

Clear long term
objectives thatguide decisionmaking,consistent withMSC Fisheries
Standard andtheprecautionary
approach, areexplicit within
and requiredby management
policy3.1.3
Themanagement
policy for the
SMU andassociatedenhancement
activities has
clear long-term
objectives to
guidedecisionmaking thatare consistent
with MSC
Fisheries
Standard, andincorporates
theprecautionary
approach.

SC4.5.1

The team shall assess whether the fishery’s enhancement activities have explicit
long-term objectives and a guiding policy context that is consistent withmanaging for sustainable Principle 1 and Principle 2 outcomes for wild salmon,
and that shapes short-term objectives and decision making processes. ◙SC4.6

Fishery-specific management system PIs

SC4.6.1

No modifications to SA4.6.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 123© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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
systemFishery- specificobjectives(a)
Objectives

Objectives,
which arebroadly
consistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1
and 2, are
implicit within
the fishery andassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

Short andlong term
objectives,
which areconsistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1
and 2, areexplicit within
the fishery andassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

Well definedandmeasurable
short and longterm
objectives,
which aredemonstrably
consistent withachieving theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1 and
2, are explicit
within thefishery andassociatedenhancement
management
system(s).

3.2.1
The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
management
system(s) haveclear, specificobjectives
designed toachieve theoutcomes
expressed by
MSC’s
Principles 1 and
2.

SC4.7.1

The team shall evaluate whether clear objectives exist for the fishery’senhancement activities that are consistent with achieving specific, related
outcomes in Principles 1 and 2. ◙Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 124© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 inmeasuresandstrategies toachieve thefisheryspecific andenhancement objectives.

There areestablisheddecisionmaking
processes that
result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve thefishery-specificandenhancement
objectives.

(b)
Responsiveness ofdecisionmaking
processes

Decisionmaking
processes
respond toseriousissuesidentified in
relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation
andconsultation,in atransparent,
timely andadaptivemanner andtake someaccount of
the wider
implicationsof decisions.

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

3.2.2
The fisheryspecific andassociatedenhancement
management
systemincludeseffective
decisionmaking
processes that
result inmeasures andstrategies toachieve theobjectives andhas anappropriate
approach toactual disputes
in the fishery.

(c)
Use ofprecautionary
approach

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

SG100

Decision-making
processes
respond to allissues identified
in relevant
research,monitoring,evaluation andconsultation, ina transparent,
timely andadaptivemanner andtake account of
the wider
implications ofdecisions.

Decisionmaking
processes use
theprecautionary
approach andare based onbest available
information.

page 125© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Component

SC4.8.1

PI

Scoringissues

SG60

SG80

SG100

(d)
Accountability
andtransparencyofmanagement
system anddecisionmakingprocessSome
informationonperformanceandmanagement
action is
generally
available on
request to
stakeholders

Information
on fisheryperformanceandmanagement
action isavailable on
request, andexplanations
are provided
for any actions
or lack ofactionassociatedwith findings
and relevant
recommendati
ons emerging
from research,monitoring
evaluation andreview activity.

Formal reporting
to all interested
stakeholders
providescomprehensive
information on
fishery
performanceandmanagement
actions anddescribes how
themanagement
systemresponded tofindings andrelevant
recommendatio
ns emerging
from research,monitoring,evaluation andreview 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 thesame law or
regulationnecessary forthesustainability
for thefishery.

Themanagement
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
decisions arisingfrom legal
challenges.

The team shall assess whether the decision making processes surrounding
enhancement activities, including determination of production levels andstrategies, result in measures and strategies that are consistent with meeting
specific objectives for ensuring Principles 1 and 2 outcomes. ‼

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 126© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC4.9

Compliance 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
implementation

Monitoring,
control andsurveillancemechanisms
exist, and are
implemented
in the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
activities andthere is areasonable
expectationthat they are
effective.

A monitoring,
control andsurveillancesystem has
been
implemented
in the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
activities andhasdemonstrated
an ability to
enforcerelevant
management
measures,strategies
and/or rules.

A
comprehensive
monitoring,
control andsurveillancesystem has
been
implemented in
the fishery andassociatedenhancement
activities andhasdemonstrated aconsistent ability
to enforce
relevant
management
measures,strategies
and/or rules.

(b)
Sanctions

Sanctions todeal with noncomplianceexist and there
is someevidence thatthey areapplied.

Sanctions todeal with noncomplianceexist, areconsistently
applied andthought toprovideeffective
deterrence.

Sanctions todeal with noncomplianceexist, areconsistently
applied anddemonstrably
provide effective
deterrence.

(c)Compliance

Fishers andhatcheryoperators are
generally
thought tocomply withthemanagement
system for thefishery andassociatedenhancement
activities underassessment,
including,when required,providinginformation ofimportance toSomeevidence
exists todemonstrate
fishers andhatcheryoperators
comply withthemanagement
system underassessment,
including,when required,providinginformation ofimportance tothe effective
management

There is a highdegree ofconfidence thatfishers andhatcheryoperators
comply with the
management
system underassessment,
including,providinginformation ofimportance tothe effective
management of
the fishery andassociated

3.2.3
Monitoring,
control andsurveillancemechanisms
ensure themanagement
measures in
the fishery andassociatedenhancement
activities are
enforced andcomplied with.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 127© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

ComponentPI

Scoringissues(d)
Systematic
noncomplianceSC4.9.1

SG60

SG80

SG100

the effective
managementof the fishery.

of the fisheryandassociatedenhancement
activities.

enhancement
activities.

There is noevidence ofsystematic
noncompliance.

The team shall consider whether private hatchery operators cooperate withmanagement authorities in collection and sharing of information important toensure that artificial production activities are complying with legal andmanagement system objectives and requirements.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 128© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

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)has in placemechanisms
to evaluate
some parts ofthemanagement
system.

The fisheryandassociatedenhancement
program(s)has in placemechanisms
to evaluate
key parts ofthemanagement
system.

The fishery andassociatedenhancement
program(s) has
in placemechanisms toevaluate 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 toregular internaland external
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 welldesigned and supported provisions for monitoring the fishery’s enhancement
activities that are consistent with achieving specific, related outcomes andobjectives in Principles 1 and 2, with particular attention to evaluating theimpacts of enhancement activities on natural production components andecosystem function.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 129© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SC5Weighting to be Applied in Enhanced Salmon
Fisheries

SC5.1

The team shall use the revised weighting contained in Scoring Worksheet for
Salmon Fisheries, when scoring salmon fisheries.

SC6

Allowances for Inseparable or Practicably
Inseparable (IPI) Catches in Salmon Fisheries

SC6.1

IPI catches in salmon fisheries

SC6.1.1

In considering whether there are catches of non-target salmon stock(s) that are
to be treated as ‘inseparable or practicably inseparable’ (IPI) from target salmon
stock(s), under FCP Section 7.5, CABs shall note in the case of salmon fisheries
that stocks shall only be considered IPI if they are not certified separately andare either: ◙a. Non-target species (scored in P2, not P1); orb. Non-local stocks of species targeted in the fishery (i.e., stocks that arecaught in the fishery but do not breed within the UoA and are nottherefore normally scored as part of the SMU).

SC6.1.1.1 Where the proposed IPI stock is a different salmon species to the target
species (SC6.1.1.a), it shall: ◙a. Only be considered not commercially feasible to separate the species
when the total catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 5% byweight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) within
the unit of assessment; andb. Be assessed under P2 in accordance with the requirements in FCP
Annex PA.
SC6.1.1.2 Where the proposed IPI stocks are non-local stocks of the same species
as the P1 target stock within the UoA (SC6.1.1.b): ‼
a. The total catches from the IPI stock(s) shall not exceed 5% by weight of
the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) within the UoA;
andb. FCP 7.5.9.1.d shall not apply to these stocks, but, if outside biologically
based limits, the team shall demonstrate that the fishery:

SC6.1.2

i.

Does not catch a significant proportion of the total catch of thestock; andii.

Is highly likely not to significantly hinder its recovery, and practicalmeasures have been implemented to reduce impacts on the stock.

In considering whether candidate IPI stocks meet the defined 5% upper catch
limits (under SC6.1.1.1 and SC6.1.1.2 above), CABs shall take into accountcatch data from the most recent two or more years prior to the date on which theDocument: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 130© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

eligibility is decided, as necessary to allow for the normal age at spawning ofeach of the species under consideration. ‼
SC6.1.3

If IPI stocks are identified and are below the level of 5% specified in
SC6.1.1.1.a and SC6.1.1.2.a, the CAB shall follow IPI requirements in the
Fisheries Certification Process ◙End of Annex SC

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 131© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex SD: Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) –Normative ◙SD1GeneralSD1.1.1

If the fishery is based upon an introduced species, the CAB shall apply Annex
SD.

SD1.1.2

CABs shall note that the requirements for ISBF are a pilot program and Annex
SD may be subject to change.

SD2

Initial Requirements on Assessment Issues

SD2.1.1

The CAB shall consider the ecological role of the introduced species.

SD2.1.1.1 The CAB shall assess the ISBF against default PISGs in Principle 1. ◙SD2.1.1.2 The CAB shall make modifications to the scoring issues at PI 1.1.1 forfisheries that include setting target reference points at levels which may belower than MSY as a deliberate measure to allow for reduced biodiversity
impact.
a. The CAB shall not accept limit reference points set at levels below
which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.
SD2.1.1.3 CABs shall address measures in place in the fishery to prevent further
ecosystem impacts that may have occurred as a result of the introductionof the species to the new location under the Ecosystem component of
Principle 2.
a. When relevant CAB’s shall define and include an additional scoring
issue and corresponding guideposts at 60, 80 and 100 levels to the
Ecosystem Management PI 2.5.2 which evaluates measures in thefishery to prevent progression of further ecosystem impacts fromoccurring due to the presence of the introduced species.
b. CABs shall include mechanisms against this additional scoring issue tobe:i.

Setting target reference points at levels that allow for recovery of
species impacted by the introduction,ii.

Containment measures such as fishing down at the boundaries ofthe stock to prevent further spread,iii. Protection and/or creation of faunal refugia,
iv. Provisions in legislation to prohibit further introductions of any otheralien species.
v. Other relevant mechanisms.
SD2.1.1.4 The CAB shall provide a rationale to justify why no measures to prevent
further impact on biodiversity are considered necessary in that particular
fishery if there are no measures in place.

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 132© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01

SD2.1.1.5 CABs should define a corresponding Ecosystem Information scoring issue
that addresses the collection of information important to understanding andpreventing further progression of impact of the introduced species on
biodiversity.

SD3

Introduced Species as Non-target Species

SD3.1.1

The CAB shall determine if the introduced species is not the target species in thefishery being considered for certification, but is a primary or secondary species
that is impacted in some way by fishing activity on the target species.

SD3.1.1.1 Consideration of how such species are treated in an assessment shalldepend on the status accorded that species by management.
a. If the primary/secondary, non-native species is being managed for highproductivity because it is a target species in another managed fishery,
then in a similar way to any mainstream MSC assessment, the CAB
shall evaluate the fishery to determine that it is not having an
unacceptable impact on the non-native, primary/secondary species.
b. If the non-native primary/secondary species is subject to a formal orinformal eradication policy because it is considered to have a“nuisance” status the CAB shall not take the impact of the fishery on
the introduced species into consideration in the assessment.

SD4

Implementation of this Annex

SD4.1.1

CABs shall note that this Annex is in effect during a pilot phase which
commenced 19 January 2011.

SD4.1.2

CABs that wish to assess an ISBF during this pilot phase shall consult with the
MSC on proposed modifications to the default tree.

SD4.1.2.1 CABs should note that the MSC may advise on further considerations to
the modification.
SD4.1.2.2 CABs shall submit final trees to be used for ISBF’s to the MSC by following
the procedure for modified assessment trees in FCP 7.12.5.
SD4.1.3

During the pilot phase CABs shall be required to submit a copy of the Draft
Report to the MSC 15 days prior to release of the Public Comment Draft Report.

SD4.1.4

CABs shall advise their clients of the pilot nature of this Annex.

SD4.1.4.1 CABs shall make potential fishery clients aware of the possibility of further
changes to requirements in the course of the assessment of the fishery.

End of Annex SD
End of Fisheries Standard

Document: MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 133© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Marine Stewardship Council

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Standard

Version 2.01, 31 August 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council’s “MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard” and its
content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2018.
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 by reference to the definitive English version.
The MSC prohibits any modification of part or all of the contents in any form.

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

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900
Fax:

+ 44 (0) 20 7246 8901

Email: standards@msc.org

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 2© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Responsibility for the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Standard
The Marine Stewardship Council is responsible for the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries
Standard.
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 befound on the MSC website.
Versions published
Version no.

Date

Description of Amendment

2.0

1 October 2014

New document issued as part of the Fisheries Standard Review
which was completed in 2014.

2.01

31 August 2018

Version issued incorporating updated cross references inalignment with revision to the Fisheries Certification Process.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 3© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 CABs interpret the MSC
Fisheries Standard. The MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard is maintained as aseparate 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 withthe 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 notrepeated in the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard.
Where guidance is provided that generally relates to the subject of a major heading, or
relates to the content of a specific clause, this icon ◙ appears at the end of the title or clausein the MSC Fisheries Standard, and if critical guidance is included, this icon ‼ appears.
These icons provide hyperlinks to the related guidance section in the MSC Guidance to theFisheries Standard.
Critical guidance is identified within the MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard using a
sidebar, as illustrated in this paragraph.
Within the guidance, this icon ▲ provides a hyperlink back to the corresponding section orclause 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. It is, however, expected that the critical guidance identified in this document will
be followed by CABs where applicable unless there is a justification for not doing so. It is
likely that this critical guidance would be referenced by the accreditation body in any nonconformity to related clauses.
The presence of critical guidance is identified with this icon ‼ in the MSC Fisheries Standard
and includes:•

Special cases: These relate to requirements that apply to a particular type of fishery,data or situation. For example, when assessing an LTL stock the species’ role in theecosystem should be considered in reference points.

•

Additional clarification on how a clause in the MSC Fisheries Standard would usually
be expected to be implemented. The use of different methods would need to be justified.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 4© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table of Contents
Section GSA …..The Default Assessment Tree – Guidance...................................... 6
G Scope ▲ ......................................................................................................................... 10
GSA1.1 General requirements ▲ ....................................................................................... 11
GSA2

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

GSA3

Principle 2 ............................................................................................................. 46

GSA4

Principle 3 ........................................................................................................... 100

Annex GSB............Modifications to the Default Tree for Enhanced Bivalve Fisheries –Guidance ▲ ........................................................................................................... 115
GSB2

Principle 1 ........................................................................................................... 115

GSB3

Principle 2 ........................................................................................................... 116

GSB4

Principle 3 ........................................................................................................... 119

Annex GSC Modifications to the Default Assessment Tree for Salmon Fisheries –Guidance ▲ ........................................................................................................... 126
GSC1

General Requirements ........................................................................................ 126

GSC2

Principle 1 ........................................................................................................... 128

GSC3

Principle 2 ........................................................................................................... 146

GSC4

Principle 3 ........................................................................................................... 152

GSC5

Weighting to be Applied in Enhanced Salmon Fisheries ..................................... 154

GSC6 Allowances for Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) Catches in Salmon
Fisheries ........................................................................................................................... 154

Annex GSD: Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) – Guidance ▲ .............. 156

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 5© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Section GSA The Default Assessment Tree – GuidanceBackground to Annex GSA Guidance ▲The Fisheries Standard contains the default assessment tree that ensures high quality,
credible fishery assessments and certifications based upon an assessment methodology to
be applied consistently across fisheries regardless of ecological, geographical, technologicalor other variations in characteristics.
The hierarchical structure and the prescribed default set of performance indicators andscoring guideposts (PISGs) are used in all assessments unless a team can show just cause
for why a different tree should apply.
The specific objectives and benefits of the default tree are to:•

Improve the common understanding by CABs, clients and stakeholders of how fisheries
will be assessed by use of a simple, transparent assessment structure;•

Ensure consistent interpretation and application of the MSC Fisheries Standard toensure all fisheries are assessed in a similar and equitable manner;•

Increase future certainty about re-assessment for currently certified fisheries;•

Improve the robustness and credibility of fishery assessments by providing greater clarity
on required performance;•

Improve the efficiency of the assessment process while maintaining the integrity of the
MSC’s third party certification approach.

Structure of the Default Tree
The default tree structure is divided into four 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 further sub-division of the Principle•

Scoring Issue (SI): A sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has
one or more scoring issues against which the fishery is assessed at the SG 60, 80, and100 levels.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 6© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSA1: Default Tree Levels relevant to scoring fisheries
Marine Stewardship Council
Default Assessment Tree Structure
MSC Principles & Criteria
for Sustainable Fishing(MSC Standard)

Principle 1

Retained Species

Principle 2

Bycatch Species

Principle 3

EPT Species

Habitats

Principle
Ecosystem

PI 2.1.1: Outcome (O)PI 2.2.1: O

PI 2.3.1: O

PI 2.4.1: O

PI 2.5.1: O

Scoring issue a

PI 2.2.2: M

PI 2.3.2: M

PI 2.4.2: M

PI 2.5.2: M

PI 2.1.2: Management (M)PI 2.2.3: I

PI 2.3.3: I

PI 2.4.3: I

PI 2.5.3: I

Component

Performance
Indicators

Scoring issue a
Scoring issue b

Scoring
IssuesScoring issue “n”
PI 2.1.3: Information (I)For each scoring issue, scoring guideposts are defined at 60, 80 and 100 levels. In scoring a
fishery, CABs, identify the level achieved by the fishery for each scoring issue, and theoverall level achieved as a result for the PI. A fishery must achieve at least a 60 score foreach PI, and at least an aggregate 80 score for each Principle in order to pass. Where ascore less than 80 is achieved, a condition is assigned.
In some fisheries, multiple ‘scoring elements’ (such as multiple bycatch species or habitats)can also be scored within a given PI. For specific details on scoring, see FCP Section 7.17,
and the related guidance.

Default, draft and final trees
Annex SA is designed to be applicable to most standard types of fishery. Other default trees
are available for some special fishery types such as enhanced bivalves and salmon. Other
special trees can be developed by CABs where needed for other unusual fishery types,
subject to approval by MSC (see FCP section 7.12.5). In these cases, the “default tree”
becomes a “draft tree” while a variation request and stakeholder comment is being sought,
then a “final tree” when it is ready for use, with or without changes, in the specific fisheryassessment.

Relationship between the Default Tree and the MSC Principles and Criteria
Annex SA was developed to reflect the 1999 MSC Principles and Criteria as its foundation.
Table GSA1 illustrates the relationship between topics in the P&Cs and their locations in the
Fisheries Standard v2.0 default tree (as changed from v1.3).
Taking Principle 1 as an example, the three P1 Criteria in the 1999 Principles and Criteria
are assessed by the combination of PIs in the default tree, as:•Each of the outcomes required by the three Criteria is covered by the single Outcome PI(1.1.1).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 7© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

The Harvest Strategy (Management) PIs assess a fishery’s ability to manage the impact
on target stocks to achieve those outcomes sought by the three Criteria.

•

Criterion 3, with no specific Outcome PI, is covered by considering its impact on theformulation of the management strategy and the Harvest Control Rule (HCR) and tools.

•

For example, the Point below which Recruitment could be Impaired (PRI), scored as alimit reference point in PI 1.1.1, should be set at a point where:• There is no danger that genetic changes in the stock would reduce
reproductive productivity, and• If there is a risk that this may not be so, the limit reference point should be
increased accordingly.
The problem might be addressed through changes to the component of the stockthat is harvested, for instance by changing the distribution or selectivity of fishing.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 8© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

Table GSA1: Comparison between the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing and the default tree structure (PIs shown in strikeout
font and boxes shaded green indicate the changes between the trees in CR v1.3 and Fisheries Standard v2.0)

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Management

Information

StatusManagement

Information

StatusManagement

Information

StatusManagement

Information

Legal and/or customary framework

Consultation roles and resps

Long term objectives

Incentives for sust. fishing

Fishery specific objectives

Decision making processes

Compliance and enforcement

Research plan

Monitoring and evaluation

3

Status2

Scope

Information

Information / monitoring

1

Principle 3
5. Ecosystem 1. Governance and 2. Fishery specificpolicymanagement

4. Habitats

Management

Harvest control rules & tools3

3. ETP
species

Assessment

Performance of harvest strategy

2

2. Bycatch
species

StatusRecovery & Rebuilding

Criteria
1
Principle 1. Target species
1High productivity
2
If depleted, recovery plan
3
Reproductive capacity
Principle 2. Ecosystem
1
Functional relationships
2
Biodiversity and ETP spp
3
If depleted, recovery plan
Principle 3. Management system
A Management system criteria
A1 No controversial unilateral exemption
A2 Clear long-term objectives, etc
A3 Appropriate to cultural context and scale
A4 Observe legal and customary rights
A5 Dispute resolution mechanism
A6 Incentives, no negative subsidies
A7 Timely, adaptive, precautionary
A8 Research plan
A9 Stock assessments conducted
A10 Mgmt measures and strategies
A11 Compliance, MCS
B Operational criteria
B12 Bycatch and discards
B13 Habitat impacts
B14 Destructive fishing practices
B15 Operational waste
B16 System, legal and admin requirements
B17 Collaboration in data collection

Principle 2
2. Harvest strategy 1. Retained
species

Reference points

Stock status

Performance indicators

Principle 1
1. Outcome

4

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

page 9© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

G Scope ▲The standard is available to all operations engaged in the wild capture of marine or
freshwater organisms with the following exceptions:
1. Operations targeting (as Principle 1) amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals
2. Operations using explosives or poison as their fishing method
3. Operations that are conducted under controversial unilateral exemptions frominternational agreements, or under conditions of unresolved dispute, if the exemption or
dispute creates a situation where effective management of the resource cannot bedelivered (FCP Section 7.4).
4. Farmed aquaculture operations, except where these can be described as enhanced
fisheries as defined in FCP Section 7.4.
5. Introduced species, except where these can be described as historical and irreversible
as defined in FCP Section 7.4.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 10© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA1.1 General requirements ▲Box GSA1: Precautionary approach

The precautionary approach
International and customary law requires the use of the precautionary approach infisheries management. The MSC uses as its baseline definition for the precautionary
approach the definitions included in the FAO International Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (1995) and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (1995), Article 6 ofwhich 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 takeconservation and management measures (The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995).
In the MSC 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 also
intends the precautionary approach to be applied implicitly throughout the Certification
Requirements. To capture this intent, the MSC system has been designed to give higherscores where there is more certainty about the outcome, or where management systems
appropriately apply precaution under conditions of uncertainty. Where limited information
is available, teams should be more precautionary in their assessment of information
adequacy to support an Outcome PI score.
References
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.1995
FAO Technical Consultation on the Precautionary approach to capture fisheries. Rome,
FAO. 1996.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992
The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks andhighly migratory fish stocks, Sixth session, New York, 24 July-4 August, 1995

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 11© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Box GSA2: IUU fishing

MSC’s intent and understanding of the standard in relation to illegal, unreported
and unregulated (IUU) fishing
The FAO definition of IUU fishing is as follows (FAO, 2002):
Illegal fishing refers to fishing activities:•••

Conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State,
without the permission 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 but operate in contravention of the conservationand management measures adopted by that organisation and by which the States
are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable international law; orIn violation of national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken bycooperating States to a relevant regional fisheries management organisation.

Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities:••

Which have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national
authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations; orUndertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries management
organisation which have not been reported or have been misreported, in
contravention of the reporting procedures of that organisation.

Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities:••

In the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organisationthat are conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying the flag of a Statenot party to that organisation, or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent
with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of thatorganisation; or
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
under international law.

These definitions of IUU fishing have been adopted and incorporated into Action Plans todeter and eliminate IUU fishing at both the national level (United States, New Zealandand Australia) and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), such as
ICCAT and CCAMLR, as well as economic entities (e.g., the European Union). RFMOs
publish lists of vessels engaged in IUU fishing in their areas of responsibility.
IUU fishing can also apply at a state level, for example, where coastal nations or theirsub-jurisdictions (e.g., internal states or provinces) have inadequate regulation to prevent
illegal, unreported or unregulated catches.
In relation to IUU, the MSC intention is that UoAs be harvested legally and that IUU is
non-existent, or where IUU does exist it is at a minimum level such that management
measures, including assessments and harvest control rules and the estimation of IUU
impacts on harvested species and the ecosystem, are capable of maintaining affected
populations at sustainable levels.
Specifically:•

Unreported IUU fishing should be considered as “unobserved mortality”.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 12© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

The unit of assessment (UoA) should be free from IUU catches of target (P1) species.
This will be assessed in P1 and in P3 (compliance with national and internationallaws and monitoring, control and surveillance [MCS]; 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, which must be taken into account by management and must not have amaterial impact on the ability of the management system to deliver a sustainablefishery; this should be clearly considered by assessment teams in the PIs on harvest
control rules, information, and assessment of stock status in P1 (e.g., 1.2.2, 1.2.3,
1.2.4), including in documentation of unobserved mortality.

•

The requirement for compliance with national and international laws combined withthe requirement 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. While theimpact of other IUU fishing on P2 components should be documented where known,
unlike in P1, it need not be introduced 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 tocatch 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 the GCR, which has evolved since FAM v1 (2008) toinclude guidance in relation to local and national laws, as well as international laws:•

PI 1.2.3: GSA2.6.1 on information categories to consider for fishery removals.

•

P2 general guidance: GSA3.1.8 on considering observed and unobserved fishingmortality, including illegal fishing and/or unregulated catches.

•

PI 3.2.3: GSA4.1 on considering compliance and enforcement.

Evaluation of effectiveness of MCS in UoAs where a less formalised MCS system exists
may consider the role and effectiveness of a range of factors in deterring illegal activity,
which are described in GSA4.9 on assessing informal and traditional approaches in PI
3.2.3. Additional guidance on P3 (PI 3.2.3.) is given in GSA4.9.
References
FAO (2002) Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, andEliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries 9. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO. Retrieved April
11, 2011: from FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y3536e/y3536e00.HTM

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 13© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA2 Principle 1
GSA2.1 General requirements for Principle 1 ▲There are two components in Principle 1: an outcome component with two PIs and amanagement component with four PIs.

Outcome Component
Background
The outcome component has two PIs. The stock status PI (1.1.1) is scored to reflect
management behaviour that:•

increases the probability that exploited biomass fluctuates around the BMSY target, or ahigher target if this is warranted from a consideration of the trophic inter-dependencies of
the target species (see Box SA1 below); and•decreases the probability that exploited biomass will drop significantly towards the point
where recruitment becomes impaired, either through recruitment overfishing or throughgenetic effects or imbalances in sex ratio.

The rebuilding PI (1.1.2) is triggered in cases where PI 1.1.1 does not achieve an 80 level, toensure that stock rebuilding is expected. Stocks whose status is currently below the point at
which recruitment is impaired (termed the PRI) would not achieve the necessary pass levelin PI 1.1.1 even if there are recovery plans or programmes in place which 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.

•

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 MSC’s intent and understanding in relation to MSY is provided in Box
GSA3.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 14© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Box GSA3: MSC intent on the achievement of MSY in P1

MSC intent on the achievement of MSY in P1
The MSC intention is that fisheries be harvested no more than is consistent with MSY (asrequired by UNCLOS), and that this is achieved through use of appropriate target andlimit reference points and of harvest strategies (as required by UNFSA and CoCRF).
•

A target reference point reflects a management objective to be achieved (e.g.,
performance consistent with MSY) while the limit reflects an undesirable state to be
avoided with high probability (e.g., impaired recruitment).

The most basic definition of MSY is the largest long-term average annual catch that canbe sustained 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 obtained bytaking fewer fish in some years than in others.” The constant fishing mortality that gives
this MSY is FMSY, and the average population size while MSY is provided is BMSY.
•

MSY was originally defined in terms of simple production models, but the concept isnow equally applicable to any model of the stock and fishery (e.g., more complex
production models, dynamic pool models, ‘per recruit models’, multi-stock/mixed
stock models, ecosystem models and meta-population models).

•

There are many ways to estimate MSY and related reference points. Many of them,and particularly the older methods which were common at the time UNCLOS and
UNFSA were agreed, make substantial assumptions and so there can beconsiderable uncertainty about the accuracy of the estimates of MSY and related
reference points.

•

Because the productivity (e.g., recruitment) of many fish stocks is naturally highlyvariable through time the biomass can vary greatly around BMSY (in some cases evenwith an appreciable chance of the stock being below the biomass limit reference
point) when fished at the constant FMSY. To an extent this variability in stock biomass
can be mitigated by use of a harvest control rule that reduces the fishing mortality
when stock biomass is low or a limit reference point is approached, as recommended
by UNFSA and CoCRF. For some harvest control rules, including the constantescapement policies common in salmon and some low small pelagic fisheries, thefishing mortality is reduced to zero at a threshold stock biomass (e.g., Mace 2001).

•

Reflecting the uncertainty usual in the estimation of MSY reference points and thevariability of productivity usual in fish stocks the UNFSA guidelines and others (e.g.,
Mace 2001) recommend that FMSY should be treated as a precautionary limit
reference point, rather than a target reference point. This is appropriate in 'common
practice' application of the MSY concepts, in which there is little explicit considerationof uncertainty and/or use of approximate methods for determining MSY reference
points and/or use of surrogates for fishing mortality or stock biomass.

•

The ‘best practice’ current view of MSY is that it is the largest long–term averagecatch that results from a constant F or variable F harvest control rule, while
simultaneously giving a high chance of avoiding the biomass limit reference point,with MSY determined by simulation testing (e.g., Management Strategy Evaluation
methods; Sainsbury et al. 2000, Butterworth and Punt 2003) that includes realistic
representation of the major likely uncertainties (e.g., observation uncertainty,
estimation uncertainty, recruitment variability, model structure uncertainty,
implementation uncertainty). FMSY determined this way could be an appropriate target

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 15© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

reference point, because its method of calculation internalises uncertainty, variability
and the biomass limit reference point.
MSY stock status•

The stock status consistent with MSY is fundamentally defined in terms FMSY and
BMSY, and so the MSC standard provides default target and limit reference points forthese. Approximations for FMSY and BMSY can be used where they are expected toachieve performance consistent with MSY (e.g., Witherall et al 2000, Clarke 2002,
Zhou et al 2012).

•

Directly measurable (empirical) proxies or surrogates for fishing mortality or biomass(eg., average length or length distribution, catch rate, recruitment, escapement etc.),
and associated empirical harvest strategies, can be used where they are expected toachieve performance consistent with MSY or a similar highly productive level (Starr et
al 1997, Prince et al 2011).

Multi-stock fisheries (containing biological interactions but stocks are separately
assessable), mixed-stock fisheries (containing technical interactions but stocks are
separately assessable) and stock-complex fisheries (where some or all of the stocks
cannot be individually assessed so are managed as a group).
•

Multi-stock fisheries and mixed-stock fisheries. The existence of biological and/or
technical interactions means that fishing on one stock has an effect on others. So it is
not possible to simultaneously obtain the maximum sustainable yield from each of theindividual component stocks. A compromise is required to obtain what is considered
the best yield from the combination of stocks. At two extremes, for example, it could
be considered that the least productive stock will be harvested up to its MSY so that
all other stocks are harvested at less than their individual MSYs or it could beconsidered that the most productive stock will be harvested up to its MSY so that allother species will be harvested beyond their individual MSYs (i.e., fishing mortality
higher and biomass lower than the MSY levels). MSC recognises this as amanagement choice for the target reference point for each species (e.g., UNFSA
Annex II para 2), but also currently requires that the single species (or single stock)
limit reference points be maintained (cf the US approach that requires no species be
reduced such that it triggers the threatened species listing).

•

Stock-complex fisheries. MSY for the stock complex as a whole may be determinedor indicator stocks may be used for assessment purposes (e.g., US National
Standard), but MSC requires that there is a good basis for expecting that none of thecomponent stocks are reduced below their limit reference point.

•

The MSC requirements in Principle 1 do not currently take account of suchinteractions between stocks, being based on expectations applicable in a single
species (or single stock) context. MSC is considering further developments in thisarea, and monitoring the development and application of such methods as ‘bestpractice’ in management agencies, globally. Further consideration of this will be givenin the 2018 standard review. Prior to that point, CABs may propose the use of special
assessment trees for the assessment of such fisheries (per FCP Section 7.12).

•

In the statements above, the term ‘stock’ may refer to either a single species, or to a
sub-stock of a species, consistent with the MSC definition given in the Glossary. A‘mixed-stock’ fishery may for example be based on several different species, or on
two or more sub-stocks of the same species, which have overlapping distributions in
the area of capture. The distinctions made between multi-stock, mixed-stock andstock-complex fisheries here thus relate to the nature of their interactions and thepracticalities of their management, and not to the levels of genetic differences
between the stocks.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 16© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

Where fisheries are based on multiple sub-stocks of a single species, attention
should also be given to the guidance on metapopulations (Guidance to the Fisheries
Certification Process Section G7.5), In these cases, the recognition of specific‘source’ and ‘sink’ populations may lead to different expectations for these individual
stocks, but the metapopulation as a whole should still be maintained at productive
levels (as required in SA2.2.6).

•

Further consideration is also needed in the case of salmon fisheries, as outlined in
the modified assessment tree in Annex SC. In this case, overall fishery production isassessed at the level of ‘Stock Management Unit’ (SMU), equivalent to the normal
stock in a single species/stock fishery, but fisheries are also expected to manage thediversity and productivity of individual populations within the SMU.

References
Butterworth, D. S. and A. E. Punt (1999) Experiences in the evaluation andimplementation of management procedures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 985998.
Clark, W.G. (2002) F35% revisited ten years later. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 22(1): 251-257.
Mace, P.M. (2001) A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches tofisheries stock assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2: 2-32.
Prince, J.D., N.A. Dowling, C. R. Davies , R. A. Campbell and D. S. Kolody (2011) A
simple cost-effective and scale-less empirical approach to harvest strategies. ICES
Journal of Marine Science. 68: 947–960.
Sainsbury, K.J., A. E. Punt, and A. D. M. Smith. (2000) Design of operational
management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 57: 731-741.
Starr, P.J., P.A. Breen, R. Hilborn and T.H. Kendrick (1997) Evaluation of a management
decision rule for a New Zealand rock lobster substock. Marine and Freshwater Research
48: 1093-1101.
Witherall, D., C. Pautzke and D. Fluharty (2000) An ecosystem-based approach for
Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:771-7.
Zhou, S., Y. Shaowu, J.T. Thorson, A.D.M.Smith and M. Fuller (2012) Linking fishingmortality reference points to life history traits: an empirical study. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 69:1292-1301.
Prince, J.D., N.A. Dowling, C. R. Davies , R. A. Campbell and D. S. Kolody (2011) A
simple cost-effective and scale-less empirical approach to harvest strategies. ICES
Journal of Marine Science. 68: 947–960

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 17© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Harvest Strategy (Management) Component
Background
The harvest strategy (management) has four PIs. These PIs assess a fishery’s ability to
manage the impact on target stocks to achieve the outcomes sought by the MSC Principle 1.
The overall harvest strategy and the specific management components in PIs 1.2.2-1.2.4
should in combination be capable of achieving the management objectives expressed in thetarget and limit reference points.
Subsidies in fishing
MSC does not name individual subsidy types as harmful or not harmful to fishing. Somesubsidies may, however, contribute to overcapacity, which may compromise the ability of amanagement system to effectively control fishing effort.
When considering the effectiveness of a management strategy and its ability to meet P1 andP2 outcomes, CABs should take into account any problems that might be caused by fishingovercapacity, or other issues, that can result from subsidies.
If overcapacity exists as a result of subsidies, the management system should be robust
enough to deal with this issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery in accordance with MSC
Principle 1 & 2.
If the management system is not robust enough to deal with overcapacity caused bysubsidies, a condition should be set in accordance with FCP Section 7.18 against therelevant management PI.
Shared and straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks
When considering management PIs under P1 in fisheries that target shared stocks,
straddling stocks or highly migratory stocks, CABs should consider all national andinternational management systems that apply to the stock and the capacity of these systems
to deliver sustainable outcomes for P1.
International management systems may include Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations (RFMOs), bilateral/multilateral arrangements and other internationalarrangements with similar intent.

GSA2.2 Stock Status PI (PI 1.1.1) ▲GSA2.2.2 Scoring fluctuations around the target MSY level -scoring
issue (b) ▲Scoring issue (b) of PI 1.1.1 requires that the P1 stock (biomass) is fluctuating around alevel, BMSY, at which maximum sustainable yield may be achieved, or around a higher level
where appropriate. Fluctuation in this context refers to the variability over time around apoint, acknowledging that the magnitude of fluctuation will be influenced by the biology of thespecies, and that short-term trends may be apparent in such fluctuations.
In considering PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b) and SA2.2.2, teams should provide a clear rationale
by which it is argued that the SG80 or 100 levels are met, including the details of the time
period over which this is assessed. Such rationale should take into account the specificbiology of the species and the stock status in recent years.
Examples of situations that may be regarded as “fluctuating around a level consistent with
MSY” and thus able to achieve at least an 80 score for PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b) are given

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 18© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

below. In considering these examples, teams should note that the 90%BMSY figure is given
as a hypothetical level that may be appropriate for species types with average levels offluctuations. Other values may be appropriate for other species types. These examples arethus provided as illustrations of different ways in which rationales may be constructed rather
than explicit requirements. Teams should further keep in mind that the rationale should
demonstrate fluctuation around a level ‘consistent with BSMY’, not a level consistent with
90%BMSY.
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) are given
below:•

An instantaneous estimate of current stock status that is not less than 90%BMSY.

•

A recent series of estimates of stock size that has a median or mean value over thelast one generation time that is not less than 90%BMSY, and which has a trend that is
consistent with an expectation that the future biomass will continue to fluctuate
around BMSY. (For definition of ‘generation time’, see guidance GSA2.2.4)•

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 (e.g., due to incomingstrong recruitment or recent reductions in exploitation level). The time series may
include estimates that are less than 90%BMSY, so long as these are shown to be partof a long-term fluctuation around BMSY.

•

A series of estimates showing a steady increase in stock size that has recently
returned to a level not less than 90% BMSY, and is expected to continue building toabove 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) are given below:•

A recent series of estimates of stock size that has a mean or median over the lasttwo 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.

In reviewing fluctuations in stock size, teams should note that a model-derived estimate ofstock size from the most recent year will often be more uncertain than earlier years. Teams
should take this into account so as to avoid rapid changes in status of MSC certified stocks,
which are possibly not indicative of actual material change in stock status, and so avoid
unnecessary changes in certification status as specified in FCP Section 7.29. A single
estimate of stock status unsupported by an estimate of certainty either derived from a timeseries trend or from a statistical model, should only rarely be used to justify a materialchange in the score.
MSC has chosen not to define its requirements in relation to the commonly used definitions“overfished” and “overfishing”. Nevertheless, these terms are commonly used, and arereferred to in some guidance as follows:

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 19© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

Overfishing: fishing mortality higher than FMSY, the fishing mortality level that results, inthe long term in the stock being at maximum sustainable yield•

Overfished: biomass stock size lower than a limit defined in relation to MSY. The FAO
Ecolabelling Guidelines define “overfished” as below a biomass limit reference point. The
limit is often taken to be 50% BMSY, which is the default assumption for the point below
which recruitment may be impaired (PRI) as defined by the MSC. However, 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 Determination of status with respect to PRI and BMSY ▲The wording of PI 1.1.1 requires scoring against the conceptual levels PRI and MSY. Suchlevels may or may not be used as explicit reference points in a fishery. There may besituations where well-managed stocks do not have target reference points or do not have
limit reference points, or their values are not consistent with the conceptual levels of PRI or
MSY. The stock will still need to be assessed in terms of the overall outcome objectives, i.e.,
for SG80 that the stock status is highly likely to be above the point at which there is anappreciable risk that recruitment is impaired, and will be at or around a level consistent withBMSY.
All management systems should thus have reference points of some sort, as confirmed in PI
1.2.4 (scoring issue (b)). Where these are not stated explicitly they should be implicit within
the decision rules or management procedures, and the fishery should be assessed using
these implicit reference points.
An explicit use of only a target reference point should include some implicit consideration ofa limit reference point, and likewise a management system that uses only a limit reference
point will have some implicit acknowledgement of targets.
In requiring that fish stocks are ‘likely above the PRI’ (SG60 in PI 1.1.1), MSC recognisesthat fish stocks do not have an exact and constant level below which recruitment will always
be impaired. In a Beverton-Holt type stock-recruit relationship, recruitment declines with any
reduction in stock size from the unexploited level. The PRI should be interpreted as the point
below which there is an increased risk that recruitment may be substantially impaired andfisheries should be managed such that the risk of stocks falling below this level is very low.
Where historical estimates of stock size and resulting recruitment are available, the PRI may
be identifiable as the point below which reduced recruitment has been observed in the past,
and above which recruitment appears to be more related to environmental factors than tostock size. MSC default proxies for the PRI and MSY are given in the following sub-section.

GSA2.2.3.1 Use of proxy indicators and reference points for PRI andBMSY ▲In this section the term “reference point” is used in relation to determination of status, not in
relation to harvest control rules (see additional guidance on this distinction in GSA2.6).
Writing the PISGs in terms of biomass and fishing rate metrics creates an appearance that
the MSC Fisheries Standard is not well suited for other than large industrial fisheries withformalised stock assessments and biomass based reference points. This is not the intent.
SA2.2.3 confirms that teams may allow the use of surrogate or proxy indicators andreference points in scoring both stock biomass and exploitation rate. The terms “likely”, and“highly likely” are used to allow scoring by either qualitative or quantitative approaches.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 20© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

Examples of qualitative interpretation include analogy with similar situations, plausible
argument, empirical observation of sustainability and qualitative risk assessment.

•

Examples of quantitative interpretation include the use of measured data from therelevant fishery, statistical analysis, quantitative risk assessment and quantitativemodelling.

Default values for the levels of the PRI and BMSY, as used in scoring the stock status PI 1.1.1
are given below. They are often related to B0, the stock status that would be present in theabsence of fishing.
•

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 thespecies: BMSY=40%B0; PRI=20%B0=½BMSY.

•

In the case where either BMSY or the PRI are analytically determined, those values should
be used 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 isno analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This casecovers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may bejustified.

•

In the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be lower than 40%B0 (as in somehighly 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 trigger reference point 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 target reference point, but where thedefault PRI is still appropriate.

•

In cases where the PRI is set at 20% B0, a default value for the BMSY may be assumed tobe 2xPRI. In other cases, for instance where the PRI is set at the lowest historicalbiomass, it cannot be assumed that BMSY = 2xPRI. Teams shall justify any reference
point used as a proxy of BMSY in terms of its consistency with BMSY.

The default PRI values given above (½BMSY or 20%B0) apply to stocks with average
productivity. Such points are generally consistent with being above the point at which there
is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired, though for some short-lived stocks theactual point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired may be lower
than 20%B0 and for some long-lived species it may be higher than this.
Where management has defined a target range for BMSY rather than a single value, the teamshould score the stock status PI 1.1.1 against this range. The team should also consider if
different reference points are required for different components of the stock in theirassessment.
Where proxies are used that are not expressed as percentages of B0, teams should
generally ensure that:•

Any reference point used as a proxy for scoring the PRI is set above the point where
there is an appreciable risk of recruitment failure; andDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 21© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

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.

Where proxy reference points are defined in this way, teams should take account of thedifference between the reference point and the required (PRI or MSY) levels in their scoring.
Particular caution should be given regarding ‘per-recruit’ stock assessment approaches that
do not include any form of stock-recruit relationship. Levels of F0.1 or F40%SPR will usually, forexample, provide more reliable proxies of FMSY than Fmax when a per-recruit approach isused. Reference points such as BPA that are used as a precautionary buffer to reduce thechance of declining to a limit level such as the PRI should also not be assumed to beconsistent with BMSY. The BMSYtrigger approach used in ICES, for example, should be regarded
as setting a lower limit to the likely range of values that BMSY may take, and not as an
estimated value for BMSY.
In ICES assessments, fisheries with B>BMSYtrigger may be regarded as “fluctuating aroundBMSY” (thereby achieving an 80 score).
Proxy indicators and reference points or measuring stock status may also be used where theexact relationship with the PRI, BMSY and FMSY levels are not known. In these cases, theteam must provide justification that these proxies are reasonable for the context in which
they are used.
Examples: proxies
Examples of such proxies and necessary considerations are given below:•

Where empirical values of CPUE (not based on an explicit stock assessment) areused as reference points for monitoring biomass, teams could provide rationales thatthe values adopted are consistent with MSY or a similar highly productive level.
Checks may be needed to ensure, in this case, that spatial changes in fishing, orchanges in the catchability of gears do not reduce the reliability of the proxy
indicators.

•

Where reference points for measuring stock status are based on some historicalstate, the position of the stock at that time should be considered relative to theunexploited level and the likely proximity to BMSY. Evidence should be presented thatthe stock was not over-exploited at the historical reference time and that the catch
was sustainable and highly productive.

•

Where mean fish sizes are used as reference points for the exploitation level, teams
should provide rationales that the values adopted are consistent with FMSY or similarlevels.

•Other examples include crustacean fisheries that seek to protect from harvest thecomplete female reproductive capacity in the population (i.e., single sex harvest).
The reference points used here could relate to metrics such as percent fertilised
eggs and or other female population indicators that are evaluating the management
system’s effectiveness at achieving its goal.

Where proxy reference points are used in scoring the stock biomass status, higher scoresshould be assigned where greater confidence is provided by the proxy information (such aswith a ‘traffic lights’ approach to management).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 22© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Examples: using proxy reference points
Examples of how the 60, 80 and 100 SG levels may be justified in these situations are
given below:•

At SG60: If no decline has been observed in one proxy of biomass for at least one
generation time of the species and the proxy indicates that the stock is likely above
the PRI.

•At SG80: If no decline has been observed in two proxies of biomass for one
generation time and at least one proxy indicates that the stock is at a highly
productive level.

•

At SG 100: If no decline has been observed in three proxies of biomass for one
generation time and at least two 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
indicators, such proxies should be independent of each other and also reasonably be
expected to be proxies of the quantity of interest (such as CPUE in the case of stock
biomass). The team should present a rationale for how the proxies conform to theseprinciples.
In some cases, it may reasonably be argued that one good proxy is better than two or more
weak proxies.

GSA2.2.4 Scoring stock status using fishing mortality rate (F) ▲Clause SA2.2.4 also allows the use of fishing mortality as a means of scoring PI 1.1.1 whenbiomass information is not available. Obviously, a fishery that is currently at or below thepoint at which recruitment is impaired will not suddenly be at MSY if fishing mortality is
reduced to FMSY.
The history of fishing mortality should be examined to determine whether the stock biomass
could be assumed to be at the required level for each SG. Obviously this depends on thestarting status for stock biomass, the trajectory of fishing mortality and the length of time thatfishing mortality has been at a certain level.
The following expectations should be applied if the starting biomass is unknown:•

At least a 60 score is justified if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least one
generation time of the species (or for at least two years, if greater). This level of F isgenerally expected to be able to recover, or maintain, a population to be “likely” above its
PRI.

•

At least an 80 score is justified (B highly likely above the PRI and at or fluctuatingaround BMSY) if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least two generation
times (or for at least four years, if greater).

•

A 100 score is justified if F is highly likely to have been below FMSY for at least twogeneration times (or for at least four years, if greater).

Clearly these are just guidelines, based on an assumption that fishing mortality will in thesecases be at or very closely below FMSY. The lower the fishing mortality has been, the shorterthe time interval required for recovery. 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

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 23© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

to 80% FMSY or 60% FMSY, the time for recovery may be halved. CABs should take theseissues into account when scoring.
Box GSA4: Generation time

Definition: Generation time (GT)The MSC defines a generation time as the average age of a reproductive individual in an
unexploited stock, consistent with the definition in Goodyear 19953
𝐺=∑𝐴
𝑎−1 𝑎𝐸𝑎 𝑁𝑎∑𝐴
𝑎−1 𝐸𝑎 𝑁𝑎

where a is age, A is the oldest age in an unfished state, Ea is the maturity at age a, andNa is the number per recruit alive at age a in the absence of fishing, i.e.,
𝑁𝑎 = 𝑁0 𝑒 −𝑀𝑎 where M is natural mortality and No =1 (per recruit).
A reasonable approximation for GT, when 0.1 ≤ M ≤ 2 is
1/M + Am50
where Am50 is the age at 50% maturity.
Box GSA5: Consideration of fishing mortality rate in MSC assessments

Consideration of fishing mortality rate in MSC assessments
The guidance in this section covers the specific situation where fishing mortality (F) is
being used as an indicator of the status of the stock, when actual biomass estimates are
not available. In this case, F must have been low enough for long enough for therequired biomass levels to have been achieved.
Guidance is also provided later on the use of fishing mortality information, where it isavailable, in its more normal context as 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 theharvest control rule (HCR) PI, 1.2.2. The general expectations in these cases are
summarised below:•

PI 1.1.2 (rebuilding): When Biomass (B) is below a level at which it could be regarded
as ‘fluctuating around BMSY’, then F should normally be less than FMSY, in order toachieve recovery to such level.

•

PI 1.2.2 (HCRs): To be regarded as working effectively, HCRs will normally maintainF equal to or less than FMSY.

Only a few exceptions to these general ‘rules’ are allowed, as supported by clear
justifications, such as the special nature of a stock assessment approach or theavailability of other specific information. For further details, see the guidance sections
GSA2.3.4 and GSA2.5 (scoring issue (c)). Teams should also note that F should bemaintained at lower than MSY levels in key LTL fisheries.

3 Goodyear, C.P. 1995. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS/SEFSC. Cited by Thompson, G.

G., Mace, P. M., Gabriel, W. L., Low, L. L., Maccall, A. D., Methot, R. D., … Witzig, J. F. (1998). Technical
Guidance On the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 24© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA2.2.5 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 climatechange) and human-induced impacts ▲MSC recognises that the productivity of fisheries is affected by a range of environmental
factors, as much as by the levels of fishing and the management of the fishery. The actual
values of reference points may thus change over time as reflected in stock assessments,
and these changes may be allowed for in scoring the status of the stock in PI 1.1.1. Section
SA2.2.7.2 recognises the situation where the productivity of the fishery is reduced either byexcessive fishing, or by other human-induced impacts (e.g., the clearance of mangroveswamps affecting fish nursery areas). In these cases there is no justification for reducing thereference points and the fishery should receive a lower score until effective management isin place and the stock returns to healthy levels.
However, the MSC recognizes the multipurpose nature of use patterns particularly in inland
waters. Example uses include dam construction for water supply and power, channelization
for navigation and flood control, land drainage and wetland reclamation for agricultural uses
etc. Such uses are generally fundamental to the functioning of modern society and outside of
the management control of the fishing sector. Where users from other sectors (non-fishery)
have impacts on the fishery, management should take into account these impacts whendevising a strategy for achieving management objectives.
Example:If water is withdrawn for agriculture and urban supply and this has an adverse impact onfish stocks, the management of the fishery is expected to address this fact (perhaps by
reducing fishing or time/area closures).
Although climate change is now generally accepted as a potential ‘human-induced‘ impact
on fishery productivity, it is not one that can be easily ‘resolved‘ in the sense required by
SA2.2.7.2.a. Such changes are thus regarded as more similar to the situation with regularly
occurring (e.g., decadal) cycles or regime shifts, as covered under SA2.2.7.1. Teams shouldnote the further guidance on scoring of climate changes in PIs 1.1.2 (Stock Rebuilding – see
GSA2.3), 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules, and the scoring or uncertainty), and in 2.5.3(Ecosystem Information – see SA3.18.1.2).
Consequently, in situations where there is evidence that productivity changes are related tothe impacts of long-term climate change, CABs should that appropriate adjustments need tobe made to reference points and indicators used to determine stock status.

GSA2.2.8 Treatment of key Low Tropic Level (LTL) stocks ▲The MSC’s intent for consideration of trophic level is that the management of all target
species should in some way take into account their trophic level. To date the MSC has only
defined specific management and outcome performance requirements for key LTL stocks,
because of the highly important role that they play within ecosystems. CABs should also
consider whether management needs to be particularly precautionary for very long lived orDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 25© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

high trophic level species. For example, generic reference points appropriate for low trophic
level, short lifespan, high fecundity species would be those appropriate to such species,
rather than those appropriate for high trophic level, long lived, low fecundity species. See
guidance above on reference points.
Box GSA6: Special management requirements for key Low Trophic Level stocks

Special management requirements for key Low Trophic Level stocks
The ecological importance of Low-Trophic Level (LTL) species such as sardines,
anchovy and krill, also referred to as forage fish species, and the control they can exert
on the rest of the food web has been well established (e.g., Cury et al, 2000). They areoften a fundamental part of marine food webs, but are also used by humans for a varietyof purposes. Ninety percent of the forage fish catch is “reduced” to fishmeal or fish oil foruse in the agriculture, aquaculture, pet food, and other industries and to a limited extent
also used for human consumption. In recent years, the extraction of forage fishes fromthe ocean has escalated enormously, and these species currently compriseapproximately 37% of the global wild marine fish catch with further increases likely(Pikitch et al, 2012).
Due to their often significant ecological importance, unsustainable exploitation of forage
fish populations can impact the marine food web (e.g., causing declines in seabird andmarine mammal populations) or even threaten food security in some countries by
diverting forage fish from use as food for humans.
The intent of the MSC requirements on the treatment of LTL stocks is focused on limiting
the ecosystem impacts caused by the commercial harvest of these important species.
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 all forage (LTL) stocks need to
be assessed 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’.
As defined in SA2.2.9, there are three criteria which are used to identify whether or not
an LTL stock is key:•

the connectance of the species to other organisms within the system,•

the proportion of energy of that gets channelled through the species, and•whether the system is wasp-waisted following the definition in Cury et al (2000).

Essentially, if it is evident that a species is highly connected in the food web and found in
the diets of many predators, it will likely be a key LTL stock. The MSC guidance on this
topic (Section GSA2.2.9) provides examples of how these criteria can be shown to be
met or not met. Following a precautionary approach, if it is not possible to provide ajustified argument that at least two of the criteria are NOT met, then the stock must betreated as key LTL.
The first two criteria are based on results from Smith et al, 2011 and Essington andPláganyi, 2013 and the thresholds used relate directly to the levels of ecosystem impactthat the depletion of the LTL species would have. If a species is determined to be key,
the removal of this species beyond defined precautionary reference points would likely
cause a cascade effect in the wider ecosystem. Other predators dependent on the LTL
species as food may for example see a decrease of more than 70% in their abundance.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 26© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

MSC defines the default precautionary reference points for management of key LTL
species as either a biomass that is 75% of the unexploited level in the system, or a target
exploitation rate of 0.5FMSY or 0.5M (natural mortality of the species). In fisheries where
there is sufficient understanding of the system, these default reference points can be
adjusted to specific levels appropriate to the fishery, which are shown not to haveadverse ecosystem effects through the use of credible ecosystem models (as defined inSA2.2.13).
If an LTL stock is not key, it is assumed that the impacts of removing it are not of
particular importance to the wider ecosystem. It can therefore be assessed as normal
within the MSC system and evaluated against the standard MSY-equivalent levels of
biomass and fishing mortality.
References
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 andstructural changes in ‘‘wasp-waist’’ ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57:
603–618.
Essington T and Pláganyi E., 2013. Model and data adequacy for Marine StewardshipCouncil key low trophic level species designation and criteria and a proposed newassessment index. Marine Stewardship Council Science Serie,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-speciesdesignation-and-criteria-and-a-proposed-new-assessment-index.pdf
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.
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.

GSA2.2.9 Identification of key Low Trophic Level (LTL) stocks ▲Ways of demonstrating whether a stock under assessment should be treated as a key LTL
stock may include the use of qualitative information on the ecosystem, diet matrices toconstruct food webs and/or the use of ecosystem models that demonstrate the connection
between species and trophic groups in the ecosystem.
•

If ecosystem models are to be used they must be “credible”. “Credible” should beinterpreted to mean:• Publicly available and well documented;• Fitted to time series data; and• Comprehensive (dealing with the whole ecosystem including all trophic
levels). See also Essington & Plaganyi (2012, MSC Science Series).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 27© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

Where species are aggregated into trophic groups in ecosystem models, the degree of
aggregation should adhere to the guidance provided in Fulton et al. (2003)4 that:• Aggregations do not include serially linked groups (predators and prey) and• That aggregations are not across species, age classes or functional groups
with rate constants that differ by more than 2- to 3- fold. Where possible,
information about trophic connection should be based on empirical evidenceof trophic dependence.

•

Diet matrices, which characterise the proportion of prey eaten by each predator in
addition to the simple linkages between predators, may also be used. If diet matrices areused, they must also be constructed adhering to the guidance of Fulton et al (2003).

•

In determining key LTL status, the spatial scale of the ecosystem that could be affected,
and from which information should be derived, needs to be considered. This should
generally correspond to the spatial distribution of the stock being fished, and could bebroader in some instances (for example if the stock occurs within a well-defined spatial
entity such as a gulf or regional sea). It will not necessarily correspond to thejurisdictional scale of the fishery. If the spatial scale of the ecosystem is considerablylarger than the stock distribution, the potential impacts on predators of localised
depletion would need to be considered.
Example:In cases where key LTL stocks are identified by using total catch as a proxy for total
biomass of the stock, this proxy needs to be scaled to the spatial extent of the stock
and its predators. A low volume fishery in a major coastal upwelling system would
be interpreted differently than one in a small embayment with several locallydependent predators.

•

Where the target stock or stock component under assessment is widely distributed andis present in more than one ecosystem, the assessment of sub-criteria i, ii and iii inparagraph SA2.2.9a in Annex SA should focus on the ecosystem containing largest
abundance of the species.

The three sub-criteria in paragraph SA2.2.9a for identifying “key” LTL stocks follow thedescription of wasp-waisted ecosystems given by Cury et al. (2000, 2003)5 as being“typically dominated by only one, or at most a few” LTL species that transfer a very large
proportion of the total primary production through the lower part of the food web, that
account for the vast majority of predator diets and that control the abundance of both theprey and the predators of these LTL species. Guidance on assessing whether the each of
the three sub-criteria are met is provided in the following sub-sections.
Teams should note that the MSC may, from time to time, modify the list of species in Box
SA1, where analyses indicate the consistency of other species with the criteria in paragraphSA2.2.9b.

4 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.
5 Cury, P., A. Bakun, R.J.M. Crawford. A. Jarre, R.A. Quinones, L.J. Shannon and H.M. Verheye (2000) Smallpelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in ‘wasp waist’ ecosystems. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 57:603-619.
Cury, P., L. Shannon and Y.-J. Shin (2003) The functioning of marine ecosystems: a fisheries perspective.
Pp103- 123 In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (eds). FAO,
Rome and CABI, Oxon UK.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 28© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Key LTL criterion i – Connectivity
This sub-criterion requires that the LTL stock is eaten by the majority of predators, as stated:“a large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this species, leading
to significant predator dependency”.
•

In quantitative terms, food webs can be used to investigate connectance, which can be
expressed as unweighted Proportional Connectance or the weighted SURF index(SUpportive Role to Fishery ecosystems). SURF has the advantage that it is relatively
insensitive to the grouping of predator and prey species; connectance is highly sensitive
to them (Essington and Plaganyi, 2012 – MSC publication series).

•

MSC has developed a spreadsheet which will calculate PC and SURF from a diet matrix.
Many ecosystems have published diet matrices, including those that have had somebasic ecosystem modelling undertaken such as ECOPATH. CABs and clients may
request this spreadsheet from MSC.

•

Proportional Connectance (PC) is calculated as follows, from a diet matrix that has ncomponents, and only requires a knowledge of the interaction between groups, not the
proportional diet fraction of each group.
• The total connectance T in a diet matrix is the Number of all positive (nonzero) 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.
𝐶• Then the proportional connectance of prey i is 𝑃𝐶𝑖 = 𝑇𝑖•

SURF is calculated as follows𝑛• 𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐹𝑖 =∑(𝑝𝑗,𝑖 )2

𝑗=1

𝑇

• 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).
Figure GSA2 shows the results, for key and non-key LTL species classified according to the
MSC definition (as given in SA2.2.13): if, when fishing at B/B0=40%, no single ecosystemgroup 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 B0) using the data in Smith et al (2011)6, ofcalculating connectance and SURF.

6 Smith, A.D.M. et al., 2011.

Impacts of Fishing Low–Trophic Level Species on Marine Ecosystems.
www.sciencexpress.org. 21 July 2011
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 29© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSA2: PC and SURF scores calculated from EwE ecosystem models presented in
Smith et al (2011), plotted against their impact on the ecosystem: category 1 satisfies
SA2.2.13a at B/B0 = 40% and is classified as non-key LTL; category 2 fails SA2.2.13a and isclassified as key-LTL

Based on the analyses illustrated in Figure GSA2, the following should be assumed byassessment teams:•

Connectance values of less than 4% would normally indicate a non key-LTL stock;values of greater than 8% would indicate a key LTL stock.

•

SURF values of less than 0.001 will normally indicate a non-key LTL stock. SURF valuesof greater than 0.005 will normally indicate a key-LTL stock.

In the intermediate zone, where the classification of the stock is uncertain, further qualitative
evidence of predator dependency may be taken into consideration, e.g.:•

If the stock is important in the diets of many higher predators for much of the year(‘importance’ here might be shown by the species being the preferred diet of a predator,
compared to other prey species that also occur in the diet depending on availability; orby the species having higher calorific value or other specific fitness, e.g., for thedevelopment of juveniles),•If land-based colonies of predators (including seals, sea lions, penguins and other birds)
are considered particularly dependent on this LTL stock, or•

If large aggregations of other species are known to gather to feed on this LTL stock.

In the absence of a credible quantitative model, assessing the percent of connections will
require ecosystem-specific understanding of the food web connections in the wholeecosystem based on a comprehensive species list that identifies links for major prey andpredators, particularly dependent predators of the LTL stock in question, and supported by
the considerations presented in paragraphs above.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 30© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Key LTL criterion ii – Energy Transfer
This sub-criterion requires that “a large volume of energy passing between lower and higher
trophic levels passes through this stock”;•

Argument to determine whether sub-criterion 1b is triggered may be based on 1)
empirical data, 2) credible quantitative models, and/or 3) 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 (i.e., all ecosystemcomponents that are not primary producers or detritus), i.e., Consumer Biomass Ratio =BLTL/Bconsumers.

•

Model-based results suggest that any LTL stock that constitutes more than 5% of theconsumer biomass in the ecosystem should be regarded as a key LTL stock.

•

The importance of the size of a key LTL stock in determining whether there is a large
volume of energy transfer through it will of course depend upon the size of the totalenergy in the ecosystem, and in the consumer biomass, as defined above.

•

Although the size of the catch of a key-LTL stock is not directly indicative of its likely
importance in energy transfer, nevertheless, in approximate terms catch size can beassumed to relate to ecosystem importance and may be used to support a plausible
argument that a LTL species meets, or does not meet, criterion SA2.2.13:• LTL stocks that are subject to small catches (<50,000 t average total catchfrom the stock over the last 5 years) by small scale fisheries will not normallybe key LTL stocks. Catches less than this threshold may still indicate key LTL
stocks in cases where they are taken from unusually small ecosystems.
• The situation with LTL stocks that are subject to large catches (e.g., >100,000t total catches from the stock over the last 5 years) in respect of key-LTL
status is less easy to predict. CABs should, however, not assume that thesefisheries are accessing non-key LTL stocks.

Key LTL criterion iii – Wasp-waisted-ness
The ‘wasp-waisted-ness’ 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 otherfunctionally similar species (at a similar trophic level) to the candidate LTL stock.
• Although for the candidate LTL species, the focus is on the adult componentof the stock (SA2.2.9.a, SA2.2.9b), the consideration of other species at thesame trophic level should consider all life stages (including juveniles) of thosespecies.

•Examination of catch statistics of other species of the types listed in Box SA1 orSA2.2.9.b.i within the same ecosystem may also allow determination of whether there
are few significant catches of other species at this trophic level.
• In ecosystems where the catches of the candidate LTL stock are less thanthose of all other species at the same trophic level, the ecosystem may be
regarded as not wasp-waisted and the candidate stock will not normally be a
key LTL stock.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 31© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example:Sardine 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 at 2010); if the
Humboldt were to shift to a sardine-based rather than an anchovy-based system, it
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,
multi-decadal environmental cycles), CABs need to be aware of changes in ecosystem
structure and productivity, and assess (in surveillance reports or in assessment /reassessment) the extent to which the fishery has taken these into account, for instance inthe case of productivity by adjusting target/limit reference points, or in the case of ecosystemshifts such as above by reconsidering the species against the key LTL species definition.

GSA2.2.11–GSA2.2.16 Scoring stock status for key LTL stocks ▲Estimates for B0 referred to in SA2.2.12 and SA2.2.13 can be determined using credible
single species or ecosystem models or from robust empirical data such as fisheryindependent surveys.
•

See Smith et al (2011) for the justification of the impact levels required in SA2.2.13.b andthe use of a default 75%B0 target level for their achievement.

•

In SA2.2.13.b, point i addresses broader “ecosystem-level” impacts, and point ii
addresses individual species impacts.

GSA2.2.15 Scoring key LTL stocks based on fishing mortality rate (F) ▲In the absence of robust estimates for B0, target fishing mortality rates that would achieve
the appropriate target biomass levels can be adopted. Smith et al (2011) and the Lenfest
task force7 found that exploitation rates about half MSY rates were required to limit theecosystem impacts to the same levels obtained at the default 75%B0.
For key LTL species, the default expectations provided in GSA2.2.4 (for non-key LTL
species) should be modified to reflect the higher biomass levels expected and the lower
fishing mortality rates needed.
•

At least a 60 score 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 two
years, if greater).

•

At least an 80 score is justified if F is likely to have been at 0.5FMSY or 0.5M for at least
two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater).

•

A 100 score is justified if F is highly likely to have been below 0.5FMSY or 0.5M for atleast two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater).

7 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. (see:http://www.lenfestocean.org/foragefish)
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 32© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA2.2.16 Allowing for recruitment variability ▲Environmental variability is generally high for fisheries based on key LTL species compared
to non-LTL 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
Where stocks are not regarded as ‘fluctuating around’ their target levels (BMSY or higher
levels for key LTL stocks) and they score less than 80 on PI 1.1.1, stock exploitation levels
must be low enough to achieve stock rebuilding back up to the PI 1.1.1 SG80 level. The
MSC Fisheries Standard does not refer to “formal recovery plans”, as in some jurisdictions
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. Such recovery strategies are scored in the management component of Principle 1(particularly PI 1.2.2). Here in PI 1.1.2, the material concerns are that an appropriate
rebuilding timeframe is set, and that the exploitation rate and other factors confirm thatrebuilding is likely to be achieved within that timeframe.
If PI 1.1.1 is scored lower than SG80, PI 1.1.2 must be scored. If PI 1.1.1 is rescored at
SG80, PI 1.1.2 should be removed from the scoring of P1, regardless of whether any
condition on the rebuilding timeframe has yet been met, and in this case such an unmet
condition should be considered closed.

Scoring issue (a) - Rebuilding timeframes ▲Where quantitative stock assessment information is used in scoring this PI, teams shouldnote that stock rebuilding timeframes required in scoring issue (a) relate to the time required
for the stock to recover from the current level to the BMSY level (or a level regarded as‘consistent with MSY’ where proxies are used).
The rebuilding timeframe that may be reasonably expected will depend on the life history
characteristics of the species, but MSC requires that even very slow growing stocks shouldhave rebuilding plans that aim for a maximum of 20 years. On this basis, it may be
impossible for some stocks to achieve recovery targets in a five year timeframe because of
the life history parameters of the species under assessment: growth rate; size or age atmaturity or recruitment to the fishery; stock size or age composition; longevity; and, natural
mortality, among other things. On the other hand, some very fast growing stocks may
recover faster than one certification period (5 years) and for this reason an extension to 5
years is allowed for these stocks.
As allowed in the scoring of other PIs, CABs should apply the definition of generation time
given in Box GSA4.

GSA2.3.2 – GSA2.3.3 Timeframes for achieving conditions ▲Teams should note that stocks that trigger rebuilding may be allowed one year to put
rebuilding strategies and monitoring in place. In this case, the fishery should not be
immediately failed if the SG60 level is not met in this first year. In fisheries where stock
assessments and the development of management advice are not an annual event, theteam may consider allowances of more than one year.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 33© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

If PI 1.1.2 scores less than 80, due to a lack of evidence for rebuilding, the condition applied
to develop such evidence should still be achieved within the normal maximum five year
duration of the certificate (as required in SA2.3.3). While MSC’s allowance for “exceptional
circumstances” in FCP Section 7.18 may still apply to rebuilding of the stock (which may beconstrained 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 notconstrained by the species biology).
MSC wishes to avoid the situation that fisheries appear in the upper left corner of a ‘Kobe
plot’, with high exploitation rates even when stock size is reduced. Teams should thus
consider whether any condition on rebuilding could reasonably be achieved in less than the
maximum five year period, e.g., on an ‘accelerated’ two year timescale. Fisheries in thissituation should be expected to begin effective rebuilding (and thereby achieve the SG80
level for this PI) as fast as reasonably possible.

GSA2.3.4 Scoring fishing mortality rate as evidence of rebuilding ▲Teams should note the requirement to explicitly consider levels of fishing mortality rate inthis PI, where this information is available (SA2.3.4).
The MSC’s expectation of rebuilding is that for most stocks, scores of 80 or 100 will require
fishing mortality to be lower than FMSY, as described in SA2.3.4.1 and 2.3.4.2. The alternative
allowance in SA2.3.4.3 would apply only in exceptional circumstances where there is realdemonstrated recovery in the stock even 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 alimit, as described in the examples in Box GSA3.
It 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 thestocks are rebuilding” should include that the stock has increased in at least the last two
years (or other period as used in the assessment of the fishery). Evidence of only one
year/period of growth should not be accepted as sufficient evidence in these cases. The
scoring rationale in these cases should thus include some understanding of why the stock isrebuilding even though F is higher than FMSY.
Teams should give particular consideration to the level of fishing mortality in cases whereenvironmental variability appears to be affecting the ability of the stock to recover.
In situations where climatic cycles (e.g., decadal-scale) are shown to be reducing thepotential of the stock to achieve good recruitment, 80 or 100 scores may still be justified
when fishing mortality rate is ‘likely’ or ‘highly likely’ below FMSY and the expectation is that
good recruitment will be restored when climatic conditions permit. Consideration should also
be given to the target levels that are expected for rebuilding, consistent with GSA2.2.7.

GSA2.4 Harvest Strategy PI (PI 1.2.1) ▲Background
This PI scores the overall performance of the harvest strategy, particularly the way that thedifferent elements work together to keep the stock at levels consistent with reference points.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 34© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Scoring Issue (a) – Harvest strategy design ▲The elements of the harvest strategy need to work together. CABs should therefore consider
the overall performance of the harvest strategy, and how its elements contribute to allowing
the management system to be responsive to the state of the stock.
Key elements of harvest strategies include:•

the control rules and tools in place, including the ability of the management system tocontrol effort, taking into account issues such as overcapacity and its causes;•

the information base and monitoring stock status and the responsiveness of the
management system and fleet to stock status.

CABs should also consider whether there are issues that might compromise theeffectiveness of the harvest strategy, such as fishing overcapacity caused by subsidies. If
overcapacity exists as a result of subsidies, the management system should be robust
enough to deal with this issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery in accordance with MSC
Principle 1 & 2.

Assessing informal approaches against PI 1.2.1
Assessment of data-deficient fisheries against this indicator should consider how elementsof the harvest strategy combine to manage impact, such that susceptibility is maintained ator below acceptable levels given the productivity of the species.
•

The assessment should factor in the likelihood of changes within the fishery that could
potentially lead to an increase in the risk of impact from fishing activity over time.

•Teams should further consider how elements of the strategy are combining to ensurethat the fishery is moving in the desired direction or operating at a low risk level and that
qualitative or semi-quantitative objectives are being achieved.

•

There should be evidence that the expected objectives are being achieved. Evidence
may be demonstrated through local knowledge or research.

•

CABs 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 fisherythis could be through informal stakeholder processes that are based on local knowledgeof the fishery or any other less subjective review process.

GSA2.4.1 Interpretation of terms ▲As used in SI1.2.1b at the 100 level, an ‘evaluation’ may range from a subjective stakeholder
process in small scale/data deficient (SS/DD) fisheries to quantitative Management Strategy
Evaluation (MSE) as appropriate to the fishery.
‘Testing’ at the 80 level in SI1.2.1b can include the use of experience from analogous
fisheries, empirical testing (for example practical experience of performance or evidence of
past performance) and simulation testing (for instance using computer-intensive modellingsuch as Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)). Testing and evaluation in Scoring Issue(b) at the Harvest Strategy level should consider the full interactions between different
components of the harvest strategy, including the HCRs, use of information and theassessment of stock status. A score of 100 for this SI1.2.1b requires a broader evaluation
than that considered in the evaluation of the robustness of HCRs in SI1.2.2b.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 35© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA2.4.3

Shark finning ▲BackgroundAt its December 2011 meeting, the MSC Board of Trustees resolved that shark finning shallnot be undertaken within MSC certified fisheries.
The intent of scoring issues (e) in PIs 1.2.1, 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 is to provide a mechanism forscoring a fishery on the level of certainty that a CAB has that shark finning is not taking
place. These scoring issues intend to assess the arrangements that are in place to ensure
shark finning is not taking place. It is designed as a combination of regulations and external
validation.
Regardless of a fishery’s performance against these PIs, the CAB should not certify or
maintain the certification of a fishery when there is objective verifiable evidence thatindicates shark finning is taking place. Objective verifiable evidence could be any
documented statement of fact based on observations, measurements or tests which can beverified.

GSA2.4.5 – GSA2.4.7 ▲Fins naturally attached and fin: carcass ratios
The MSC considers that a policy requiring the landing of all sharks with fins naturally
attached is the most rigorous approach to ensuring that shark finning is not occurring.
However, the MSC recognises that in some fisheries this may be practically difficult toachieve when sharks are destined for processing and utilisation, and therefore also
recognises that landing fins and other shark parts separately, including as meal, may beallowed if adequately regulated and observed.
Ratios vary within species and fishing fleets. Recent studies on 50 species of shark
highlighted a variation of mean species specific fin to carcass ratios of 1.1% to 10.9% (Biery& Pauly, 2012). Accurate ratios for each species are essential for any meaningful monitoringof catches (Cortés & Neer, 2006; Ariz et al., 2008). Ratios should consider cutting practices,
wet-fin-mass or dried fin mass to carcass ratio, and whether the carcass is wet weight or
dressed (processed) weight. If fins have been dried and the carcass has been dressed atsea, then conversion factors should be used to calculate the ratios. Where there is no
scientific consensus or lack of scientific evidence, the CAB should allow use of the ratio
approach and require to land fins naturally attached.
Where reference is made to the requirement for fins to be naturally attached (FNA) to thebody, in order to facilitate freezing and storage the fishery could partially cut the fins,including for the purposes of draining blood to avoid ammoniation, and fold them around thecarcasses. FNA includes leaving the fins attached by just a small piece of skin so that the
sharks can be packed at sea efficiently, and that the fins can be fully removed from the sharkat the dock without having to thaw the shark. However, fins should be attached to a
substantial part of the shark, not just some vertebrae.

Regulations
Regulations refer to regulations governing the management of sharks including but notlimited to prohibiting shark finning, such as ratified RFMO conservation measures, national
or international MOUs or agreements, implementation of NPOAs on sharks, national
legislation regulating the management and catch of sharks, etc.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 36© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Processing and utilisation
Processing should involve the transformation and the retention of a substantial part of the
shark apart from the fins. Retention of a minor body part, such as teeth, should not becounted as processing. The definition for processing includes “highly utilised”, meaning thata major part of the animal is retained during the processing (either on board or once landed).

External validation
The MSC Fisheries Standard mention levels external validation by way of indicating thetypes of confidence that the MSC would require to demonstrate that shark finning is notoccurring.
The assessment team should use their expert judgement concerning the actual validation
methods available and their ability to confirm the likelihood that shark finning is not taking
place (SA2.4.4.1). However, the following guidance is available:•

At SG 60 “some external validation” should be understood to indicate a validation level
equivalent to a nominal observer coverage of 5% of effort, although the CAB may accept
other rates and alternative measures/evidence (e.g., dockside monitoring) with sufficientjustification that the same scientific outcome (likely confidence that finning is not taking
place) is delivered.

•At SG 80 ”good external validation” should be understood to indicate a validation level
equivalent to a nominal observer coverage of 20% of effort, although the CAB may
accept other rates and alternative measures/evidence with sufficient justification that thesame scientific outcome (highly likely confidence that finning is not taking place) isdelivered.

•At SG 100 “comprehensive external validation” is required. This gives consideration of
the continuity of data collection, precision and accuracy of information, and any bias, etc,that is capable of supporting the measures in place given the level of precaution that is
implicit in the measures and the ability of the measures for detecting any changes.

In cases where alternative evidence and alternative observer coverage is used, the CAB
should ensure that it meets the same level of confidence as the default observer coverage.
CABs should assess the adequacy of the methods used, particularly with respect to theprecision, accuracy and bias (statistical and observational bias) of the method and its ability
to provide externally verifiable data (see also GSA3.6.4).
Additional/alternative measures/evidence sufficient to ensure shark finning is not taking
place could be effective electronic monitoring (e.g., using VMS-linked video monitoring witha high percentage coverage of fishing activity), dockside verification of catches where bodies
and body parts are required to be landed together by law, and various combinations of theseelements. Dockside monitoring can for instance, validate ratios between shark and the finsat the point of landing.
The percentage of on board observer coverage generally refers to coverage of total fishingeffort of all vessels in the UoA. CABs may accept other expressions of the percentage
coverage but should ensure in any case that the sampling strategy provides a reasonable
representation of the catches of the UoA as a whole. In order to establish whether observerdata or other monitoring mechanisms are representative of the activity of the UoA during ayear, and can be relied upon to have detected representative encounters with sharks, CABs
could seek evidence for the management system having examined the on board observer
data, or other data, for consistency with the reported/landed/etc. catches of sharks.’ This
could be done, for example, by comparing the on board observer reports to the logbooks.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 37© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

When sharks are processed on board the number of animals taken should be recorded as
specified in the reporting template. Given that after processing sharks are no longer whole,
the CAB can use a ‘conversion factor’, to calculate the equivalent live weight based on the
dressed (processed) weight.

GSA2.5 Harvest Control Rules & Tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ▲Background
This PI assesses the harvest control rules (HCRs) and actions that management takes in
response to changes in the fishery and/or changes in status in relation to reference points.
HCRs are the arrangements by which a fishery expects to achieve the stock status
outcomes expressed in PI 1.1.1. They are defined as the pre-agreed rules and management
actions that will be taken in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect toexplicit or implicit reference points, and MSC expects these elements to be part of HCRs.
The values adopted for such reference points are critical to the performance of the HCR, and
CABs should ensure that the interaction between the rules of the HCR and the reference
points is part of their assessment.
With the removal of the reference points PI in the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0, parts of theguidance originally applied to the Reference Points PI 1.1.2 in CR v1.3 have now been
moved and adapted to more clearly apply in this PI.
For low trophic level species the target and limit reference points need to take into accountthe ecological role of the stock for the fishery to score 60 or above under PI 1.1.1. The
harvest strategy, control rules, information requirements and assessment also need to beconsistent with this distinction for low trophic level species.
There are conceptual differences in the reference points that may be involved in scoring PI
1.1.1 and PI 1.2.2. This is because fisheries may use different reference points formeasuring stock status (outcome), and as triggers in the HCRs. Dowling et al (2011a, b) 8
provide examples of such different types of reference points within the conceptual frameworkof HCRs and harvest strategies used by the MSC. A fishery that uses an explicit BMSY
reference point as a target for the fishery biomass may, for example have trigger reference
points for adjusting F at values of biomass either at BMSY, or above or below BMSY. Other
examples are available in Dowling et al (2011) and in some MSC fisheries (e.g., see Tristan
da Cunha and Maine lobster). The focus in this PI is thus on the reference points used in a
fishery to trigger changes in management actions, and how they work in combination toachieve the outcomes required in PI 1.1.1.

Scoring Issue (a) – HCR design and application ▲This scoring issue focuses on the assessment of the design and plausibility of HCRs andmanagement tools to control exploitation of the whole stock(s) under assessment.
HCRs and/or management tools should be based on plausible hypotheses about resource
dynamics and be reasonable and practical, meaning that those measures possess a
substantial likelihood of success. The basis for plausibility and practicality of design should
be considered in relation to the scale and intensity of the fishery, for instance utilisingempirical information; relevant science; or model based approaches such as MP and MSE.
8 Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Smith, A.D.M. Smith, D.C. and Haddon, M., 2011a.

Guidelines on developing
harvest strategies for data-poor fisheries. CSIRO.
Dowling, NA., Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Dichmont, C.M. and Smith, A.D.M., 2011b. Harvest Strategies for DataPoor Fisheries: A Brief Review of the Literature. CSIRO.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 38© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

The HCRs should be scored against their ability to deliver the levels expressed in scoring
issue (a) (consistent with the actual outcomes measured in PI 1.1.1).
•

At the 60 level, HCRs should be likely to ensure that stocks will be maintained above the
PRI.

•

At the 80 level, 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 consistentreference point as a trigger in the HCRs (such as an inflection in a ‘hockey stick’ form) ata point that would deliver BMSY in the long term.

•

At the 100 level, greater certainty is required. Fisheries with HCRs that target stocklevels above BMSY (e.g., BMEY) should also be regarded as at least meeting the 80 leveland projections in the fishery may show that the HCR would likely achieve the higher 100
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 be made in response to a fishery indicator moving above or below one of the trigger
reference points. In lightly exploited fisheries, it may be that some reference points are set to
trigger changes in data collection or assessment approaches, as certain thresholds arereached (see Dowling et al, 2011a).
HCRs are often applied on a frequent basis, such as with the annual setting of TACs or effort
restrictions. Such HCRs respond dynamically to the monitoring data from the fishery withregular adjustments to input/output type management measures. In data-poor fisheries
which are managed without such input/output controls, management may comprise only
technical measures such as size limits, gear restrictions, closed seasons and closed areas.
In 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 target and/or limit reference points. Such anarrangement may be regarded as equivalent to a dynamic HCR operating over a longer timescale in cases where some indicators are monitored to confirm that the HCRs are delivering
the intended targets for the stock.
At the 80 level in scoring issue (a), ‘well-defined’ HCRs in these cases would be expected to
explicitly include the conditions under which the technical measures in the fishery would be
expected to be revised in the future.
Example:Relatively sedentary bivalves often have fishery management trigger points based on
population densities collected through systematic surveys, where these index densities
are established based on the species population dynamics and the inherent productivityof 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 and theirconsequences. While such arrangements can work, teams should note that HCRs basedon taking a constant percentage 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 requirement that an HCR reduces exploitation rates as the limit reference point isapproached should not always be interpreted as requiring the control rule to deliver an
exploitation rate that is a monotonically decreasing function of stock size:•

Any exploitation rate function may be acceptable so long as it acts to keep the stock
above a limit reference point that avoids possible recruitment failure and attempts toDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 39© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

maintain the stock at a target reference point that is consistent with BMSY or a similar
highly productive level.
•

This outcome includes the requirement that the HCR should act to cause stocks torebuild to the target reference point when they are below it; maintenance of a stock at alevel just above the limit reference point 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 for instance involve reducing
exploitation rate on parts of the stock (e.g., by age or sex).

•

Reductions in exploitation rate are assumed to primarily refer to reductions in catchesand 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.
Examples:If a management strategy is based solely around a target reference point, the HCR,
when combined with the target reference point should ensure that the stock remains well
above the PRI and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as this point isapproached. This is an implied limit reference point.
Equally, a management strategy based solely around a limit reference point should imply
that there is a target reference point close to or at BMSY (or some other measure or
surrogate that maintains the stock at high productivity), and at a level that is well above
the limit reference point.
Generally understood’ HCRs at SG60 vs ‘well-defined’ HCRs at SG80
HCRs should be regarded as ‘well-defined’ in the sense required to achieve an 80 scorewhen they exist in some written form that has been agreed by the management agency,
ideally with stakeholders, and clearly state what actions will be taken at what specific trigger
reference point levels.
HCRs should be regarded as only ‘generally understood’ as required to achieve a 60 scorein cases where they can be shown to have been applied in some way in the past, but havenot been explicitly defined or agreed.

GSA2.5.2 – 2.5.5 Scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 ▲In scoring issue (a), and the requirements given in SA2.5.2 to SA2.5.5, the expectation isthat ‘available’ HCRs may meet the SG60 level in cases where stock biomass has notpreviously been reduced below the BMSY level or has been above it for a sufficiently long
recent time, and it is ‘expected’ that the management authority will introduce HCRs for thisspecies in the future if needed.
Under SA2.5.3.a, teams may provide a rationale that this could reasonably be ‘expected’ forthe target species in cases where HCRs are currently being ‘effectively’ used by the same
management agency on at least one other species of similar importance (i.e., of a similar
average catch levels and value).
As an alternative, teams may provide a rationale under SA2.5.3.b in cases where there issome sort of arrangement in place that clearly requires that management will put HCRs in

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 40© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

place as and when the fishery reaches some pre-defined trigger level within the vicinity of
BMSY. Such arrangements would normally relate to lightly exploited fisheries that are still inthe development stage, but should be explicit in requiring action at some defined point.
Although potentially driven by information and triggers, such arrangements are different tothe 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 fisherystatus.
In all cases, there should be a real confidence backed up by ‘evidence’ (as reported against
SI1.2.2c) that the management agency can and will act effectively and in a timely fashion
when needed (such evidence being as described in SA2.5.5).
In cases where the stock has not yet been reduced and ‘available’ HCRs are scored asmeeting the 60 level, the condition assigned to this PI may allow longer than the normal five
year time period for delivery. 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 thisover a longer time period, for example if other conditions are being delivered first. This
allowance is made on the basis that the stock remains abundant and the criteria given inSA2.5.2 are still met. As soon as these criteria are no longer met, the fishery will need tohave at least ‘generally understood’ HCRs in place to score 60.
Stocks that change status and thereby fail to meet the SA2.5.2 criteria during the course of acertificate will need to put HCRs in place (in either a ‘generally understood’ sense or ‘welldefined’). Given the specific timeframes indicated in SA2.5.2, HCRs (either ‘generally
understood’ or ‘well defined’) should be in place before a stock declines below BMSY. Similar
to the situation with the rebuilding PI (section GSA2.3) fisheries should be allowed one year
to put HCRs in place, so that the fishery need not be immediately failed if the SG60 level is
not met in this first year. If such fisheries fail to put in place either ‘generally understood’ or‘well defined’ HCRs within one year, they should be suspended by the CAB as not meeting
the SG60 level.

Scoring Issue (b) – Scoring uncertainty in the HCRs ▲In scoring issue (b), teams must assess how well the HCRs are likely to function when theunexpected happens in the future. The scoring guideposts reflect the degree of confidence
there is in the HCR performance in relation to risks, caused by both known and unknown
factors. Known factors include observation and process errors which are often accounted forin stock assessments. Unknown factors may 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 or migration. These and otherchanges to the population dynamics may not have been fully accounted for in the stock
assessment or projections. Another important reason why there may be limited confidence ina HCR is where it has not been fully agreed by stakeholders, and it is uncertain whether thefishing community will comply with the HCR. This last issue is important to ensure HCRs are
not only theoretical rules on paper, but are actually applied in practice.
The requirement that the control rules and/or management actions are designed to take into
account uncertainty can be supported by testing. Testing can include the use of experiencefrom analogous fisheries, empirical testing (for example practical experience of performanceor evidence of past performance) and simulation testing (for instance using computerintensive modelling such as MSE).
Although 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 thosefor small pelagic species and annual species where there the stock recruit relationship isvery steep, management may choose to set a limit reference point above this level. Where

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 41© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

this results in more precautionary management, it may assist the fishery in achieving the 80
or 100 level for scoring issue (b).
HCRs in small scale fisheries may still achieve high scores if uncertainties are wellconsidered. Simple HCRs linked to reliable indices of stock status may thus score highly on
this issue without management strategy evaluations.

Scoring Issue (c) – Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs (SA2.5.6 – SA2.5.7)▲
In the third scoring issue, teams must review the ability of the tools associated with the
HCRs to achieve the exploitation levels. Such tools would include management measures
like total allowable catches (TACs) and fishing limits, and arrangements for sharing TACs
between participants in the fishery, including between states in shared stock fisheries. The
examination here may consider the overall history of effectiveness of the tools used in thefishery (i.e., their ability to achieve the desired exploitation rates and biomass levels) as wellas the current status.
Section SA2.5.6 requires that teams examine the current exploitation levels in the fishery, as
part of the evidence that the HCRs are working. Evidence that current F is equal to or lessthan FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective. Current F levels
greater than FMSY may also sometimes be accepted in cases where stock biomass iscurrently higher than BMSY or where stock assessment information is comprehensive, and it
is appropriate to treat FMSY is a target reference point (see Box GSA3).
Teams should be confident in these cases that any such higher levels of F are not likely tolead to overcapacity in the fishery or to create a situation where B is likely to fall below alevel at which it is regarded as ‘fluctuating around BMSY’. Lower levels of F should be
expected when biomass is reduced, consistent with the scoring of the rebuilding PI. In any
case, teams should justify how the current levels of fishing mortality are consistent withmaintaining the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) BMSY.
Teams may also make allowance for the gradual adjustment of fishing mortality rates down
to appropriate levels in cases where the pace of change is limited to avoid severe socioeconomic impacts in a fishery. In these cases, projections of stock status should confirm thatthe expected future adjustments in F will still lead to fluctuations around MSY levels within areasonable timescale.
Where proxy indicators and reference points are used in the fishery instead of explicit
estimates of F and FMSY (as allowed in SA2.5.7), higher scores should be assigned where
greater confidence is provided by the proxy information, similar to the scoring of PI 1.1.1.
Where higher scores are justified by the use of two or more proxy indicators, they should be
independent of each other and also reasonably be expected to be proxies of the quantity ofinterest (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 beargued that one good proxy is better than two or more weak proxies.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 42© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Examples: 60, 80 and 100 SG levels
Examples of how the 60, 80 and 100 SG levels may be justified in these situations are
given below:•

At least a 60 score may be justified if one proxy indicates that overfishing is notoccurring;•

At least an 80 score may be justified if one or more proxies indicate that it is likelythat overfishing is not occurring. In this case, the extra confidence may be due to theavailability of a second proxy indicator, or when a minimum 70% probability level canbe assigned to the single indicator used (as compared to the SG60 level where thisprobability level may not be demonstrated); and•A 100 score may be justified if two or more proxies indicate it is highly likely that
overfishing is not occurring.

Assessing informal approaches to HCRs
In informally managed fisheries, CABs should assess the extent to which there aremanagement tools and measures in place that are consistent with ensuring thatsusceptibility of the target species to removal is no higher than that which would cause therisk to the target species to be above an acceptable risk range. Measures could be spatial,
temporal, or changes to gear overlap.
Assessments 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 headingin the direction of its objectives.

Metapopulations
Scoring issues (b) and (c) require that teams assess whether or not the selection and designof harvest control rules takes into account the main / wide range of uncertainties.
Uncertainties relating to the metapopulation structure should be specifically addressed by
the assessment team. Teams should note the descriptions of different types ofmetapopulations in Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process Section G7.5.

GSA2.6 Information Monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) ▲Background
This PI addresses the information base for the management of the target stocks. The
information and monitoring required for the management of stocks should only include thatwhich is needed to inform the harvest strategy, HCRs and control tools.
The intent of SG60 is that while only a limited amount of information may be available andregularly monitored this would normally be considered sufficient to support the HCR underthe most likely stock hypothesis.
Information is required:•

To undertake assessment of stock status;•

To inform the design of a harvest strategy and effective HCRs;•

For the effective operation of harvest control tools.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 43© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA2.6.1 Information categories ▲The following guidance is offered on information categories:•

Stock structure could incorporate information describing the distribution andgeographical range of the stock, the relationship of the geographical range to the harvest
control, and 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 and fecundity.

•

Fleet composition could incorporate information on associated effort by gear
type/method of capture, including fleet characteristics in both targeted and non-targetedfisheries taking the species. The general assumption is that information is required forthe stock as a whole, but better information would usually be expected from the fisheryunit that is being assessed.

•

Stock abundance could incorporate information relating to absolute or relative
abundance indices including recruitment, age, size, sex and genetic structure of thestock. Reflecting the guidance on surrogate measures under PI 1.1.1, the requirementfor ‘stock abundance’ information at SG60 and SG80 may be met by the use of
surrogate indicators that provide an adequate proxy for stock abundance.

•

Fishery removals could incorporate information describing the level, size, age, sex andgenetic 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 stock as a whole, but better information would usually be
expected from the fishery being assessed.

•

Other data may include environmental information such as temperature, weather andother factors that may influence fish populations and fishing.

See clause GSA3.6.4 for more guidance on information PIs and discards data collection
methods.
The intent behind the consideration in SG100 that additional information should be available
that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is that the information
monitoring system should take into account information relevant to a wider set of possible
stock hypotheses than addressed by the current harvest strategy. This is essentially “future
proofing” the management system against alternative hypotheses and changes in thesystem.

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
amount or quality of information required on fishery removals.
Scoring issue (b) relates to fishery removals specifically by those vessels covered under theunit of assessment which need to be regularly monitored and have a level of accuracy andcoverage consistent with the harvest control rule.
The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or notcovered by the unit of assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to thesame level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue.

Metapopulations
Understanding dispersal pathways and population connectivity is important for devising
effective harvest strategies and therefore information related to the metapopulation structure
should be specifically addressed by the assessment team.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 44© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Information that could be relevant to the assessment would include:•

life cycle of the species, including its spatial distribution and temporal distribution•

identification of local populations and the extent to which they are connected, andfunction 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 and connectivity•

existence of genetic studies comparing local populations•

variations in population structure and demographic parameters between sources andsinks

GSA2.7 Assessment of Stock Status PI (PI 1.2.4) ▲Background
This PI considers how the fishery assesses information to provide an understanding of stock
status and the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. Some harvest strategies assess stock
status using empirical indicators and do not require use of quantitative assessment models.
In such cases, the assessment PI will be scored relative to the robustness of that indicator(which may also have contributed to the score for the Information PI).
This PI refers to stock assessments but in some circumstances, particularly under SG100, it
may be useful to consider if MP/MSE approaches were used to test the robustness of thestock assessment to uncertainty and alternative hypotheses.
For some harvest strategies stock assessment methods may not be model based but basedon stock status relative to empirical reference points (e.g., catch rate, density, survey
abundance, among other things), and decision rules may be constructed of rules using these
indices rather than analytical assessments. Other harvest strategies may utilise complex
analytical models.

Metapopulations
Where several or many local populations exist within a metapopulation, it is unlikely that fullstock assessments would be done annually for each local population. The degree of selfrecruitment and demographic connectivity among sub-populations should dictate the specificassessment required to allow for responsible and sustainable harvest.
Assessment teams should specifically take into consideration the appropriateness of thestock assessment in relation to the metapopulation structure.
Teams should also assess whether or not the stock assessment identifies and takes into
account major sources of uncertainties related to the metapopulation structure.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 45© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3 Principle 2
GSA3.1 General requirements for Principle 2 ▲Background
The Principle 2 assessment is divided into five components; which are considered to cover
the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by a fishery (See Table
GSA2 below).
Table GSA2: Components of Principle 2
Component

IntentPrimary Species

Managed, in-scope (e.g., fish and shellfish) species.
Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the
UoA or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling
exploitation as well as known reference points in place. In addition, theinstitution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock, see
below) will usually have some overlap in jurisdiction with the fishery in the
UoA.

Secondary Species

Secondary species include fish and shellfish species that are not
managed according to reference points andbirds/mammals/reptiles/amphibians (all species that are out of scope ofthe standard) that are not ETP species. These types of species could insome cases be landed intentionally to be used either as bait or as food forthe crew or for other subsistence uses, but may also in some cases
represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat
unavoidable in the fishery. Given the often unmanaged status of these
species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass or fishingmortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability.

ETP Species

Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species

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.

In general terms, the impacts of the fishery on the different P2 components are assessed as
below:•

Primary species, secondary species and habitats are assessed for the direct impacts offishing.

•

ETP species are assessed for both direct and indirect impacts.

•

The Ecosystem component is assessed for indirect impacts.

Direct impacts in this context include the actual capture of a species by fishing, and othertypes of direct mortality, such as following discarding or interactions with the fishing gear.
Indirect impacts include situations where the removal of the target species reduces its
availability as prey for a predator species, and a range of ecosystem level changes as
described in section GSA3.16.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 46© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.1.1 – 3.1.4 Designation of P2 species ▲In Principle 2, the MSC use the term ‘species’ in scoring issues and requirements within
primary, secondary and ETP PIs. As in Principle 1 (see Box GSA3), it is the MSC’s intent
that the term ‘species’ as used in Principle 2 could mean an entire species or only a stock or
population of a species, as appropriate to the species and the context of the fishery inassessment. As an example, a large pelagic fishery in the Atlantic that takes a P2 catch of acertain tuna species would only include a P2 assessment on the Atlantic tuna stock, andneed not consider any clearly separate Pacific stock. Assessment teams may thus score theprimary, secondary and ETP PIs either as species or as stocks depending on their overlap
with the fishery.
The decision tree outlined in Figure GSA3 provides an overview of the intent of theseparation between primary, secondary and ETP species. Teams may use the decision tree
as a guide on the designation of P2 species, but should primarily be guided by the definitionsof ‘primary’, ‘secondary’, ‘ETP’ and ‘less resilient’ in the Standard and Guidance to theStandard.
Figure GSA3: Decision tree to assist teams in the designation of P2 species components
ETP?

Yes

ETP
2.3.1 – 2.3.3

No

Secondary
2.2.1 – 2.2.3

Yes

Less Resilient?

No

Out of Scope?

No

Yes

Primary
2.1.1 – 2.1.3

Yes

Less Resilient?

No

Managed?

No
Yes≥2% UoA
Catch?

No
Minor

Yes

≥5% UoA
Catch?

≥2% UoA
Catch?

No

No≥5% UoA
Catch?

Minor

Yes

Main

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

Yes

No

Yes

Main

page 47© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Examples: Primary species• A species with a full analytical stock assessment in place that is managed as a wholestock according to a scientifically established TAC.
•

A species that does not have a full analytical stock assessment, but where
established proxies for the PRI are in place and all fisheries impacting that stock aremanaged to maintain the stock above that proxy reference point.

•

A species with a multi-jurisdictional distribution that is recognized to be below ascientifically established limit reference point, but only one jurisdiction has set up a
recovery strategy which all fisheries operating in that area have to adhere to. The
UoA targeting that species is subject to a different management authority, which has
no management measures in place, but since the species distribution overlaps withan area that would classify that species as primary, the UoA also has to classify it asa primary species.

Examples: Secondary species• A species managed according to a precautionary TAC that has no analytical or
empirically derived stock assessment in place and the stock status in relation to the
PRI is unknown.
•

A species with some scientific advice on stock status indicating a limit reference
point as well as a recommended TAC, but where this advice has not yet been
adopted and operationalized by the relevant management authorities (whenimplemented by the authorities, such species would instead be a primary species).

•

A species classified as out of scope (bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal) that is notrecognized by national or international authorities as an ETP species.

Example: ETP species• A species listed on CITES Appendix I, even though the national management
authority does not recognize it as an ETP species (note also GSA3.1.5).

GSA3.1.5 ETP ▲The team should consider all ETP species that are vulnerable to being impacted by thefishery in the assessment area.
In situations where data on interactions with ETP species is are limited, the assessment
team should take a more inclusive approach (i.e., all ETP species in the geographic area).

GSA3.1.5.2 Binding International Agreements ▲When referring to international agreements, by “binding” the MSC means that theinternational legislation is binding on the parties to the agreement. Neither the flag state of
the UoA, nor the state in which fishing takes place, need be a signatory to this agreement for
it to be applicable to MSC certified UoAs.
Species listed under CITES Appendix 1 shall be considered ETP species, unless it can beshown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the fishery underassessment is not endangered.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 48© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example:For example, if a species is listed in CITES Appendix 1 because it is endangered in the
Pacific, and the fishery under assessment is catching the Atlantic stock which is notendangered, then the stock does not have to be assessed under the ETP component.

Several of the Agreements listed in SA3.1.5.2 have been developed under the aegis of theConvention of Migratory Species (CMS). The CMS is an intergovernmental treaty underwhich legally binding global or regional Agreements can be developed. Parties to the CMS
are required to ‘endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included inAppendix I of the CMS’ and to ‘endeavour to conclude Agreements covering theconservation and management of migratory species included in Appendix II’.
Agreements are adopted to reflect the direct conservation needs of species and therequirements of regions (Sant et al, 2012). Species listed in any of these shall be classified
as ETP for the purposes of an MSC assessment. Given that the Agreements have a limited
and well-defined scope, both in terms of the number of species included as well as thegeographic region covered, there is therefore no ‘unless it can be shown…’ clause here as
there is for those species classified as ETP by their inclusion in Appendix 1 of CITES.

GSA3.1.6 Unwanted catch ▲Where a UoA has a management plan, some species and sizes may be considered anddesignated to be ‘unwanted catch’ (including through using terms such as ‘non-target’,‘bycatch’ or ‘discards’ in the plan). If not designated, unwanted catch of species are thosethat are not covered under the plan. Unwanted catches of species may also be designatedas 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 GSA3.5.3 for a further description of unwanted catch.

GSA3.1.8 Unobserved mortality ▲The total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 needs to include observed andunobserved 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 byfishing gear

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 49© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

Ghost fishing (mortality of free living or benthic organisms arising from entanglement inlost fishing gear; see Box GSA7 below):

Box GSA7: MSC Intent: “Ghost fishing” and impacts from gear loss

MSC Intent: “Ghost fishing” and impacts from gear loss
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) define ghost fishing as the term
used for lost or abandoned fishing gear that continues to catch fish9.
The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing include Criteria that relate toghost fishing and gear loss, including that the fishing operation shall:•

Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target
species and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimisemortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of whatcannot be released alive (3.B.12);•

Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts onhabitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas(3.B.13); and•Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage ofcatch, etc. (3.B.15).

These Criteria are operationalised in the MSC standard (default tree) throughout
Principle 2. For example, when determining the fishing operation’s impact on primary,secondary and ETP species, assessment teams are required to consider unobserved, in
addition to observed fishing mortality and impacts (SA3.1.8). The guidance associatedwith this clause stipulates that unobserved fishing mortality can include (but is not limitedto) ghost fishing (GSA3.1.8). In the MSC Fisheries Standard, assessment teams are
required to consider whether fisheries review measures to minimise mortality ofunwanted catch. This also includes consideration of unobserved mortality, such as thatcaused by ghost fishing.
The impacts of gear loss on habitats are considered under the Habitats components. In
particular, there is Guidance on the Habitats Management PI (2.4.2) that indicates that inorder for a fishery to score a 100, a management strategy should be in place even forgears that do not regularly contact benthic habitats since gear loss or unexpectedseafloor impacts could occur (GSA3.15). An example is provided on what would be
expected of a management strategy for a pelagic longline fishery where gear loss is
considered (Table GSA8).
In addition, in the Ecosystem PIs, the team need to consider how the fishery impacts thewider ecosystem structure and function. Indirect effects of lost gear and other operational
waste that are not considered directly under the primary, secondary and ETP PIs are
considered here.

GSA3.1.9 Terms and interpretation ▲Throughout the P2 section a number of keywords and phrases are used. The aim of Table
GSA3 is to provide further guidance to Table SA8. Specifics relating to application of these9 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14798/en

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 50© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

terms and probability levels in relation to each component are further discussed under thedifferent PIs for each component.
Table GSA3: Further explanation and examples of Principle 2 Phrases (see Table SA8)

Term

Definition and discussion

Biologically
based limits

The PRI is commonly used as a single-species biologically based limit,
but many proxies are also acceptable to this level, depending on theinformation that is available and the nature of the ecosystem feature ofconcern (for example, percent of an area impacted by the UoA).
The wider role of the component in the ecosystem is important in
identifying biologically based limits, which may for example be modified
so as to avoid excessive depletion of dependent predators.
Alternative concepts to defining biologically based limits include
determining a minimum viable population size (MVP), which is thenumber of individuals required to have a specified probability ofpersistence over a given period of time (Shaffer, 1987). This method isused in the IUCN Red List for small and range-restricted populations.
Another concept relating fishery-induced mortality to an indication ofstock/population status, developed for use with cetaceans (Wade,
1998) and subsequently adapted for seabirds (Dillingham & Fletcher,2011; Richard & Abraham, 2013), is Potential Biological Removal(PBR). PBR is defined by NOAA as the maximum number of animals,
not including natural mortalities that may be removed from stock whileallowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population.

Broadly
understoodPrimary, secondary and ETP species’ status are broadly understoodwhen there is general knowledge of the impact of the type of UoA on a
species/species group, although it may not be specific to the unit ofassessment (UoA).
Habitat distribution is broadly understood when there is basic
knowledge of the types and locations of habitats.
The key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood when themain features of the ecosystem and their major inter-relationships canbe specified.

Does nothinderThis should be interpreted as not materially or significantly impeding
recovery or rebuilding, and relates to the potential impact of the UoA
rather than an observed change in the absolute status of thecomponent.
• If there is a formally planned recovery then the management of
the UoA(s) should be consistent with that plan and should notprevent the planned recovery from being achieved in theintended timeframe.
• If there is no formally planned recovery then the UoA(s) would
permit recovery on a timeframe that is consistent with thenatural dynamics of the species.
Sometimes a species is depleted or otherwise experiencing very low
productivity for reasons that are unrelated to the impacts of the UoA(e.g., highly unfavourable environmental conditions, effects ofcontaminants on reproduction, etc.). Due to such factors, there is nevera guarantee that a species will recover promptly, even in the absenceof fishing. The key concern is thus whether or not the UoA could

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 51© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Term

Definition and discussion
prevent a potential recovery from occurring. Hence it is appropriate toevaluate this component relative to the impact of the UoA on thespecies (or all MSC UoAs where appropriate), but not actually require
evidence that the status of the species is improving. This is different to
the treatment of target species in P1, where low status would preclude
certification irrespective of the cause of that low status

If necessary“If necessary” is inserted in some Management PI scoring issues toindicate that if the UoA does not have any impact on a certain
component (e.g., species), then no specific rationale need be given inorder to achieve the relevant SG level. For example, if there are no“main” primary species, then a management strategy would not be
required at SG60 or SG80. “If necessary” does not appear in theManagement PI scoring issue (a) at SG100, meaning that in order toscore 100 a management strategy should be in place even if there is nointeraction of the UoA with that component.

Information isadequate

Information is adequate if, given consideration of the continuity of datacollection, precision of estimates, comprehensiveness of information
and any bias, etc. it is:• Capable of supporting an outcome score with relevant
confidence levels, or•Capable of supporting the management strategy given the levelof precaution that is implicit in the strategy and the requirementsof the strategy for detecting changes in either impact oroutcome status of affected components (e.g., species).

Measures /PartialStrategy/
Strategy/Comprehensive
Strategy“Measures” could include the closure of an area that was primarily
been put in place to avoid the catch of juvenile target species andenhance target species sustainability, but also has a beneficial effect on
the unwanted catch of sensitive species such as other juvenile finfish.
For a “partial strategy”, specific measures may not have been
designed to manage the impact on that component specifically, but if
such a measure/ measures are effective in assisting the UoA to achieve
the SG80 level for the primary or secondary species Outcome PI thenthis could be considered as a management measure under the primaryor secondary species Management Strategy PI.
A “strategy” could include voluntary or customary arrangements,
agreements or practices, codes of practice (if they can bedemonstrated to be working).
For a “comprehensive strategy” to be achieved information is required
to ensure and continue to confirm that the UoA has no impact upon thatcomponent.

MSC UoAs andthe assessmentof cumulative
impacts

To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is withinsustainable limits, a UoA assessed against the MSC Fisheries
Standard v2.0 may need to consider the combined impact of itself andother overlapping UoAs. This determination will include other UoAs
assessed against earlier versions of the CR (e.g., v1.3).
UoAs assessed using default trees prior to the MSC Fisheries Standard
v2.0 would not have to make this evaluation.
Teams should refer to FCP Annex GPB for additional guidance on theharmonisation of cumulative impacts of MSC UoAs, particularly noting

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 52© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Term

Definition and discussion
the language on flexibility in the setting of milestones for a condition
and avoiding the creation of unrealistic conditions.
Teams should note that the ‘overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at
different levels depending on which PI is evaluated. For P2 primary
species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact ofoverlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species.
For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be consideredin cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total
catch. For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC UoAs needs tobe evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/orinternational requirements set catch limits for ETP species.
All of the requirements for cumulative impacts for species areapplicable to their respective Outcome PIs. For habitats, in contrast,
cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2). The
requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems(VMEs) are managed such that the impact of all MSC UoAs does notcause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs.

Objective basis
for confidence

At the SG60 level in the P2 Management PIs, expert knowledge can beacquired from diverse sources, including studies that may have been
conducted in the area although not for the purpose of certification,
studies of the same or similar species or ecosystems in other places,
established ecological theory and modelling, and community or
experiential knowledge.
At the SG80 level, an “objective basis of confidence” may exist where
information augmenting the expert knowledge has been collected in asound manner, but might be opportunistically collected rather thancollected as part of a systematic monitoring program or a research
project targeted on the specific component. How extensive the more
specific information is may vary, but it should be appropriate to thescale and intensity of the UoA.
At the SG100 level, information should come from systematic
monitoring and/or research. This does not mean that information exists
on everything, particularly for the Habitats and Ecosystem components,
but information is reliable and complete for all the major points ofinteraction between the UoA and component, to a level of detailappropriate to the scale and intensity of the UoA.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 53© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Term

Definition and discussion

Serious andirreversible
harm to“structure andfunction”

Serious or irreversible harm to habitat includes changes in the structure
and/or function (e.g., biological diversity), abundance, and disruption
leading to regime shifts that imply that recovery to 80% of theunimpacted level may not automatically occur even in the absence offishing. This includes the loss or extinction of habitat, depletion of key
habitat-forming species or associated species to the extent that theymeet criteria for high risk of extinction, and significant habitat alterationthat causes major change in the structure, function, and/or diversity of
the associated species assemblages.
Although the intent of the MSC is that biological diversity be included inthis definition, we recognise that current limitations to the methods
available for measuring biological diversity mean that surrogates areoften used such as species diversity (including parameters commonlyused to measure this, like species richness and evenness) andabundance.
Serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem includes many of theconcepts presented for habitats (which are usually also ecosystems)
but additionally includes trophic cascade, depletion of top predators andkey prey species in ‘wasp-waisted’ food webs, severely truncated size
composition of the ecological community to the extent that recovery
would be very slow due to the increased predation of intermediatesized predators, permanent changes in the species diversity of theecological community caused by direct or indirect effects of fishing, andchange in genetic diversity of species caused by selective fishing andresulting in genetically determined change in demographic parameters.

GSA3.2 General requirements for outcome PIs ▲Background
The outcome PIs assess the current status of each component and whether the fishery isposing a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the component or hindering its recovery.
Explicit targets may not be appropriate or available for all of the components, in some cases,
because there is no scientific or general consensus on appropriate targets. Whileperformance can sometimes be scored in relation to targets, the generic performancerequirements relate to the increasing confidence and safety margins by which serious or
irreversible harm may be avoided, including through the management tools, measures andstrategies that are in place.
Table GSA4 shows MSC’s intent for the maintenance of each P2 component in relation tosustainability levels.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 54© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSA4: MSC outcome expectations for each P2 component
Component

Outcome expectation

Primary

The intent of the SGs is that a fishery is managed such that the stock biomass
is maintained above the point at which recruitment could be impaired (PRI).
This reflects the language used for PI 1.1.1.

Secondary

The SGs refer to being ‘within’ biologically based limits. These limits areequivalent to the PRI concept used for P1 and primary species, but may takemany forms and may be expressed as upper or lower limits in relation to theindex that is being measured.

ETP

The intent is that ETP populations and stocks are ‘within’ national andinternational limits and not creating unacceptable impacts.

Habitats

The SGs refer to the changes caused by the UoA that fundamentally alter thecapacity of the habitat to maintain its ecological structure and function or torecover from the impact.

Ecosystem

Changes caused by the fishery that fundamentally alter the capacity of theecosystem to maintain its key structure and function or to recover from theimpact. This may also be interpreted as seriously reducing the ecosystemservices provided by the component to the fishery, to other fisheries andhuman uses.

The components of P2 may be subject to human impact from sources other than theassessed fishery. For example primary or secondary species may be target species in otherfisheries, while habitats and ecosystem processes may be impacted by coastal zone or otherdevelopment or introduced species.
If the component status is low, for whatever reason, then the operative issue for the majorityof the SGs in P2 assessments is then whether the UoA is hindering recovery as defined inTable SA8 and Table GSA3. The assessment in these cases is based on the ‘marginalcontribution’ that the UoA makes to the status or recovery of the component underconsideration. If the UoA is not the root cause of human impacts on the component thenactions of the UoA cannot redress the situation. However in any event the UoA is required
not to hinder recovery or rebuilding.
For primary, secondary and ETP species, the language above applies to all scoring issues at
the SG 60 level. However, at the SG80 level, the team needs to consider the cumulative
impact of any other MSC UoAs where applicable. Please see Table GSA3 under ‘MSC UoAs
and the assessment of cumulative impacts’ for an overview of how each species PI isevaluated differently in this regard. Please also see GSA3.4.6 and GSA 3.10 for moreguidance on how to evaluate the cumulative impact of primary/secondary species and ETP
species respectively.

GSA3.2.3 Interpretation of likelihood levels ▲The terms in SA3.2.3 may be interpretable either:•qualitatively (e.g., through analogy with similar situations, plausible argument, empiricalobservation of sustainability and qualitative risk assessment) or,•

quantitatively (e.g., through measured data from the relevant fishery, statistical analysis,
quantitative risk assessment and quantitative modelling).

The specific language on what level of information needs to be available to meet theassociated probability at each scoring issue will be addressed in the information PIs for eachcomponent. The team should also look to the guidance on the information adequacy forDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 55© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

each PI for a further overview on the levels of information required in order to determine theprobabilities listed in Table SA9 in SA3.2.3. For example, the guidance on information
adequacy for primary species can be found in GSA3.6.3.

GSA3.3 General requirements for Information PIs ▲Background
The requirements in the Information PIs are framed in terms of information adequacy. The
information used by the assessment team to score the UoA may come in many forms (e.g.,
written, verbal, photographs, first-hand accounts) and come from different, potentiallycompeting sources (e.g., the client, fishers, community members, non-governmentalorganisations, government agencies).
The team will need to exercise their expert judgement about these different forms andsources of information and should investigate whether or not they can be supported bycredible independent sources.
For some forms of information, support can be derived from published scientific literaturethat refers directly or indirectly to the subject of interest, and further support may be obtained
from the client or stakeholders or by first-hand observations. The assessment team will need
to be satisfied that information is objective, has been generated through acceptable scientificmethods, and can be independently verified.
When presented with information that may not be verifiable, the team may find it useful to“triangulate opinions” (see also GSA3.6.3), 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. These opinions can also help to verify or authenticate information, or challenge
others’ assumptions or biases. 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.
In addition to the terms defined in Table SA7 and the examples in GSA3, throughout the P2
Information PIs, certain statistical terms are used, including: precision, coefficient of variance(CV), bias (statistical), variance, accurate, qualitative data and quantitative data. These
terms have been added to the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary, appended to this document.

GSA3.4 Primary Species Outcome PI (PI 2.1.1)
GSA3.4.1 Approach to the assessment of main and minor species ▲The MSC requirements in P2 apply particularly to those species that are defined as ‘main’
species, according to their importance in the fishery, or by virtue of their low resilience.
Requirements are specified for such ‘main’ species at each of the 60, 80 and 100 SG levels.
Additional separate requirements are specified for the remaining ‘minor’ species, but only at
the 100 level. Similar arrangements are specified both for primary and secondary species
and for habitats, and for the Outcome, Management and Information PIs for eachcomponent. No such distinction is made for the ETP component, where all species arescored at 60, 80 and 100.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 56© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.4.2 Designation of ‘main’ species ▲When considering species for designation as ‘main’; in addition to the listed requirements in
the CR, teams should also give consideration to the temporal trend in catches and use aprecautionary approach to determine whether species shall count as ‘main’.
This should include taking into account the variability of the catch composition over the last
five years or fishing seasons and recognizing that some species might be ‘main’ some years
but not in others. Depending on data availability, teams may choose a different length of thetime series, but a rationale should be provided in all cases of the method chosen. The
overall intent when designating ‘main’ species, is that there should be a good understandingof the long-term average catch composition of P2 species of the UoA before the PCDR isreleased; and further, that teams are confident that the species compositions, as well as
their respective catch volumes, are unlikely to change over the lifetime of the certificate.
In all cases teams may still designate species as main, even though it falls under thedesignated weight thresholds of 5% or 2%, as long as a plausible argument is provided as towhy the species should warrant that consideration.
For example, a stock might be in such a poor state, that all impact by the UoA is importantenough to consider, even in cases where the catch proportion is so low that it would
normally be classified as a minor species (also see GSA3.4.2.2 below).
The mortality of unwanted catch should be incorporated into the determination of main/minor
categories and the assessment of Outcome and Management PIs, irrespective of the factthat it is unwanted.
Bait species should be subject to the same Main filters as other species. When bait species
are purchased from outside the UoA, the calculation of Main is still in relation to the volumes
of total catch of the UoA, not the volumes of total weight from the fishery that the bait ispurchased from. The latter volumes could, however, be used as part of the rationale as towhether or not the amount of bait purchased by the UoA is hindering/not hindering recoveryof the bait-stock. This also means that if bait is purchased and it is main, teams need toassess the management and information PIs for the bait fishery for all scoring issues at the
SG 60 and 80 levels. Although this might present a challenge in some cases, the MSC
expectations are that all aspects of the fishery need to be sustainable, which include bait.
Therefore, rationale needs to be presented that even purchased bait comes from wellmanaged and healthy stocks.
Main primary species should also include any LTL species that are currently in a low
abundance regime and not regarded as ‘key’ but may be expected to increase again in
future to the point of becoming a key LTL species.
Shark fins are considered to have high commercial value. Thus, when a fishery trades shark
fins, the shark should be considered a main species, even when sharks comprise less than
5% of the catch.
In cases where the catch percentages are unknown or too uncertain to make adetermination on which species are main, a qualitative information-gathering process should
be used and documented to determine whether the catch of the species by the UoA
comprises more than 2%, 5% or 10% of all species by the UoA. Teams should beprecautionary in their classification of main and minor species. This implies that more
species might be considered main unless the team provides rationale to justify otherwise.
This might for instance be the case for fisheries that need to use the RBF methodology
and/or have very low sample sizes so that the standard deviation is really high.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 57© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.4.2.2 Designating less resilient species as ‘main’ at 2% ▲The ‘Main’ threshold for less resilient species is set at a lower 2% of the total catch of the
UoA by weight, because the risk of overfishing these species is inherently greater.
Teams should note that less resilient species should be assessed as such based on their life
history characteristics and the risk to the stock from anthropogenic activities, not the actual
impact of the UoA on the stock. The latter is assessed instead under the respective
Outcome PIs.
As the levels of credible information needed to assess the intrinsic resilience of a species will
be of varying quality and consistency, a wide range of source materials may be used.
Scientific literature and other sources of material specific to the species and region underassessment are normally the most applicable.
In addition, the productivity part of the PSA may be used as both a precautionary and robust
method of quickly determining the intrinsic resilience of a species, in cases where it scores
either low or medium productivity (SA3.4.2.2.a.i).
In cases where the intrinsic resilience is high but the species is still at risk for other reasons,investigating species declines, population size, and extrinsic threats could here beconsidered.
For instance, the current abundance of the population may affect natural resilience if
depensation effects are apparent and impair natural reproductive ability.
The parameters used in determining a Productivity score can be found on FishBase.org formost fish species. See FCP Annex PF for full details on the PSA analysis.
The assessment team may also consider the spatial distribution of the species as well as thedegree of spatial overlap with commercial fishing operations to determine:•

Whether the species is at risk of being locally depleted in the assessment area or;•

If the species has only a limited distribution, so that it is likely to be more severely
affected by fishing pressure or;•If the species is part of a widely distributed and highly migratory population, thecumulative impacts on the population may be greater as well as more difficult to accountfor.

GSA3.4.3 Post Capture mortality ▲Teams should interpret very low post capture mortality as no less than a 90% survival rate.
This should be proven by scientific evidence, independent observer coverage, tagging
studies or similar information.
In cases where scientific evidence is not available for the particular fishery, but there arestudies pertaining to similar fisheries, these can also be used, with appropriate rationales
provided. In this regard the following document might be helpful: https://www.nsrac.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/EU-discard-survival-short-study-version-001.pdf.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 58© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA 3.4.4 Exceptionally large catches and main species ▲In considering whether a species should be treated as 'main', CABs should take account of
the relative catches of both target and the P2 species and determine whether the risk to the
population of the impacted P2 species is significant enough to warrant a designation as'main'. In the absence of full information, CABs should regard a catch by the UoA of
400,000mt of the target species as being 'exceptionally large'.

GSA3.4.6 MSC UoAs collectively not hindering recovery ▲If a species is below the point where recruitment might be impaired, the second part of theclause in scoring issue (a) ‘the UoA does not hinder recovery’:•At SG 60 refers only to actions that the UoA can take in order to ensure that thisoutcome is met.

•

At SG 80, in contrast, the impact of all MSC UoAs with that species as main needs to beconsidered, to ensure that recovery of the stock is not being hindered.

Teams should note at SG80 that the recovery of a species in P2 that is below a PRI or abiologically based limit 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 text in this clause and its associated scoring issues require teams to evaluate whether a
species below the PRI is actually recovering or if either the over-arching management
strategy or a specific strategy employed by UoA(s) allows for a species to recover, even in
the absence of recovery at the time of assessment. Although this determination can bereached using a combination of factors as outlined in SA3.4.6, teams may find it useful tofirst evaluate whether recovery of a species below the PRI is actually happening on a stocklevel, as evidenced by a demonstrably increasing trend in biomass. Where direct evidence
from time series estimates of stock status is not available, proxy approaches may be used,
including reference to fishing mortality levels and the use of simulation studies. In a very
general sense, if fishing mortality for the entire stock – not just the marginal fishing mortalityof the UoA – is less than FMSY (the fishing mortality that would deliver maximum sustainable
yield) the recovery of the stock can reasonably be expected to not be hindered. Although thisdetermination will hold true in most cases, the extent to which total F is below FMSY may insome cases need further consideration to ensure that rebuilding objectives are likely to beachieved. Simulation studies which combine information on recent and expected F levels,
stock size and recruitment etc. may also be used to confirm that the stock is expected torecover, and thus that the strategy can be regarded as ‘demonstrably effective’.
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 80 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. This intent is also reflected in Table GSA3
under the definition of “does not hinder”.
If there is no evidence of recovery as outlined above, by either evaluating stock biomass or
total fishing mortality, SA3.4.6d allows an 80 score in cases where the proportion of
combined catch by all relevant MSC UoAs is effectively not hindering recovery. In otherwords, in cases where total fishing mortality is not below FMSY, teams need to evaluate
whether the marginal fishing mortality caused only by the relevant MSC UoAs is material to
the stock’s ability to recover. This could be determined in a practical way by examining likely
population trajectories if all the other fisheries reduced their catches to zero (i.e., the only

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 59© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

catches were being taken by the fishery under assessment). Since this will often be difficult
to determine, MSC allows that the UoA’s catch in proportion to the total catch of a stock may
be used as a reasonable proxy of whether that UoA on its own or cumulatively with other
UoAs, could be considered to be hindering recovery.
To illustrate this approach, even if the total catch of a species is clearly hindering recovery,
UoA catches of less than 30% of the total catch of a species may not normally be influential
in hindering a recovery in a marginal sense, i.e., nothing the UoA does would be likely tochange the situation. On the other hand, catches of more than 30% might be influential, suchthat if the UoA took action to reduce its catches, the stock might well start to recover. A
judgement on whether the UoA is hindering recovery will depend not only on the proportionof catch, but on the overall level of F that is causing the problem. In some cases, it might bemore useful to simply assess the marginal F by the UoA in terms of the weight of catchremoved in relation to the overall abundance of the stock, rather than in relation to the total
catches. In this regard, investigating if the UoA’s impact is more pronounced on certain sizeclasses of the stock, e.g., only juveniles may also be warranted, as the actual impact of the
UoA on the biomass of the population might then be different as opposed to if only mature
adults were targeted. In making the overall evaluation on whether the UoA’s stock removals
are hindering recovery, teams may also find it useful to evaluate the overall resilience of thespecies as outlined in SA and GSA3.4.2.2, taking into account the spatial distribution andevaluating e.g., if the species is at risk of being locally depleted etc. (see GSA3.4.2.2).
Teams should note that the impact of a UoA should here be assessed in terms of stock
removals and the marginal F of the UoA and the percentages listed here should therefore
not be confused with the percentages used to designate ‘main’ species, which are based on
the proportion of a species as part of the total catch of the UoA (SA3.4.2).
Although SG80 only makes reference to being above a point of recruitment impairment,
there is a requirement at SG100 that primary species are at biomass levels consistent with
MSY. Primary species will often be taken in multi-species complexes. 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 that usually applied to a single species,
although in all cases should result in primary species having a low risk of serious or
irreversible harm.
Teams should also refer to Annex GPB for additional guidance on the harmonisation ofscores and conditions when evaluating the cumulative impacts of MSC UoAs.

Determining the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) and the use of proxies
Teams should refer to the Principle 1 guidance in GSA2.2.3.1 relating to the point of
recruitment impairment (PRI) for additional help on the interpretation of this term, including
the use of proxy reference points.

Recovery strategies differing between UoA jurisdictions
There may be instances where stocks below the PRI have a distribution across multijurisdictional boundaries (shared, straddling, HMS, high seas non-HMS stocks) but there areno comprehensive management efforts in place set to manage and recover the majority ofthe stock complex across all boundaries. Instead separate parts of the stocks may only be
governed through regional management measures and 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 MSC UoAs needs to be in place, the different jurisdictional strategies do not haveto be aligned and harmonized between UoAs in order to meet this requirement at SG80, but
the intent is instead to evaluate whether the separate strategies together achieve theDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 60© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

outcome that recovery of the species is not hindered by those MSC UoAs. If not, teams
should require some alignment of mitigation processes between UoAs.
Examples: UoAs in different jurisdictions
Examples of such a case would be where separate jurisdictions set different landing
limits on the same depleted species, where e.g., one UoA would have to comply with arequirement to release all catches alive and another might have an allowance to only
land a small amount each year. Teams would here have to evaluate the validity of eachseparate strategy, calculate the combined mortality caused by each UoA as described in
the language on ‘do not hinder’ and make a determination on whether these two
strategies combined sufficiently constitute a demonstrably effective strategy to not hinder
recovery”.

GSA3.4.7 Consideration of efforts to minimise the mortality ofunwanted catches ▲The intent of this clause is to clarify that where there is unwanted catch as defined inSA3.1.6 and associated Guidance (GSA3.1.6), the efforts of the UoA to minimise themortality of this catch are taken into account by the team in the Outcome, Management andInformation PIs (see Box GSA8).
The team should also take into account any changes or lack of changes to the status of theunwanted species when alternative measures are not implemented. For example, if a fisherydoes not implement alternative measures because there are none or because they are costprohibitive, the team should still note whether the catch or mortality of unwanted catches
decreases, stays the same or increases. Such consideration may occur either at full
assessment, or at surveillances depending on the timing of reviews and the implementationof mitigation measures in the fishery.
Example:For example, a UoA undertakes a review of measures to minimise the mortality of theunwanted catch for a species. Based on this review (it is shown that the measures havebeen effective in similar fisheries and the costs are not prohibitive), the UoA implements
the measures. The existence of this review and the implementation of the measures arescored in the Management PI using SA3.5.3 and its sub-clauses.

The adequacy of information to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures, including any
reduction of unwanted catch, e.g., lower catch rate, is scored in the Information PI, using
SA3.6.4 and associated guidance.
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 not collectively hinder recovery ofthis species. It is this that the team should consider when scoring SI (a) of the Outcome PI. A
statement describing any improvements and whether they change the degree of certainty or
prevent the UoA from hindering recovery of a species should be included in the scoring
rationale.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 61© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.5 Primary Species Management Strategy PI (PI 2.1.2) ▲Background
The intent of the P2 Species Management PIs (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2) is to assess thearrangements in place to manage the impact that the UoA has on the P2 species to ensurethat it does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to them (or, in the case of ETP,
that the UoA complies with any national or international requirements for protection of thespecies). The SGs contain a mixture of requirements for either measures or strategies to bein place (see Table SA7 and Section GSA3). Also, it is to encourage the development andimplementation of technologies and operational methods that minimise mortality of unwanted
catch where it occurs.
The arrangements in place to manage impacts on the species may include measures toaddress both wanted and unwanted catch (see Figure GSA3 and Box GSA8 below). With
respect to unwanted catch, measures may include (FAO, 2011):•

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 catches;•

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 ofunwanted catch.

In these PIs, CABs should also consider incentives that might compromise the effectivenessof the management strategy meeting P2 outcomes, such as fishing overcapacity caused bysubsidies. 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 in accordance withMSC Principle 2. If the management system is not robust enough to deal with overcapacity
caused by subsidies, a condition should be set in accordance with FCP Section 7.18 against
the relevant management PI (see GSA2.1 for consideration of incentives in P1).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 62© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Box GSA8: MSC intent on unwanted species and habitats

The MSC intent on reducing fisheries’ impacts on unwanted species and on
habitats
Prior to the release of the Fisheries Standard v2.0, the MSC Principles & Criteria(Ps&Cs) were not adequately take into account in relation to bycatch, namely thatfisheries should “make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of
non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimisemortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot bereleased alive” (Criterion 3B.12).
In addition, FAO (1995), states that “selective and environmentally safe fishing gear andpractices should be further developed and applied, to the extent practicable, in order tomaintain biodiversity and to conserve the population structure 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 fisheries.”
Because there are currently no internationally-accepted definitions of bycatch anddiscards (FAO, 2011), the MSC has used the term ‘unwanted’ catch of species. The
MSC definition of unwanted catch has been adapted from part of the description of‘bycatch’ in FAO (2011); it 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.
In order to operationalise the intent of criterion 3B.12 in the MSC Ps&Cs and thestatement from FAO (1995), changes in the P2 Species PIs in the MSC Fisheries
Standard v2.0 have been made with the following intent:
a. To motivate fishers to continually “think smart” about their impact on the environment(species and habitats); both in delivering the sustainable impact most efficiently, andcontinuing to reduce their impact beyond thatb. To balance this desire with efficiency by not spending a lot of money and time
generating only marginal improvements.
To achieve this for species, a new scoring issue has been added to the P1 Harvest
Strategy (PI 1.2.1) and P2 Species Management PIs (PI 2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2) requiring
fisheries to continually review alternative measures to encourage the development andimplementation of technologies and operational methods that minimise mortality ofunwanted catch or ETP species, taking into account the practicality of the measures,
their potential impact on other species and habitats and on the overall cost of
implementing the measures.
Fisheries need to either review alternative measures that are shown to minimise mortalityof the species or species group in question (SA3.5.3). Fisheries need also to consider
alternative measures to reduce impacts on habitats. Fisheries should take account of thepotential for both positive and negative impacts of alternative measures on species andhabitats (refer to GSA3.14.2) 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, they could utilise
the unwanted catch in some way so that it would no longer be ‘unwanted’. If there are no
unwanted species, the scoring issue on reviewing alternative measures does not need tobe scored in that PI.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 63© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

The language used in the scoring issue is based on FAO (2011), which provides
management planning guidelines for all significant sources of fishing mortality in a
fishery, and FAO (1995). FAO (2011) presents requirements for management actions
pertaining to bycatch and discards, which include:•

Reviewing effectiveness of existing initiatives to address bycatch and discard
problems•

Reviewing potential effectiveness of alternative methods to address the
bycatch/discard problem

In addition, the MSC’s intent is that the efforts of the UoA to minimise the mortality of thisunwanted catch are taken into account by the team in the Outcome and Information PIs.
Information on the effectiveness of the measures, including any reduction of unwanted
catch, e.g., lower catch rate, should be scored in the Information PI (GSA3.6.4). 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 not collectively hinder
recovery of this species. Teams are required to consider this when scoring the Outcome
PI (SA3.4.7).
References
FAO.1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.
FAO.2011. International Guidelines on bycatch management and reduction of discards.
Rome: FAO.

Scoring issue (a) Management strategy in place ▲The different types of management arrangement (measures, partial strategy, strategy)referred to in this scoring issue (and referenced in scoring issues (b) and (c)) are clarified inTable SA7 and Table GSA2 of this document, and relate to the management undertaken by
the UoA.

Scoring issue (c) Management strategy implementation ▲Scoring issue (c) on management strategy and implementation should also take into
consideration any alternative measures that have been implemented by the UoA if it meets
SG80 or 100 under scoring issue (e) (see SA3.5.3 & GSA3.5.3).

GSA3.5.1 -Scoring issue (d) Shark finning ▲Scoring issue (d) is only scored where the primary species is a shark, regardless of whether
it is wanted or unwanted catch. See GSA2.4, guidance on PI 1.2.1 to score SI (e) related toshark finning.

Scoring issue (e) Review of alternative measures ▲When assessing this scoring issue, CABs are expected to review evidence to determine
whether the client (UoA) has undertaken a review of the potential effectiveness andpracticality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch of main species,in order to achieve the SG60 level. This evidence could be, for example, a summary
document listing information and measures reviewed along with an analysis of the measuresand their appropriateness for the UoA, or the minutes of a meeting which has consideredalternative measures.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 64© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.5.1 ‘If necessary’ ▲If the UoA has no (or negligible: see below) impact on this component, scoring issue (a)does not need to be scored for SG60 and SG80 (see definition of ‘if necessary’ in Table SA3
and Table GSA2).
However, there is no ‘if necessary’ clause in SG100 so that in order to score a 100 on thiscomponent, a management strategy should be in place for the UoA for P2 species, sincegear loss or other incidental impacts could still occur.

GSA3.5.3 Reviewing measures for reducing unwanted catch ▲Any non-negligible proportion of the catch that meets the unwanted definition (see SA3.1.6
and GSA3.1.6) for a particular species should be assessed as unwanted catch.
However, in cases where there is negligible unwanted catch of a species, the team may use
their discretion as to whether the scoring issue would be scored, but the decision should bemade in accordance with a precautionary approach. When determining what is ‘negligible’
the MSC does not specify a set cut-off; the team may consider the significance of the catchin relation to things like the proportion of the unwanted catch as part of the total catch or as
part of the total amount of unwanted catch, as well as the regularity of the catch occurring
when deciding whether it is negligible.
If there is no unwanted catch of primary species, or no primary species at all, then the‘Review of alternative measures’ scoring issue (e) is not scored.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 65© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example 1:
In a North Sea groundfish UoA, a percentage of the catch includes gurnard, all of which
are thrown back dead. In this case the gurnard would be unwanted and this scoring
issue should be scored for this catch. However, if all or almost all of the gurnard were to
be kept for crew consumption or landed and sold, etc., the catch would no longer beconsidered unwanted and scoring issue (e) would not be scored.
Example 2:
In a longline UoA where a percentage of the catch includes a skate species, the skate
species is immediately cut from the line rather than being landed. In this case the skateshould be considered unwanted catch and the alternative measures reviewed shouldreflect the need to minimise the mortality of the species, with the expectation that
released skate will have high survivability, or avoid capture in the first place.
Example 3:
In a developing world mixed species UoA, all species are landed and consumed or sold,so there is no unwanted catch and scoring issue (e) is not scored.
Example: Review of alternative measures
The management body for a fishery has investigated a number of measures that could
be used to minimise the catch of Species A, a species that is discarded with poor
survivability. They selected four potential measures that have been used in similar gears
in other fisheries or to minimise mortality of this species. They do not have quantitative
estimates of the exact levels that the potential measures might reduce the catch ofSpecies A through their own field testing, but they have considered studies that havebeen done that show that implementing three of these measures would have no or little
effect on reducing the catch of this species. The fourth measure, however, is estimatedto reduce catch of this species by 80%. The measure is not expensive to implement (i.e.,
will not require replacing of current gear) and will not affect crew safety or significantly
add time to vessel operations. It slightly reduces the catch of the target species, but notsignificantly so. It does not cause increased catches of other P2 ‘unwanted’ or ETP
species, nor does it negatively impact habitat. The management body recommends useof this measure 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. It would meet the SG60 level.
If the fishery were to adopt the use of this measure and it was being used at the time ofthe site visit, but there were no plans to undertake another review of measures, it would
still only meet the SG60 level.

If the fishery were to adopt the use of this measure and it was being used at the time ofthe site visit, and another review was scheduled to take place in three years’ time, itwould meet the SG80 level. If the plan was that alternative measures would be reviewed
every two years, it would meet the SG100 level.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 66© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.5.3.1 ▲The assessment team should also consider how the alternative measures for review havebeen selected and whether appropriate gears and practices have been considered as part of
the review.
The requirement is that the measures selected for review are those that have been shown to
reduce unwanted catch levels to the ‘lowest achievable levels.’
Where best practice measures in a gear/species/region have been established as achieving
the lowest achievable levels – and therefore meeting the FAO’s description of “proper
selective and environmentally safe fishing gear” (see Box GSA8) – these measures should
be included in the review.
Where best practice has not been established, or it is not clear which measures reducecatch to the lowest achievable levels, the assessment team should assess whether thereview considers measures that are expected or known to minimise mortality of theunwanted species.
The gear and practices selected for review may be from a number of sources, including
those that have been shown to be effective in similar fisheries or regions, or those presented
as ‘best practice’ in international fora.
Some international fora with information and/or expertise on reducing unwanted catches
include [Note: this list is provided to highlight some repositories of expertise for mitigation
methods – it is not intended to be an exhaustive list]:•

Bycatch Reduction Techniques Database, Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction10•

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)11•

Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic,
Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS)12•Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC-Sea
Turtles)13•

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)14•

UNEP-CMS (United Nations Environment Programme – Convention on Migratory
Species)15

In addition, many national bodies and regional fishery management organisations (RFMOs)
have developed policies and procedures to reduce unwanted catch, e.g., the US NOAA
Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP) and the Commission for the Conservationof Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The Western and Central Pacific FisheriesCommission also maintains a Bycatch Mitigation Information System16 for that region.
Where the P2 components are required to be harmonised with other MSC certified fisheries,
teams should consider whether the UoA under assessment has considered the gear andpractices used in these fisheries as part of their list of ‘alternative measures’, if they havebeen shown to minimise unwanted catches.

10 http://www.bycatch.org/
11 http://www.acap.aq/
12 http://www.acap.aq/
13 http://www.iacseaturtle.org/
14 https://www.iucn.org/
15 http://www.cms.int/
16 http://www.wcpfc.int/bmis

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 67© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

In situations where the proposed alternative mitigation measures are cost prohibitive or
impractical for the fishery to implement, other lower cost alternative measures may beconsidered, such as improved education for fisheries regarding best practice approaches.
This is not meant to be a means to avoid the costs associated with implementation of gear
modifications or other measures, but as an alternative to achieve minimisation when othermeasures would render the fishery economically unviable.

GSA3.5.3.2 ▲This clause requires that a regular review occurs at a minimum at least once every 5 years,
which is at least once per certification cycle. Some fisheries may need to review alternative
measures more frequently, depending on the extent and nature of the unwanted catch (e.g.,
due to changes in stock size). If information becomes available that the existing measures
are ineffective, i.e., do not lead to any reductions in mortalities of unwanted species (e.g., ata surveillance audit), the assessment team may determine that a review should occur more
frequently.
The ‘regular review’ at SG80 may be met if at least one review of alternative measures has
been undertaken, that measures are implemented as appropriate, and there is acommitment from the client or the management body to have another review within the 5year window.

GSA3.5.3.3

Evidence of implementation ▲At SG80, the alternative measures may be implemented either within the UoA or in the wider
fishery as part of a sub-strategy or code of conduct, etc. on unwanted catch (which could beeither species-specific or covering all unwanted catch).
Evidence of implementation may, for example, include the development and use of codes ofconduct or a description of appropriate ways of handling gear and catch on board vessels
and in crew training records, and evidence from the fleet or observers that measures arebeing implemented by fishers.
The alternative measures should be implemented ‘on the water’ in order to achieve theSG80 or SG100 scores, unless any of the ‘as appropriate’ clauses under GSA3.5.3.3 aretriggered.
Example:Alternative measures were reviewed and decided on in 2008 and implemented in 2009.
An assessment undertaken after the measures were implemented in 2009, and whereanother review of measures is scheduled within the next five years, should meet SG80
for this scoring issue. If, however, the assessment were undertaken in 2008 before themeasures were implemented, this scoring issue should not yet meet the SG80.

Decisions surrounding implementation
Overall, the UoA should ensure that they balance the benefits of implementing a measure forone species against the likely impacts on another species or on habitats, and against thepractical and economic consequences of implementation.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 68© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

If measures reviewed are all equally effective at minimsing the mortality of the unwanted
species, and the practicality and costs are also similar, the UoA should choose the measurethat might also lead to the minimisation of impacts on other species and/or habitats.
Where the measures reviewed are shown to be more effective at minimising unwanted
catch, but the measures are not implemented, the assessment team should review thereasons for this which can be:•

Evidence that the practicality (e.g., crew safety, target catch, vessel operations) would be
adversely affected by implementing the measures reviewed;•

Evidence that the UoA has assessed the economic costs and benefits of implementing
the measure and determined that the potential costs would adversely impact theeconomic viability of the fishery, or•Evidence that the UoA has considered the implications of relevant solutions on otherspecies and habitats and found that there are negative consequences for species (e.g.,
causing them to fall below the PRI or outside biologically based limits or hindering theirrecovery from such a state) or habitats (e.g., causing serious or irreversible harm to thehabitat), such that the measures should not be implemented.

FAO (2011) recognizes that there are both costs and benefits to implementing different
measures that include direct and indirect costs, such as cost of the gear, impact on revenue
from catch volumes or quality, operational efficiency and access or restriction to fishing
opportunities. In addition, costs can be mitigated through the application of grants/loans andpreferential treatment on duties and taxes for investment in new technologies. The
judgement of whether costs are prohibitive should take into these issues into accounttogether 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 measure reviewed has been shown in similar
fisheries to reduce mortality of unwanted catch 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 oftime for setting gear that – even when offset with potential benefits – would significantly
impact their economic viability. In this case the assessment team would review evidence
that the costs would be projected to increase by 10% (e.g., based on projected cost ofpurchasing measure and loss/gain in target species catches/quality) and that this increase
would have a significant impact on the economic viability of the UoA (e.g., based oncomparison to profit and loss, or turnover). If the assessment team concludes that
implementing this measure would be cost prohibitive for the UoA and that the measurereview was not implemented on this basis, the UoA could still meet SG80 for this scoring
Issue (e).
On the other hand, if in this UoA, the cost of implementation was partially covered by adonation for the purpose from a funding body and an NGO, so that the increased cost to
the UoA was not prohibitive to them, and all other criteria were met, the team should
consider that the measures would need to be implemented to achieve an SG80 score or
higher.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 69© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.6 Primary species information PI (PI 2.1.3) ▲Background
The P2 species information PIs (2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3) address the information base for the
management of the primary, secondary and ETP species respectively. The information andmonitoring required in these PIs is intended to include that which is needed to determine therisk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage these species.
For each scoring element in each component, it is expected that the assessment team will
use their expert judgement to decide whether the information provided is adequate toestimate the stock status in the Outcome PI and to evaluate methods and measures in theManagement PI.
If the management approach is very precautionary or the status of the species is very high or
the catches and impact of those catches are very low, information with low precision may beadequate for both the estimation of current status and the performance of the management
strategy. Conversely, where the status is unknown or based on limited information, CABs
would be expected to be more precautionary in their assessment of information adequacy tosupport the Outcome or Management PIs.

Scoring issue (a) Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main
species ▲In scoring issue (a), information is needed at the stock level in order to assess the impact of
the UoA on the stock as a whole in relation to the point at which recruitment would be
impaired.

Scoring issue (b) Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor
species ▲For scoring issue (b), the guidance on adequacy for information to assess impacts of main
species (GSA3.6.3 and sub-clauses) also applies to minor species, with the exception thatminor species are only assessed at the SG100 level, noting that this level is equivalent to theSG80 level for main species.

GSA3.6.3 Scoring the adequacy of information ▲At SG60
At SG60, to determine adequacy, CABs are required to assess the validity of the qualitative
information used.
This may involve the review of a number of different sources of information (datatriangulation). For example:•

The assessment team could start by identifying different stakeholder groups. Interviews
could then be conducted with each of these groups and feedback from these groups
could be compared to determine areas of agreement and areas of divergence.

•

Another form of triangulation that could be used is methodological triangulation, involving
the use of multiple qualitative methods to investigate an issue – for example, results fromsurveys, focus groups and interviews could be compared to see if similar trends arefound. If conclusions from each are the same then validity is established (Guion et al,2011).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 70© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

In addition, benchmarks may be used to evaluate whether or not catch rates and magnitudes
are low enough to be sustainable and avoid serious harm, and qualitative advice may beadequate to assess this (DFO, 2012).
Example:If only life history information is known (i.e., no fisheries-independent survey data)
methods for assessing mortality of unwanted species could include: indirect methods for
estimating natural mortality (if only size or age or length-at-age data are available) or
unstructured demographic approaches (if data on reproduction, natural mortality, age atmaturity and lifespan are available) (DFO, 2012).

At SG80
At SG80, the information adequacy required for the estimation of the impact of the UoA on
the outcome of the species should be balanced against the likely impact on that particularspecies.
The likelihood that the UoA impacts the species is set out in the Outcome PI (likely, highly
likely, high degree of certainty) in a probabilistic context (70%, 80%, 90% for primary and
ETP species; 60%, 70%, 80% for secondary species), see SA3.2.3. In order to meet thisscoring guidepost, some quantitative information needs to be available in addition to thequalitative information required at SG60. The data triangulation method described at SG60
above would also apply to this SG.
Generally, having only one form of data collection with a high level of potential bias or otherlimitation (e.g., logbooks or interviews with fishermen) by itself should not be enough to meet
SG80 – additional information sources that compensate for the limitations would also need
to be provided and assessed (see examples of information sources and how they could be
combined in GSA3.6.3).
At SG100
At SG100 the scoring issue requires that estimates of catch and UoA-related mortality of all
species are quantitative and available with a ‘high degree of certainty’.
This should be equivalent to greater than or equal to the 90th percentile in the distribution(for primary and ETP species) or 80th percentile in the distribution (for secondary species).
It is intended that this information builds on the qualitative and quantitative information
included at SG60 and SG80.

Observer programmesWith regard to observer programmes, teams may consider factors such as how
representative the sampling is, whether observer coverage is based on the total effort ornumber of trips, any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected, definition and rigour ofdata collection protocols, what training observers have had in terms of species identification,and the priorities for observer time on the vessel (Bravington et al, 2003; DFO, 2012;
Wolfaardt, 2011).
The level of observer coverage required to assess the impact of the UoA on outcome statusdepends on factors such as the frequency of capture/mortality, the variability in rates of
capture/mortality, a desired CV and/or information required to show that upper confidence
limit on mortality for a species is below a pre-defined sustainability threshold (Bravington etal, 2003; Wolfaardt, 2011). There is not a single optimum level of observer coverage thatcovers all fisheries and species caught/killed. Generally, for species that are highly variable,
clumped in distribution and/or relatively rare, higher levels of observer coverage are needed
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 71© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01(Wolfaardt, 2011). For more normal species, observer coverage rates above 20% provide
only diminishing returns and small incremental improvements in the CV of catch estimates(Lawson, 2006).

GSA3.6.3.1 ▲The catch of a species may be estimated using a variety of methods and each can havecertain advantages and/or disadvantages associated with them. It is up to the assessment
team to use their expert judgement to assess the adequacy of the methods used, particularly
with respect to the precision and bias (statistical and observational bias) of the method andits ability to provide externally verifiable data. For instance, the observational bias of logbook
data is generally regarded as being much higher than electronic or observer monitoring, but
may still be adequate if e.g., triangulated with other data sources that compensate for thisbias or otherwise provide reassurance.
Where limited information is available, teams should be more precautionary in theirassessment of information adequacy to support an Outcome PI score.
Some examples of data collection methods include (but are not limited to) those specified inTable GSA5. Column A contains data collection methods that have higher validity as they
are less subject to bias than those in Column B.
Table GSA5: Examples of data collection methods according to their level of verifiability
Column A (higher level of verifiability, lower
bias)

Column B (lower level of verifiability, higher
bias)

Observer programmesStandardised logbooks

Electronic monitoring of location/position (e.g.,
VMS, AIS)Interviews with fishers

Other technologies to monitor impact/compliance(e.g., cameras)

Enforced mandatory retention of all catch withfull dockside monitoring

Independent research projects or programmes

Information obtained from co-management andcommunity based management.

At the SG80 and 100 level in scoring issue (a), where a species is close to or below its limit
or its status is uncertain, the team should expect that the UoA uses at least one method from
Column A or an equivalent data source, and one or more from Column B to collectinformation to support the Outcome score for that species. However, where there is a highlevel of certainty that a species is well above its limit, less precaution is necessary and only
two or more methods from Column B could be acceptable.
Some methods of recording data that are inherently open to bias, such as logbooks, are alsoless likely to provide accurate data on non-fish species, and therefore when considering theneed for accurate information on interactions with out of scope species CABs should seek
higher quality data sources (column A of the table).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 72© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example:During the assessment of a developing world, small scale gillnet UoA, it became clearthat there is some evidence that local fisheries in general are having an impact on theendangered Ruby Dolphin as a local NGO interview reveals that they haveapproximately 10 sightings per year of stranded individuals with signs of gear
interactions reported (Column B-type information source). However, it is not clear
whether these interactions have come from the UoA or another fishery in the area.
Interactions with ETP species such as the Ruby Dolphin are monitored through sporadic
landings monitoring by a government agency (Column B-type information source). The
agency reports the gear used and any bycatch species that are landed, to the species
level where possible. Through this monitoring, there was one report of 1 Ruby Dolphinmortality in the past two years in this UoA.
In addition, interviews with the government officer in charge of the inspections, thefishers themselves have indicated that entanglements with cetaceans are rare in thisfishery, but that when they do occur that the species are able to be safely released(Column B-type information sources).
The evidence from the landings data and interviews is assessed by the team as meeting
the SG60 requirement for Ruby Dolphin. However, due to the poor conservation statusof this species and the uncertainty over the true impact of the fishery on this species, itdoes not meet the SG80 level, i.e., there are no Column A-type data sources to validate
the information.
If in addition to the above, the local NGO or a University researcher were to undertake ashort-term quantitative research project investigating the number of interactions within
this fishery and their likely outcome (mortality, injury, release without harm), and that thisresearch validated that the impact was in fact very low, then the combined evidence
would meet the SG80 level.

In addition to the catch, the UoA-related mortality of caught species needs to be understood,
particularly for unwanted catch. If not killed outright, the eventual mortality of unwanted catchreturned to the sea, i.e., the number that will eventually die if released, thrown away, or
slipped can be estimated using methods such as confinement, field observations, tagging
and telemetry (Suuronen, 2005; Neilson et al, 2011). However, these methods can be
expensive and alternative methods to estimate mortality based on proxies can be effectivewith certain species or in certain circumstances, including:•Observer assessment of individual species vitality (e.g., prior to release/throwing away)or physical condition as a proxy for mortality (Richards et al, 1995; DFO, 2012);•

Time to mortality (TM) estimates (Benoit et al, 2013);•

Biochemical indicators (Beamish, 1966)

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 73© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.6.3.2 ▲In scoring issue (a) CABs are required to consider a number of factors when determining theadequacy of the information in relation to its ability to determine and to detect changes in theoutcome indicator score.
The background document to the FAO Guidelines on the Precautionary Approach to
Fisheries (FAO, 1996) suggests that fisheries assess statistical power of the tests andmethodologies used for comparing the relative ‘soundness’ of the information available. The
statistical power measures the probability that the monitoring programme will effectively
detect the reduction of the reproductive capacity below safe thresholds, and is strongly
influenced by the elements listed in SA3.7.4.2. The lower the statistical power of theassessment, the more precautionary the management response should be (FAO, 1996).

GSA3.6.4 ▲If there is unwanted catch and Scoring Issue (e) on the ‘review of alternative measures’ isscored in the Management PI 2.1.2, information should also be adequate to support
understanding the effectiveness and practicality of measures used by the UoA as well as
potential alternative measures.

GSA3.7 Secondary species outcome PI (PI 2.2.1)
GSA3.7.1 Treatment of out of scope species ▲Out of scope species (birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals) are always considered a main
species regardless of their total catch volume.

GSA3.7.2 Recognition of ‘considerable’ catches for out of scope
species ▲To determine whether catches are considerable as defined in SA 3.7.4 for out of scope
species, teams should use their expertise and a precautionary approach to determine
whether the UoA impact is considerable or not. For such species, the 10% default catchweight requirement may be less applicable than for in-scope species. Precautionary
measures may include looking at proxies for fishing related mortality as defined in GSA2.2.3.

GSA3.7.3 Consideration of efforts to minimise the mortality of unwanted
catches ▲The guidance for clause GSA3.4.7 applies here also.

GSA3.8 Secondary species management strategy PI (PI 2.2.2) ▲The guidance for clause GSA3.5 applies here also.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 74© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.9Secondary species information PI (PI 2.2.3) ▲GSA3.6 applies here also.

GSA3.10

ETP species outcome PI (PI 2.3.1) ▲Scoring issue (a) – Combined impacts of MSC UoAs
The team should consider whether the ETP species overlaps with other MSC UoAs andwhether there are limits set that pertain to these UoAs in either national legislation or binding
international agreements.
As indicated in GSA3.1.5.2, the intent of the MSC when referring to agreements that are“binding” is that the international legislation is binding on the parties to the agreement.
Neither the flag state of the UoA, nor the state in which fishing takes place, need be asignatory to this agreement for it to be applicable to MSC certified UoAs.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 75© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example 1: Two EEZs, one with limits and one without
For example in Figure GSA4 below, an ETP species distribution overlaps with four MSC
UoAs, two of which are in EEZ 1 and two in EEZ 2. EEZ 1 has national limits set for the
ETP species, but EEZ 2 does not. There are no international limits set throughinternational agreements for the ETP species. In this case, the assessment team should
score the MSC UoAs in EEZ 1 using scoring issue (a) and should to take the combined
impacts of only the EEZ1 MSC UoAs into account. The assessment team should scorethe MSC UoAs in EEZ 2 using scoring issue (b) and would not need to take their
combined impacts into account.
Figure GSA4: Example ETP species distribution

Example 2: Two EEZs. both with different limits
In Figure GSA4 above, let us instead suppose that both EEZ 1 and EEZ 2 have set
national limits for the ETP species, but these limits are only for the fisheries within theirrespective EEZs. There are no international limits set through international agreements for
the ETP species. In this case, the MSC UoAs in both EEZs would use scoring issue (a) toscore the species. However, the assessment team should consider the combined impactsof MSC UoAs in EEZ 1 and the combined impacts of UoAs in EEZ 2 separately (i.e., the2 MSC UoAs in EEZ 1 in relation to EEZ 1 limits and the 2 MSC UoAs in EEZ 2 in relation
to EEZ 2 limits).
Example 3: Two EEZs, one with limits and one without, and international agreementwith limits
In Figure GSA5 below, EEZ 1 has national limits for the ETP species for fisheries within
their EEZ and EEZ 2 does not. However, there is also an international agreement for the
ETP species that sets a limit within a specified area. EEZ 1 is a signatory to thisagreement and EEZ 2 is not, although both operate in the agreement area. In this case,the assessment team should consider that as there are limits set by the international
agreement, the species should be scored in scoring issue (a) for all UoAs, irrespective ofwhether they are in EEZ 1 or EEZ 2. The limits set by the international agreement shouldbe the ones that the combined impacts of MSC UoAs need to be within, regardless ofwhether they are within their own separate national limits.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 76© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSA5: Example of ETP distribution in relation to MSC UoAs and two national EEZs,
with international agreement for ETP species

GSA3.10.3 ▲Guidance for clause GSA3.4.7 applies here also, noting that where those clauses refer tomortality of unwanted catch they apply here to mortality of ETP species.

GSA3.11ETP species management strategy PI (PI 2.3.2) ▲Guidance GSA3.5 applies here also.

GSA3.11.1 ▲At all three scoring guideposts in scoring issue (a), teams are required to consider the needto minimise mortality. At SG80 and SG100, however, the scoring issue refers to the need forthe strategy or comprehensive strategy to manage the UoA’s impact on ETP species (seedefinitions in Table SA8 and associated guidance in GSA3).
In addition to minimising mortality, the teams should consider the strategy/ comprehensive
strategy’s ability to manage indirect impacts here, in line with scoring in the Outcome PI‘indirect effects’ scoring issue.

GSA3.11.3 ▲Guidance for clauses GSA3.5.3 and its sub-clauses applies here, noting that in primary andsecondary PIs the aim is to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch but in ETP theaim is to minimise UoA-related mortality of all ETP species.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 77© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.12ETP species information / monitoring PI (PI 2.3.3) ▲Guidance GSA3.6 applies here also, except for guidance on specific scoring issues (a) and(b) as there is no ‘main’ distinction for ETP.

GSA3.13

Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.4.1) ▲Use of UoA
In PI 2.4.1, the impact of the UoA itself is assessed. Thus, the “status” of the habitat, in
terms of its current state and likely recoverability (see GSA3.13.3), should be determinedwith respect to the impacts of the UoA rather than all fishing impacts.

Treatment of vulnerable marine ecosystems
The definition of serious and irreversible harm (see Table SA8, SA3.13.3, and theassociated guidance) allows for there to be some continued fishing on all habitats. Even
UoAs operating in very slow-recovering habitats, for instance vulnerable marine ecosystems(VMEs), may be managed so that the impact from fishing continues but is minor andtolerable.
The MSC requirement is that habitats are not impacted beyond the point at which they could
recover to 80% (or more) of their unimpacted level within 5-20 years. VMEs are generally
habitats with slow recovery rates that are unlikely to be able to recover within 5-20 years
from states below 80% of their unimpacted levels. For this reason and due to the fact that
VMEs are afforded specific consideration in international and customary law (the UNGA
resolutions and FAO Guidelines), VMEs should not be reduced to a state below 80% of theunimpacted level.
Although an individual UoA may achieve an 80 score in the outcome PI 2.4.1 when fishingon a VME because its individual impact is unlikely to cause the VME serious and irreversible
harm, the MSC recognises the unique value of VMEs and the possibility that all fishing (allMSC UoAs plus other fisheries – see SA3.14.3, the subclauses, and the associatedguidance) may nevertheless be causing more than 20% damage to VMEs. Therefore, unlessthere is a comprehensive management plan (see SA3.14.2.1 and the associated guidance)covering all fishing impacts on the VME, under the management PI 2.4.2, MSC requires that
UoAs avoid VMEs even if they score higher than 80 on the outcome PI 2.4.1.

GSA3.13.1 Habitat structure and function▲
The habitat’s structure and function (i.e., the ecosystem services that it provides), including
abundance and biological diversity, is of concern in an MSC assessment. Thus, anassessment should look not only at the impact on the habitat but also the habitat’s deliveryof ecosystem services. For instance, if only a part of the habitat is affected by fishing but thispart delivers the greatest ecosystem services, then this should be taken into account in theassessment. Particular habitats may determine the carrying capacity of the target, primary,secondary, and/or ETP species, and a mosaic of habitats may be necessary for somespecies to complete their life cycle or determine the overall composition of the ecologicalcommunity.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 78© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.13.1.1 Use of the RBF▲
Teams may score the outcome PI 2.4.1 for data-rich UoAs using the default assessment tree
or for data-deficient UoAs using the alternative Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) (Annex
PF).
When using the default assessment tree to score the PI, the UoA should have information of
sufficient quality to undertake an analytical approach effectively. First, the CSA defines ahabitat using the SGB nomenclature (SA3.13.2; see also Table GSA6).
Second, the CSA utilises inferences and proxies for the habitats’ and gears’ attributes toextrapolate the risk to habitats from the fishing gear.
The default assessment tree requires knowledge of the likelihood that the UoA does notcause serious or irreversible harm to the habitat, meaning that the following questions must
be answered:•

What habitats are encountered by the UoA?

•

What are the impacts of the gear(s) on those habitats?

To answer the first question in a non-data-deficient situation, the team should have UoAspecific (quantitative) SGB information and/or data, such as detailed habitat mapping for the
relevant area (as defined in SA3.13.5). To answer the second question in a non-datadeficient situation, the team should have gear-specific (quantitative) impact information
and/or data, such as fishing-effort mapping with knowledge of regeneration ability that is
specific to the UoA and/or habitat-specific research results that examine the impact of thegear(s) on habitats in the relevant area.
If the available information is not UoA specific but more generic (qualitative) relating to thegeneral area in which the UoA operates or to a broader region, the CSA will likely be neededto score the outcome PI effectively. Finally, if the type and quality of information is uncertain,
the CAB would need to rationalise whether or not the CSA is needed.

GSA3.13.2 Habitat characteristics▲
Usually habitats impacted by the UoA are benthic habitats (i.e., associated with or occurringon the bottom) rather than pelagic habitats (i.e., near the surface or in the open watercolumn), but impacts on the biotic aspects of pelagic habitats could be considered.
When determining which benthic habitats are impacted by the UoA, the team should
consider habitats on the basis of the substratum, geomorphology, and (characteristic) biota(SGB) characteristics.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 79© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSA6 provides examples of what constitute the SGB characteristics. For example,
one habitat may be defined as fine – low relief – no fauna or flora. (Note that thisnomenclature is also used within the CSA, which is used to assess habitat impacts in datadeficient situations.) It is not the intent that the team creates a table of this nature for the
UoA’s habitats. Rather, the intent is that the team uses this table to categorise the habitats
affected by the UoA prior to assessment.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 80© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSA6: SGB habitat nomenclature (modified from Williams et al., 2011 17)
Substratum

Geomorphology

Biota

Fine (mud, sand)

Flat

•

•
•
•
•

Large erect
Dominated by:••

Mud (<0.1 mm
particle diameter)Fine
sediments(0.1-1mm)
Coarse sediments(1-4 mm)

Simple surface structure
Unrippled/flatCurrent rippled/directed scour
Wave rippled•••

MediumLow relief••

Gravel/pebble (460 mm)

•
•
•

•
•

Irregular topography withmounds and depressions
Rough surface structure
Debris flow/rubble banks

Large and/or erect sponges
Solitary large sponges
Solitary sedentary/sessile
epifauna (e.g.,
ascidians/bryozoans)
Crinoids
CoralsMixed large or erect communities

Small erect/encrusting/burrowing
Dominated by:
•
•
•
•
•

Small, low-encrusting sponges
Small, low-standing sponges
Consolidated (e.g., mussels) andunconsolidated bivalve beds (e.g.,scallops)
Mixed small/low-encrusting
invertebrate communities
Infaunal bioturbators

Large

Outcrop

No fauna or flora

•

•

•

•

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

Solid reef of biogenic
origin••Biogenic(substratum ofbiogenic calcium
carbonate)
Depositions ofskeletal material
forming coral reefbase•

Subcrop (rock protrusions
from surrounding sediment <1m)
Low-relief outcrop (<1 m)

High relief••

High outcrop (protrusion of
consolidated substrate >1 m)
Rugged surface structure

No apparent epifauna, infauna, or
flora

Flora
Dominated by:•

Seagrass species

17 17 Williams, A., Dowdney, J., Smith, A.D.M., Hobday, A.J., and Fuller, M., 2011.

Evaluating impacts of fishing
on benthic habitats: A risk assessment framework applied to Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research 112(3):154167.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 81© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.13.3 Main habitats ▲The determination of commonly encountered habitats and VMEs (both of which are treatedas “main” habitats in the information PI 2.4.3) should be supported by evidence provided by
the UoA to the assessment team. If a habitat’s designation is uncertain, the team shouldtake the precautionary approach, identify uncertain habitats as commonly encountered or
VMEs as appropriate, and then most likely use the CSA (Annex PF).

GSA3.13.3.1

Commonly encountered ▲Commonly encountered habitats would likely include those that the target species favours,that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit, and/or that make up a reasonable portion of the
UoA’s fishing area.

GSA3.13.3.2

VME ▲VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the
FAO Guidelines:• Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species
whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems•

Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary forsurvival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular lifehistory stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species•

Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic
activities•

Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems thatare characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, areslow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived•

Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physicalstructures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features

The FAO Guidelines’ Annex identifies the following species groups, communities, andhabitat-forming species that may form VMEs and may be indicative of the occurrence of
VMEs:•

Certain coldwater corals and hydroids (e.g., reef builders and coral forest, such as stonycorals, alcyonaceans, gorgonians, black corals, and hydrocorals)•

Some types of sponge-dominated communities•

Communities composed of dense emergent fauna where large sessile protozoans andinvertebrates (e.g., hydroids and bryozoans) form an important structural component of
habitat•Seep and vent communities comprised of invertebrate and microbial species foundnowhere else (i.e., endemic)

The FAO Guidelines’ Annex also lists various geographical features that are often
associated with these communities.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 82© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

The MSC’s intent is that, even though the FAO Guidelines were written for deep-sea
fisheries, the Guidelines’ VME characteristics also apply to non-deep-sea fisheries. Further,when the FAO Guidelines are applied in shallow, inshore waters, the definition of VME could
include other species groups and communities (e.g., seagrass beds, complex kelpdominated habitats, biogenic reefs).

GSA3.13.4

Serious or irreversible harm ▲The MSC’s definition of “serious or irreversible harm” is very similar to the FAO Guidelines’18
definition of “significant adverse impacts”. A key consideration in both definitions is theconcept of reversibility or recoverability. Both definitions consider the time frame required fora habitat to recover. Damage requiring 5-20 years (or more) from which to recover should beconsidered “serious or irreversible” or “significantly adverse”, consistent with FAO (2009).
The MSC defines “recovery” as recovering to at least 80% of the level to which the habitat
would eventually recover in the absence of all fishing, considering the existing environmental
and anthropomorphic conditions – a hypothetical climax state under existing conditions. This
is often referred to in the text as an “unimpacted” level.
For VMEs the pre-existing historical extent of the habitat should be considered in thecalculation of the current state of the VME in relation to unimpacted levels if the historicalextent is known and if recovery in those areas of historical extent would be possible. If thehabitat has been altered completely so that the pre-existing state does not exist, recovery ofthat state is not expected; however if recovery of the pre-existing state is possible, thisshould be considered.

Example:Off 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, these areas should be considered within the scope of the habitat’s recovery.

The MSC has nominated the 80% level as a reasonable point at which to expect most of thehabitat’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.
Likelihood of recovery should take into account the likely speed of recovery (a higher score
for recovery within 1 year, for instance, than within 20 years) as well as the certainty ofrecovery of a habitat.

18 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 v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 83© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Example:Figure GSA5 and Table GSA6 provide some examples of recovery rates and resulting

habitat status in some hypothetical situations. For each of these examples, it is assumed
that the UoA is the only one impacting the habitat (i.e., all fishing impacts on the habitat
are covered by the one UoA). If multiple UoAs were impacting the habitat, the individual
UoAs’ impacts would be less.
Example A (dotted line) represents the current status (in relation to unimpacted status) of
the habitat impacted by a moderate-impacting UoA (e.g., demersal longline). This UoA
impacts 60% of the entire distribution of this habitat type (shown in Figure GSA5). It also
fully protects 40% of the habitat type inside a closed area (not shown in figure). Because
the gear is moderate impacting, 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 likelythat the overall status of the habitat would rise above 80% of the unimpacted level inaround 5 years. Combined with 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 a higher score if there is greater
confidence supported by evidence for this expected recovery.
Example B (dotted and dashed line) represents the status of the habitat impacted by ahigh-impacting UoA (e.g., demersal trawl) that protects 40% of the habitat type andfishes the other 60%. Again, the status of the impacted habitat area is shown in the
figure but not the status of the habitat within the protected area. Since this is a highimpacting 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 and not 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 lessconfidence than Example A (possibly achieving a 60 score in this case).
Example C (solid line) represents the same high-impacting UoA that protects 40% of aslow-growing habitat and fishes the other 60% of that habitat, the latter which has been
degraded to 10% of the unimpacted level. This habitat has a very slow recovery rate andwill take longer than 20 years to reach the 80% unimpacted level. This UoA is, therefore,causing serious or irreversible harm to this habitat and would not be likely to score a 60

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 84© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSA6: An illustration of different example recovery rates for habitats over time
under different fishing conditions where fishing is removed at year 0
100

Recovery of habitat (%)

80

50

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (years)
Table GSA6 provides additional details on the UoAs and habitats to accompany theexamples provided in Figure GSA5. Rows A-H illustrate in a qualitative sense how theoverall habitat status could be estimated, both at the current time and in the future
depending on (1) the extent of habitat protection in a closed area, (2) the level of habitat
degradation outside the closed area, and (3) the habitat recovery rate. Any current
scenario that results in the overall habitat being less than 80% of the unimpacted level isconsidered serious or irreversible harm. Row I gives the likelihoods of the UoAs causing
serious or irreversible harm (see Table SA9), and Row J gives the corresponding MSC
scores.

Table GSA7: UoA and habitat characteristics for the examples in Figure GSA6UoA and habitat characteristics

Example A(dotted line)

Example B(dotted anddashed line)

Example C(solid line)

A. Proportion of habitat fully protected inclosed 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 level)

50%

10%

10%

E. Current overall status of habitat,
compared to unimpacted level (A + [B x
D])

70%

46%

46%

F. Habitat recovery rate

Fast

MediumSlow

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 85© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

G. Expected future status of habitats infished areas in 20 years if fishing ceases(% of unimpacted level)

100%

80%

50%

H. Expected future overall status of habitatin 20 years, compared to unimpacted level(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
and evidence(unconditionalpass)

60 (pass withcondition)<60 (fail)

GSA3.13.4.1 ▲The special consideration of serious and irreversible harm afforded to VMEs derives fromboth their generally long recovery times and the special status afforded them in internationaland customary law (see above, PI 2.4.1). While many VMEs may have long recovery times,
some may not, but they are all subject to the specific VME requirements in this clause.
MSC’s adoption of the FAO Guidelines for identifying VMEs (see GSA3.13.3.2) means that
habitats with recovery times substantially greater than 20 years should usually be identified
as VMEs. Habitat recovery here relates to the whole habitat, not just some species within ahabitat. There may be some habitats with long recovery times that for some reason do notmeet the FAO Guidelines’ definition on VMEs. However, even for these non-VME habitats,an inability to recover from small reductions in state in fewer than 20 years should lead to aconclusion under the provisions of SA3.13.4 that it would not be possible to deplete thembelow 80% and still expect them to recover to 80% within 5-20 years.
Note that the minimal VME damage that occurs when a move-on rule is triggered should not
be counted as serious or irreversible harm even when a VME habitat is below 80% of its
unimpacted level.

GSA3.13.5 Area of consideration ▲The MSC’s intent in specifying the “area covered by the governance body(s) responsible forfisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates” (the “managed area” forshort) is to consider by default the habitat impacts within the areas controlled by the
management regimes under which the UoA operates. This may be a single 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, or 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 amanagement plan under which the UoA operates).
However, where there is reasonable evidence that the habitat distribution extends beyond
the “managed area”, the assessment of habitat impacts should be based on this extended
distribution. The basis for concluding that the habitat range extends beyond the “managed
area” should be documented clearly.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 86© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Two types of exceptional cases exist:•

Situations where the range of the habitat is much smaller than the area of thegovernance body’s control (e.g., where the RFMO covers an entire ocean but the habitat
is restricted in distribution) or where it is not sensible to consider the entire area because
areas under that governance body’s control are not contiguous (e.g., where an EEZcovers two separate areas) or have quite different bio-physical and habitat
characteristics.

•

Situations where the managed area is extremely restricted, such as cases where an EEZ
has only a very narrow extent due to encroaching baselines of adjoining EEZs, and it
does not make sense to consider such a narrow habitat within the assessment.
Examples of these exceptional cases:• The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) manages fishing throughout the Southern Ocean. Clearly, it would not beappropriate or feasible to include the entire area covered by CCAMLR when
considering the range of the habitat(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 the Norwegian EEZ. These latter two 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 andtherefore impacting a small portion of the habitat(s). Again, it would not bereasonable to consider the entire range of the habitat(s) across the total area.

•

The Gambia coastline is only 800 km and the EEZ is only 19,500 km2. 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 beappropriate to consider the habitat(s) range beyond the Gambian EEZ.

In such exceptional cases, it would be reasonable for the assessment 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.

GSA3.14

Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2) ▲MSC’s approach to management of VMEs
The MSC’s approach to the assessment of sustainability with regard to VMEs is based on
the UNGA resolutions (especially 61/105 and 64/72) and more specifically the FAO
Guidelines for deep-sea fisheries. The central requirements of the FAO Guidelines are as
follows:•

A set of criteria for identifying VMEs•

Impact assessments to determine if 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

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 87© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

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 conservation andmanagement measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs while preventing
such impacts from taking place inadvertently and that consists of (a) closing of areas
where VMEs are known or likely to occur and (b) refraining 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 acomprehensive management plan (see SA3.14.2.1 and the associated guidance) that
determines that all fishing will not cause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs or that MSC
UoAs should avoid VMEs individually and cumulatively (implementing the final bullet above).
The wording of the management PI 2.4.2 requires that management measures/strategies
are expected to deliver the outcome PI’s SG80 level, which is based on an assessment of
the UoA’s impact.
This should be taken as the desired outcome of the management measures/strategies for
non-VME habitats as well.

Scoring issue (a) Management strategy in place ▲“If necessary” does not appear in the scoring issue (a) at the SG100 level, meaning that inorder to score 100, a management strategy should be in place for all UoAs (see Table
GSA3), even those that do not regularly contact benthic habitats since gear loss or
unexpected benthic change could occur.
Table GSA8 provides an example of a strategy for a pelagic UoA.

GSA3.14.1 ▲Where there is a VME in the UoA’s “managed area” (see SA3.13.5, the subclauses, and theassociated guidance), the management PI 2.4.2 is scored in relation to both non-VME
habitats and VMEs.

GSA3.14.2 ▲Generic guidance is given on the differences between measures, partial strategy, andstrategy (see Table GSA3). Table GSA8 provides examples of measures, partial strategies,
and strategies in terms of benthic habitats. These are only examples of such managementlevels and do not necessarily meet the whole of the scoring rationale requirements.
Assessment teams should always use their expert judgement to determine how well, orotherwise, management measures, partial strategies, or strategies are designed to ensure
the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to relevant habitats.
A strategy should include regular review of alternative measures to reduce the impact of the
UoA on the habitat. Appropriate alternative measures determined in this review should also
be considered during the review of measures to minimise unwanted catch (PIs 2.1.2, 2.2.2,
and 2.3.2), particularly when making a decision on which measures to implement (refer to
Box GSA8 and SA3.5.3).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 88© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.14.2.1 ▲UoAs may qualify for a higher score on this PI if they have 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 VMEs. The MSC equates thishigher level of performance to the FAO Guidelines’ best management practice “functioning
regulatory framework”. A comprehensive management plan could also include avoidance
measures to ensure that serious or irreversible harm to VMEs does not occur.
Some damage to VMEs is acceptable as long as overall serious or irreversible harm tostructure and function is avoided. If a strategy chooses not to afford complete protection toall VMEs in an area, this decision should include an impact assessment to demonstrate that
serious or irreversible harm is avoided and that VMEs are not impacted more than 20% of
their unimpacted levels. In cases where the historical distribution of VMEs is known and it
can be expected that damaged areas could recover, these should be included in thecalculation of “unimpacted level”.
In cases where a comprehensive management plan is in place but the VME is below the
80% recovery criterion, the plan should first allow the VME to recover to at least 80% before
fishing continues. In other words, the only allowance for continued fishing by MSC UoAs on
a VME is (a) if there is a comprehensive plan that shows that all fishing will keep the VME at
80% or recover it to 80% and (b) when the VME has recovered or is above 80%.
A comprehensive, formal impact assessment may not be necessary in all cases (e.g., whenbenthic gear are prohibited but pelagic gear are permitted because the risk to benthic
habitats is very negligible). Refer to Table GSA8 for an example of a strategy for a pelagic
UoA.

GSA3.14.2.2 ▲In the absence of a comprehensive management plan that takes all fishing activities into
account, MSC UoAs cannot necessarily assume that their impacts, while unlikely to cause
serious and irreversible harm on their own (and therefore potentially meeting the SG80 level
under the outcome PI 2.4.1), will not contribute to a cumulative impact that is serious andirreversible to VMEs.
Therefore, the MSC will expect these MSC UoAs to take appropriate action within
measures/strategies to avoid impacting VMEs. Given the complexity of undertaking an
impact assessment on VMEs, the MSC expects that most UoAs will choose to apply thesimpler approach of avoiding VMEs.
The partial strategy should include a mechanism by which to consider a habitat that might be
a VME (i.e., designated as a “potential VME” by another MSC UoA or a management
authority). Since the characteristics of a VME are not directly physical features but relate to anumber of different elements (GSA3.13.3.2) as well as recoverability, a VME is often difficult
to determine. Therefore, a management system should be open to the possibility that
habitats that contain high densities of VME-indicator organisms may or may not be VMEs,
and a habitat’s VME status will need to be determined by subsequent research. However,
the appropriate precautionary approach is to treat these areas as potential VMEs and to
implement precautionary measures to protect them ahead of confirmatory evidence, as
outlined in the FAO Guidelines paragraphs 63-67.
A common precautionary response to the presence of VMEs is to develop avoidance
measures (e.g., move-on rules) with the intention that the UoA is able to avoid any further
encounter with VMEs or potential VMEs. This response ensures that serious and irreversible
harm is avoided.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 89© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

The minimal VME damage that occurs when a move-on rule is triggered does not constituteserious or irreversible harm even when a VME habitat is below 80% of its unimpacted level.
Reviews of move-on rules (e.g., ICES, 201019; Rogers and Gianni, 201020; Weaver et al.,201121) have detected the following frequent problems:•

There is limited or no scientific basis on whether the thresholds used for move-on rules
are indicative of VMEs and often they are not specific to different gears, species, or
habitat and do not identify an effective move-on distance.

•

In cases where the move-on distance is small, the effect may simply be to increase
damage to VMEs.

•

The materials necessary to help observers and fishers identify and quantify VME taxa
are inadequate and/or not standardised.

•

Good information collection, including vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic
identification systems (AIS), and full observer coverage is often needed to apply the
move-on rules correctly.

In acknowledgement of this, SA3.14.2.2 requires that at the SG80 level, the move-on rules
be scientifically based and specific to the gear and VME. Therefore, at the SG80 level, somejustification for the use of a specific move-on rule is expected, whereas at the SG60 level, acommonly accepted, default rule could be used.
The lifting of a closure implemented using a move-on rule should be based on a high level ofscientific evidence to identify conservation and management measures that prevent
significant adverse impacts to VMEs. Note that because a comprehensive impact
assessment has not been done at this level of performance, effectively all VMEs andpotential VMEs should be afforded some level of precautionary protection.
A partial strategy for a UoA using a pelagic gear or a low-impacting bottom gear (e.g., a gearfootprint score of 1 in Table PF16) may not need to include requirements andimplementations (as per SA3.14.2.2). The team should provide rationale in those cases. The
team may find it useful to refer to the pelagic examples in Table GSA8.

GSA3.14.2.3 ▲At the SG60 level, commonly accepted move-on rules can be used as “Measures”. Thesemay be rules that are used for the same gear in other situations or in other areas of theworld but that have not been specifically designed for the UoA’s gear and/or encountered
VMEs.

19 ICES, 2010.

Report of the ICES/NAFO joint working group on deep‐water ecology (WGDEC), 22–26 March
2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:26, 160 pp.
20 Rogers, A.D. and Gianni, M., 2010. The implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the
management of deep-sea fisheries on the high seas. Report prepared for the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition,
International Programme on the State of the Ocean, London, United Kingdom, 97 pp.
21 Weaver, P.P.E., Benn, A., Arana, P.M., Ardron, J.A., Bailey, D.M., Baker, K., Billett, D.S.M., Clark, M.R.,
Davies, A.J., Durán Muñoz, P., Fuller, S.D., Gianni, M., Grehan, A.J., Guinotte, J., Kenny, A., Koslow, J.A.,
Morato, T., Penney, A.J., Perez, J.A.A., Priede, I.G., Rogers, A.D., Santos, R.S., and Watling, L, 2011. The
impact of deep-sea fisheries and implementation of the UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72. Report of aninternational scientific workshop, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, 45 pp.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 90© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSA8: Potential measures, partial strategies, and strategies in relation to habitat
impacts

Examples of potential measures, partial strategies, and strategies in relation tohabitat impacts (modified from Grieve et al., 201122)

Cod UoA using fixed gear (e.g.,gillnets) in inshore zones andmobile gear (e.g., otter trawl) in
offshore zones – There are someclosed areas and closed seasonsfor specific gears in either or boththe inshore and offshore zones,
though these are primarily stockand bycatch management
measures. Some habitat
protection is afforded by thesemanagement arrangements.
Monitoring and information
gathering efforts are directed at
species management
arrangements.

✓

Strategy

Partialstrategy

Rationale

Measures

General UoA description

The management arrangements inplace are designed to manage
impacts on other components
under the assessment tree (e.g.,
P1 and P2 species). They indirectly
contribute to management of
habitats because of closed inshore
areas to mobile gears, seasonal
closures in the offshore
environment, and distribution of
relevant habitats extends wellbeyond known fishing areas (i.e.,
the areas of fishing activity). The
arrangements might be considered
cohesive, but there is no evidenceof efforts to investigate themthrough the lens of habitat
management in order tounderstand how they work toachieve desirable habitat outcomes(i.e., how they avoid posing risk ofserious or irreversible harm torelevant habitats).

22 Grieve, C., Brady, D.C. and Polet, H., 2011.

Best practices for managing, measuring, and mitigating thebenthic impacts of fishing: final report to the Marine Stewardship Council. Unpublished work.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 91© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Multi-species trawl UoA in inshore
tropical waters – Trawling isbanned in inshore waters during
the seasonal monsoon to protect
juvenile and spawning habitat forfish and invertebrate species.

✓

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
occurring or to understand how themeasure works to achieve habitat
protection; nor are there any othermeasures, plans, or statutes thatwould determine how managers
would change the seasonal closure
if it ceased to be effective from a
habitat perspective.

Groundfish trawl UoA in offshore
zones with explicit links to otherspecies/multi-gear management
plans – Some closed areas within
the groundfish UoA prohibit use ofany bottom-contacting fishinggear. Non-UoA (i.e., environmental
protection-led) regulations
designate two habitat areas ofconcern, which are also closed tobottom-contacting fishing gear.
Vessel monitoring systems andother enforcement efforts aim toensure no violation of closed orprotected areas. Information
gathering seeks to monitor theprotected zones, and fishing
impacts are considered insubsequent analyses.
Arrangements about the use orotherwise of bottom-contacting
gear have changed according toshifting distributions of benthic
species of interest to the other
UoAs.

✓

There is a clear multi-species
management approach with thelinking of species/gear
management plans. The closed
areas indirectly contribute 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 forbroader conservation purposes,
serve to protect habitats ofconcern. The arrangements could
be considered cohesive,
particularly as there is evidence ofstrict enforcement of the protection
zones and closed areas, coupledwith high sanctions imposed forviolators. Similarly, there are someefforts to understand how bottomcontacting gear might impact otherbenthic biota, but these are aimed
at interests other than those in the
UoA. The closed areas andprotection zones were notdesigned specifically to manage
habitats in relation to thegroundfish UoA, nor are there
specific mechanisms describedthat would enable managers toappropriately modify fishingpractices if unacceptable impacts
to habitats were identified.

Co-managed and communitybased managed tropical UoAs
using multiple gears on a diverse
range of habitats – Under a broad✓

There is science-based rationale
for protecting the habitats asspawning, larval, or juvenile areas
for the sustainability of fish species.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 92© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

marine management area, which
was not specifically designed to
manage fishing but generalcommunity uses of the marine
environment, protection is afforded
to a mosaic or patchwork ofseagrass, mangrove, and coral
reef habitats where bottomcontacting gear use is restricted orbanned altogether. The culturalcontext and scale of the various
UoAs lend themselves to thecommunity-based management
approach.

Midwater trawl UoA on continental
slope where some seamounts areencountered and rare bottomcontact is made – In
acknowledgement that thesefeatures can be considered VMEs,
some seamounts are afforded
strict protection from any bottomcontacting gears, including
midwater trawl gear, and there is acomplete ban on the use ofbottom/otter trawl gear on all
seamounts. This gear restriction
constitutes the key part of the UoA
management strategy.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

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 not
explicitly designed to manage
fishing impacts on habitats, there isa functioning management
framework (although not strictly
speaking “regulatory”) thatsuggests UoAs in the area do notcause serious or irreversible harm
to habitats. 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.
✓

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 gears.
However, while the strategy isdesigned to avoid serious or
irreversible harm to these VMEs, it
can only be considered a partial
strategy as it relies upon thegenerally accepted rarity of bottom
contact by midwater trawls andother gears rather than an explicit
means of understanding theeffectiveness of the management
approach in ensuring that serious
and irreversible harm is not

page 93© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

happening to seamounts or themechanism that might need to bein place if it ceases to be effective.
Demersal trawl UoA in inshore andoffshore areas – Overarching
management framework takes anecosystem-based fisheries
management approach involving
impact assessments for
management plans (including
impacts on habitats), spatial
controls like closures to protect
essential fish habitat, effort
reduction rules, and buyout/leaseback arrangements incentivising
the use of less bottom-contacting
gear to catch fish quotas.

✓

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 carriedout and have determined that all
fishing activity will not cause
serious or irreversible harm tohabitats, including VMEs. There is
active management seeking to
reduce the impact of the UoA on
both essential fish habitat andother habitats that were rated
higher risk from an ecosystemmanagement perspective, including
VMEs. The management plan has
clearly articulated objectives
relating to the Habitats component
and sets out how management will
be modified if undesirable impacts
are detected. Monitoring andevaluation are enshrined within the
management plan and are directed
at understanding fishing impacts onhabitats, as well as the usual
species-related monitoring andevaluation. Explicit strategies aim
to manage the cumulative impactsof fishing, by the UoA, other MSC
UoAs, and non-MSC fisheries, on“main” habitats so as to avoid
serious or irreversible harm.

Multiple UoAs targeting mixedspecies complexes using multiple
gears (bottom- and non-bottomcontacting gears, including handrakes, dredges, trawl gear,
gillnets, and trap and line
methods) in inshore and offshore
environments ranging from cooltemperate waters to warm tropicalseas – A bioregional marine
planning framework uses anecosystem-based fisheries
management approach involving
ecological risk assessments andrisk management planning for fish.
Precautionary management
approach to risks identified for✓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

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 94© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

habitats includes closed areas fora variety of gears (that may
change from year to year) and asystem of marine protected areas,
offering more permanent
protection from any bottomcontacting gears. Habitat mappingand strategic research planningand execution are progressively
closing the information gaps on
the impacts of fishing on habitats,as well as the relative health of
relevant habitats. Results areroutinely used to inform fishery
management decisions.
Pelagic longline UoA targeting
migratory pelagic species – Thereis little or no known bottom-contact
by the gear, except perhaps incases of gear loss. The species
targeted cannot be caught using
trawl or other bottom-contacting
gear.

these have been implemented tomodify fishing impacts on relevant
habitats. As this is one of the mostcomprehensive and cohesive
management approaches, “main”
habitats, including VMEs, andcumulative impacts are explicitly
considered by managers in the risk
assessment and management
process, the research strategy, andthe management decision-making
processes.

✓

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 about how the useof 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 undertaken to informmanagement decision makers
about lost-gear impacts to ensurethat management strategies areworking and are demonstrably
avoiding serious or irreversible
harm to “main” habitats and to
determine whether changes need
to be made to mitigate
unacceptable impacts.

GSA3.14.3 ▲If there is no impact on a VME (i.e., either by the UoA, another MSC UoA, or a non-MSC
fishery, where relevant – see SA3.14.3.2 and the associated guidance), scoring issue (d) is
not scored.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 95© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA3.14.3.2 ▲An MSC UoA needs to have some way of assessing whether the actions of all MSC UoAs
and other non-MSC fisheries, where relevant, are applicable to it avoiding impacts on VMEs.
For instance, a “precautionary VME closure” might be declared by a trawl UoA on triggeringa move-on rule, and MSC UoAs impacting in that closure area would be required to respect
this closure under the requirements of the management PI 2.4.2. However, other measures,such as changing to a semi-pelagic gear, may not be relevant or appropriate for other MSC
UoAs.
When an MSC UoA/non-MSC fishery closes an area for reasons other than VME
conservation (e.g., for operational reasons to gain a market advantage), other MSC UoAs
need not abide by such a closure.

GSA3.14.4 ▲For scoring issue (d), the team should be able to demonstrate that, where appropriate, area
protection is respected; that move-on rules are applied appropriately; and that informationfrom all MSC UoAs and non-MSC fisheries, where this information is available and relevant,on likely areas of VMEs is being handled correctly by the UoA.
In addition to VMS and AIS, electronic monitoring might include data taken from chartplotters, mobile phone signal triangulation, on-deck CCTV, and net-mounted camera
systems as long as these can be externally verified.
“Qualitative evidence” should include results from non-verified surveys and/or stakeholderinterviews to confirm that management requirements (including move-on rules) are applied
effectively. The expectation at the SG60 level is that the UoA avoids all areas closed by its
management entity and those closed by the UoA’s own move-on rules.
“Some quantitative evidence” at the SG80 level should include verified electronic data orsome other method of external verification (e.g., observer coverage, inspections) consistent
with the scale and intensity of the UoA to confirm that management requirements are applied
effectively.
“Clear quantitative evidence” at the SG100 level should include verified electronic data andsome other method of external verification consistent with the scale and intensity of the UoA
to confirm that management requirements are applied effectively. The expectation at the
SG80 and SG100 levels is that the UoA additionally respects the areas closed by all MSC
UoAs and non-MSC fisheries to ensure the cumulative protection of VMEs.
Observer programmes and inspection programmes may be used depending on the scale
and intensity of the UoA. That is, for a small-scale developing-world UoA operating gear witha likely small impact on VMEs, it may be acceptable to use chart plot information supported
by occasional inspections, whereas for a large-scale industrial UoA operating gear with alikely large impact on VMEs, it would normally be necessary at the SG80 level to operate
VMS or AIS systems together with significant observer coverage.

GSA3.15

Habitats information PI (PI 2.4.3) ▲Assessing informal approaches against PI 2.4.3
Teams should consider whether qualitative and/or quantitative information is available tounderstand the distribution of habitat and the impact of the UoA on habitat. The assessment

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 96© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

should factor in the likelihood of changes within the UoA that could potentially lead to anincrease in the risk of impact from fishing activity over time.
Teams should further consider whether information is collected to detect these changes toensure that the UoA is moving in the desired direction or operating at a low-risk level.
Information may be from local knowledge or research from fishers or community members. It
may be place-based (i.e., local to a particular geographical area) and may have social,economic, or ecological dimensions. It will reflect the knowledge and opinions about issues
held by individuals and groups local to the UoA. Local knowledge can be valuable first-handexperience 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, and scale and intensity of the UoA. Depending on the scale of the UoA, thisinformation could be collected through informal stakeholder processes or a less subjective
review process.

Guidance on scoring issue (c) – Monitoring ▲When scoring issue (c) at the SG80 level, the team should consider all potential increases inrisk, such as changes in the scoring of the outcome PI, in the operation of the UoA, or in theeffectiveness of the measures.

GSA3.15.2 ▲See guidance GSA3.13.3.1 and GSA3.13.3.2.

GSA3.15.3 ▲If the CSA is used to score the outcome PI for any scoring element, the team is required toevaluate scoring issues (a) and (b) using the RBF alternative at the SG60 and SG80 levels
for that scoring element.

GSA3.16

Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.5.1) ▲Background
The Ecosystem component considers the broad ecological community and ecosystem inwhich the fishery operates. The Ecosystem component does not repeat the statusassessment of the other components individually but rather considers the wider system
structure and function – although if all these components scored highly it might be expectedthat the Ecosystem component would also score highly. The Ecosystem component
addresses system-wide issues, primarily impacted indirectly by the fishery, including
ecosystem structure, trophic relationships and biodiversity.

GSA3.16.2
PI 2.5.1 requires that “the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key
elements of ecosystem structure and function.” Please refer to Table SA8 and Table GSA2
for more details on such harm. Assessments of the risks of “serious or irreversible harm” tothe ecosystem in PI 2.5.1 may be made in reference to the maximum levels of impacts
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 97© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

allowed under SA2.2.13.b. While P1 scores the setting of TRPs and the theoretical evidence
that they will achieve the allowed impact levels, PI 2.5.1 scores the evidence that such levels
are being achieved in practice.
Serious or irreversible harm in relation to the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver ecosystemservices could include:•

Trophic cascade (i.e., significantly increased abundance, and especially decreased
diversity, of species low in the food web) caused by depletion of predators and especially‘keystone’ predators;•

Depletion of top predators and trophic cascade through lower trophic levels caused bydepletion of key prey species in ‘wasp-waist’ food webs;•

Severely truncated size composition of the ecological community (e.g., greatly elevatedintercept and steepened gradient in the community size spectrum) to the extent thatrecovery would be very slow due to the increased predation of intermediate-sized
predators;•

Gross changes in the species diversity of the ecological community (e.g., loss of species,
major changes in species evenness and dominance) caused by direct or indirect effectsof fishing (e.g., discarding which provides food for scavenging species);•

Change in genetic diversity of species caused by selective fishing and resulting in
genetically determined change in demographic parameters (e.g., growth, reproductive
output).

Relatively few fisheries would have the information needed to address ecosystem issues
quantitatively, and usually they will be assessed using surrogates, analogy, generalobservations, qualitative assessment and expert judgement. Harm to ecosystem structure isnormally inferred from impacts on populations, species and functional groups, which canoften be measured directly. Harm to ecosystem functions is normally inferred from impacts
on ecosystem processes and properties such as trophic relationships, community resilience
etc. and often have to be inferred from conceptual or analytical models or analyses.

GSA3.17

Ecosystem management strategy PI (PI 2.5.2) ▲Refer to Table SA7 and Table GSA2 for more details on ‘measures’

GSA3.18

Ecosystem information / monitoring PI (PI 2.5.3)

GSA3.18.1 ▲Key ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey,
predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g., upwelling or
spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity.

GSA3.19

References

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP).2013. Report of the Fifth
Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group, La Rochelle, France, 1-3 May 2013. ACAP
AC7 Doc 14 Rev 1.Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 98© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01(ACAP).2013. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group, La
Rochelle, France, 1-3 May 2013. ACAP AC7 Doc 14 Rev 1.
Beamish, F.W.H. 1966. Muscular fatigue and mortality in haddock Melanogrammus
aeglefinus, caught by otter trawl. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23(10):1507-1521.
Bravington, M., Burridge, C, and Toscas, P. 2003. Design of observer programme to monitor
bycatch species in eastern tuna and billfish fishery. 16th Meeting of the Standing Committee
on Tuna and Billfish, 9-16 July 2003. SCTB15 Working Paper SWG-7.
Benoit, H.P., Plante, S., Kroiz, M. and Hurlbut, T. 2013. A comparative analysis of marine
fish species susceptibilities to discard mortality: effects of environmental factors, individual
traits and phylogeny. ICES J of Marine Sci 70(1): 99-113
FAO.1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO.
FAO.2011. International Guidelines on bycatch management and reduction of discards.
Rome: FAO.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Guidance related to bycatch and discards in
Canadian commercial fisheries. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/022.
Guion, L.A., Diehl, D.C, and McDonald, D. 2011. Triangulation: establishing validity ofqualitative studies. University of Florida IFAS Extension, Document FS6014.
IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Lawson, T. 2006. Scientific aspects of observer programmes for tuna fisheries in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC Scientific Committee Second Regular Session,
7-18 August 2006, Manila, Philippines. WCPFC-SC2-2006/ST WP-1.
Neilson, J. D., Busawon, D. S., Andrushchenko, I. V., Campana, S. E., Carruthers, E. H.,
Harris, L. E., and Stokesbury, M. 2011. A review of approaches to assess survival of
released catch from Canadian large pelagic longline fisheries. DFO. Can.Sci.Advis.Sec.Res.
Doc.2011/091.
Richards, L.J., Fargo, J., and Schnute, J.T. 2011. Factors influencing bycatch mortality of
trawl-caught Pacific halibut. NA Journ of Fisheries Mgt 15(2): 266-276
Sant, G., Goodman, G., Crook, V., Lack, M., and Oldfield,T.E.E. 2012. Fish and Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs): developing a method to identify high risk commerciallyexploited aquatic organisms in trade and an analysis of the potential application of MEAs.
JNCC Report No. 453. Peterborough: JNCC.
Suuronen, P. 2005. Mortality of fish escaping trawl gears. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
478. Rome, FAO.
Wolfaardt, A. 2011. Data collection requirements for RFMOs to improve knowledge of fishery
impacts on ACAP-listed species. Fourth meeting of ACAP’s Seabird Bycatch Working
Group. Doc 26. Guayaquil, Ecuador, 22-24 August, 2011.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 99© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA4 Principle 3
GSA4.1 General requirements for Principle 3 ▲Background
The intent of Principle 3 (P3) is to ensure that there is an institutional and operationalframework appropriate to the size and scale of the UoA for implementing Principles 1 and 2,
and that this framework is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with theoutcomes articulated in these Principles. The P3 default tree structure divides the PIs into
two components as shown in Figure SA3 and summarised below.
Table GSA9: P3 PI component descriptions
Component

PIs

Focus

Description‘Governance andPolicy’

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3

Captures the broad,high-level context ofthe fishery
management system
within which the UoA
is found.

Performance elements within thiscomponent include:
•

•
•

•

‘Fishery SpecificManagement System’

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4

Focuses the team on
the management
system directly applied
to the fishery. The
focus should be on the
management systemof the fishery, which
for some fisheries will
include both national
and international
components.

The overarching legal and/or
customary framework for the
UoA, which may include
fisheries that are subject tointernational cooperation for
management of the stock, orother fisheries under the same
management framework.
the consultation processes andpolicies;
the articulation of the roles andresponsibilities of people andorganisations within theoverarching management
system;other overarching policies
supporting fisheries
management.

PIs under this component consider:
•

•
•
•

the fishery-specific management
objectives (i.e., fishery
management objectives for thefishery, specifically);
the decision-making processes
in the relevant fishery;
the fishery’s compliance andenforcement system andimplementation;
evaluation of the performance ofthe fishery’s management
system.

A MSC UoA might include only a sub-set of fishers (vessels, fleet operators, and individual
fishermen) within a wider fleet of fishers fishing for the same biologically distinct stock, using
the same method, under the same or similar management system or arrangements.
However, teams should note that it is the management of the wider fleet which denotes the
specific “fishery” that is the subject of assessment under the fishery-specific management
system PIs. Special or additional management arrangements or features unique to theDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 100© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

vessels in the UoA may be considered and reflected in the scores under the fishery-specificmanagement system PIs.
Example:In some Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), compliance can be
the responsibility of a Compliance Committee, and sanctions can be brought by the
RFMO itself (e.g., through loss of access to resources, such as when a Member’s vessel
is identified as IUU, or loss of access by a Member itself) through its negotiation process,or by the Flag State of the vessel having the violation. If a violation is not in any way
under the control of the national management authority of the fishery (e.g., if the fisheryconsists of vessels registered with flag state X, and the non-compliance is by vessels
registered with flag state Y), its internal compliance should not be part of the assessment(i.e., in the previous example the fishery consisting of vessels from flag state X should
not be held responsible for the non-compliance of flag state Y vessels). However, theeffectiveness of actions at the national level (i.e., the compliance of flag state X vessels)
and the RFMO level (the overall effectiveness of compliance to deliver sustainableoutcomes) should be considered.

GSA4.1.1 Assessment of multi-level management systems ▲In order to effectively assess multi-level the management systems against Principle 3, theassessment team should determine which biological and/or jurisdictional levels apply to the
management system of this UoA. These levels of management should then be considered
for all PIs within the relevant P3 component.
Table GSA10: 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 the jurisdiction 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 fish stocks, stocks ofhighly migratory fish species anddiscrete high seas fish stocks

Are exploited by two or more States, international law
becomes relevant.
These multi-level management systems may have a variety
of jurisdictional arrangements that might apply to that UoA
and are therefore required to be considered by theassessment team.

GSA4.1.3 ▲Under international law, as set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
and related instruments, the States concerned, including the relevant coastal States in thecase of shared stocks, straddling stocks, and highly migratory species, are required tocooperate to ensure effective conservation and management of the resources.
The relevant instruments that set out these requirements are:Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 101© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982;•

United Nations Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995 (UNFSA);•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/RFMA or if an
RFMO/RFMA does not exist. These requirements should also apply to UoAs in the highseas even if the target species are not HMS or shared or straddling stocks and are notformally covered by the UNFSA requirements. The requirement is further elaborated inSA4.3.1–SA4.3.4.
The intent is to limit the extent of responsibility of the UoA for the actions of non-UoAmanagement bodies, unless they impact directly on the delivery of P1 and P2 outcomes.

GSA4.1.4 Traditionally managed ▲A key characteristic of management mechanisms and measures in traditionally managed or
self-governing 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 otherparticipatory tools to collect information. The information in the sample should be
representative of the reality of the UoA.
Multiple stakeholder participatory approaches can be used to cross check opinions andviews from different segments of the stakeholder community.
Both of the above could be used by the CAB to support the rationale and validate theconclusions provided for the scores as required in clauses under SA4.3.

GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1) ▲Background
Understanding what is meant by the legal and/or customary framework is key to determining
if fisheries management occurs within a framework that both respects relevant laws and iscompatible with relevant instruments of international law capable of delivering sustainablefisheries in accordance with P1 and P2.
A 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 the formal
and informal practices;•

Procedures and instruments that control or have an impact on a UoA. This includes
policies and practices of both government and private sectors, including (but not limitedto):• Implementing agencies (e.g., fisheries agencies, conservation agencies);

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 102© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01• Fishery business groups (e.g., catch sector cooperatives, industry
associations);• Fishing vessel owners;• Indigenous groups;• Local civil society or community groups.
•

The government sector, including all applicable government systems, the courts and therelevant parliamentary and regulatory bodies. The management system is the complex
interaction of government legislation, or industry or customary practice, but is not limited
to all such elements, controls and practices that are used in a UoA and result in “hard”(law) or “soft” (accepted practice) controls over actual on-water catching practices.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
In all scoring issues in this PI, for management systems which are less clearly articulated,such as informal and traditional management systems, evidence of the extent to which thisscoring issue is met could be through:•Accepted norms;•

Commonly held values;•

Beliefs and/or•

Agreed rules across the fishing communities of which the UoA is part.

Scoring issue (a) – Compatibility of laws or standards with effective
management ▲The first scoring issue for this PI relates to the presence or absence of an appropriate andeffective legal system, including at the international level a legal and/or customary
framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with P1 and P2.
To score this part of the PI, assessment teams should focus on the existence of a national
and/or international framework itself and if it is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries,
including through management cooperation where required.
This may be determined by examining:•

The presence or absence of the essential features of an appropriate and effective
structure within which management takes place;•

If those features are hard or soft;•

If the framework has a focus on long term management rather the short term;•

How it manages risk and uncertainty;•

If 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 relevanceto achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with P1 and P2 appropriate to the size andscale 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;

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 103© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

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 and•How they catch, sanction or penalise wrongdoers.

With these features, the operational framework could be said to be compatible with local,
national or international laws or standards.

Scoring issue (b) – Resolution of disputes ▲Issues and disputes involving allocation of quota and access to marine resources areoutside the scope of an assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard.
When there are no immediately obvious structures for dispute resolution, participatory
techniques could be used 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, assessment teams should include participants
and/or interviewees from 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 nontextual means to help explain or demonstrate the process for resolving conflicts in the UoA.
The level of transparency and effectiveness of the systems can be determined by:•Information on the proportion of stakeholders that are aware of the existence of any
dispute resolution arrangements;•

The 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.

Evidence of consistency with this requirement can be determined by using field observations
and structured interviews with fishers and fishing community leaders to ascertain thefollowing:•

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 is supportive of such establishedrights.

GSA4.3.2.3 Cooperation ▲With respect to UNFSA Article 10, the requirement under SG60 (SA4.3.2) extends to thegeneration of scientific advice, not its implementation (Article 10 paragraphs d, e, f, g). A
framework for cooperation with other parties could include for example the ability for parties
to coordinate scientific advice to respective management agencies. At SG60 it is expectedthat the flag state(s) of vessels from the UoA will be participating with a relevant RFMO atleast as a cooperating non-contracting party or cooperating non-member.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 104© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSA4.3.3.2 ▲At SG80, organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article
10 paragraphs a, h and j, and could include for example the establishment of appropriate
cooperative mechanisms for effective monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement.
Also at SG80 and SG100 the flag state(s) of vessels from the UoA should be participatingwith a relevant RFMO or other arrangement as Members or, if Membership is prohibited forpolitical reasons, as cooperating non-contracting party or cooperating non-member.

GSA4.3.4 ▲At SG100, binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties could include forexample the agreement and compliance with conservation and management measures, toensure the long-term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

GSA4.3.5.1 ▲These practices or procedures could be formalised under rule of law, or be informal but
known through traditional or customary means.

GSA4.3.6 ▲Decisions of legislatures (through statutes or national treaties relating to aboriginal orindigenous people), or courts will establish if rights have been conferred upon any particulargroup or individual. The main consideration in relation to performance against scoring issue(c) is whether a suitable framework exists or does not exist to address the legal rights
created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or
livelihood, not on the effectiveness or results (e.g., allocation of access) of such aframework.

GSA4.4 Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI (PI 3.1.2) ▲Background
Assessment teams may include consideration of the roles and responsibilities of the fishers
in relation to their cooperation with the collection of relevant information and data (e.g.,catch, discard, and other information of importance to the effective management of theresources and the UoA), where relevant and/or necessary, in scoring this PI.

Scoring Issue (a) – Roles and responsibilities: Assessing informal andtraditional approaches ▲In some traditionally managed UoAs or UoAs under self-governance, specific roles andresponsibilities may not always be clearly articulated or immediately apparent. This does notmean that different institutions or organisations do not undertake specific and agreed roles.
A range of entities, ad-hoc committees and other groups with a variety of labels includingNGOs may have responsibility for different fishery management roles. The arrangements
may not be formally codified but may be widely understood across the UoA.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 105© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

To verify the extent to which roles and responsibilities are defined across the management
system, CABs may need to work with stakeholders to prepare simple governance,
institutional or system maps.
The maps can provide a visual representation of the different groups and organisations
involved in the UoA, how they function, which aspects of the management process they are
responsible for, and how they relate to one another.

Scoring issue (b) – Consultation processes ▲The main point of scoring issue (b) is that the management system is open to stakeholders
and that any information that is viewed as important by those parties can be fed into and beconsidered by the process in a way that is transparent to the interested stakeholders.

GSA4.4.1 Transparency ▲SG80 and SG100 under scoring issue (b) introduce the added elements of demonstratingthat whatever information is gathered, it is considered and that there is transparency about
its use or lack of use.
SG100’s demonstration may not necessarily be 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 etechnologies);•

If dealing with stakeholders who don’t have access or ability to read reports, watch
broadcasts or use computers there may be report back meetings or other such means toreport what happened.

Teams will need to be satisfied that what evidence is offered does meet the standard ofdemonstrating consideration of the information (i.e., being transparent) and also explains
how the information was or was not used. A UoA cannot score 100 without being transparent
on how information provided is or is not used.

GSA4.4.3 – GSA4.4.4 Effectiveness ▲Evaluation of effectiveness of consultation processes might consider the general absence of
discrimination against any individuals and/or organisations from any known consultations aspart of the measure of performance against this scoring issue. However, any suchconclusions need to be supported by valid information collected by rigorous and robustmeans.
Effective consultation processes within the management system must be appropriate to thescale, intensity and cultural context of the UoA. For example, but importantly not confined to,
consultation at the level of broad policy development and at the level of research planning.
Affected parties, depending on the context, may include but are not limited to individuals,
mandated representatives, and/or participants in the UoA.
In multinational arrangements there should be adequate consultation at the UoAs’ national
and international level. Thus the management authority dealing with the UoA directly (e.g.,
the coastal State or the Flag State) and the international organisation, where such exists,
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 106© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

should be assessed for consultation requirements. It is a not a requirement that elements
are scored against this PI for other non-UoA States which are members of the internationalorganisation, or members of a bilateral/multilateral arrangement.
Assessing informal and traditional approaches
In the absence of a documented consultation procedure, evidence to verify the extent andtransparency of consultation processes can be demonstrated by alternative means.
This can include identifying the existence, content and relative frequency of invitation lettersto meetings. It can also include a consideration of activities of UoAs’ extension officers, howwell local announcements are used, the use of posters, and the extent of awareness offishers about meeting agendas, meeting content and outcomes.
CABs may need to interview fishers about selected case studies to determine how
information collected from stakeholders has been used in the past.
Information from such interviews may be considered representative of how the informationcollected from stakeholders is generally used, providing the CABs demonstrate that valid
and rigorous methods were used. Conducting interviews with different stakeholder and crosschecking the information is one way of validating the results.

GSA4.4.5 Local knowledge ▲Local knowledge may be long-term knowledge held by many fishers or the community. It
might be location-based (i.e., local to a particular geographical area), and may have social,economic or ecological dimensions. It will reflect the knowledge and opinions about issues
held by individuals and groups local to relevant UoAs. Local knowledge can be valuable firsthand experience that might inform any fisheries management process, including fisheries
research, data collection and resource assessment, monitoring, control and surveillance
operations, policies and processes, and 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 isconsidered 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 like
local NGOs, local fishing businesses and/or their representatives, local government
representatives or politicians.

GSA4.5 Long term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3) ▲BackgroundThe emphasis of this PI is on the presence or absence of long term objectives at the broader
management level, i.e., the objectives of the management agency for all UoAs under its
control. Where UoAs fall under dual control (e.g., internationally managed UoAs wheremanagement falls to both a national agency and a bilateral/multilateral agreement ororganisation, or federally managed UoAs which have some provincial or state management
component), the subject of PI 3.1.3 should be the wider organisation.
This PI deals only with the broader management policy context – perhaps within overarchinglegislation, or perhaps policy or custom that applies to many or all UoAs within a broader
management system. Consideration should focus on whether laws, policies, practices orDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 107© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

customs at that higher level imply and/or require long term objectives that are consistent withthe precautionary approach.

Scoring issue (a) – Objectives assessing informal approaches in PI 3.1.3 ▲Within the scoring issue in this PI, the CAB could infer consistency with requirements inscoring issue (a) by the practices operating within the UoAs covered by the management
system.
The CAB could use the following to evaluate how the UoA is considered to perform 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 and•

The application of the precautionary approach.

The CAB should consider if decisions have been taken on the basis of the ecological healthof the UoA and associated ecosystems, or for other reasons that are not compatible withachieving sustainability over the long term.
Scoring should focus on the consistency of any long-term objectives within overarching
management policy with the notions of being cautious when information is uncertain, andtaking action even when information is inadequate.
The definition of the precautionary approach given in the MSC-MSCI vocabulary was derived
from Article 6, UN Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS of 10
December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks andhighly migratory fish stocks; also known as the “Fish Stocks Agreement”.
This PI forms an important part of the overall understanding of the use or otherwise of aprecautionary approach in the UoA but is not concerned with the operational implementationof 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 or otherwise of target and limit
reference points which are scored under P1 of the default tree, nor to point teams towards
Article 6, Annex II of the Fish Stocks Agreement for a prescriptive list of what must appear inmanagement policy in relation to the precautionary approach. It is also not a direction to rescore management strategies or outcomes covered both in P1 and P2, or decision-making
processes covered in a separate PI under P3 where precaution and the precautionary
approach are also mentioned.

GSA4.7 Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1) ▲Background
This PI deals only with the fishery-specific policy context, such as within national orprovincial/state or joint authority policy or custom, specifically applied to the fishery as set
out in GSA 4.1.

Scoring issue (a) – Objectives Assessing informal and traditional approaches▲
In some traditionally managed fisheries, or fisheries under self-governance, objectives may
not always be stated quantitatively or be expressed specific to the particular species or
fishery. Objectives may specify social and/or economic objectives. In some fisheries,

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 108© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

objectives may be defined in terms of addressing further declines, rather than specificallymaintaining optimum yields or biomass levels.
Compliance of the fishery with MSC requirements can be determined by how well thesevariously formulated objectives align with achieving sustainability as expressed by MSC
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 beconsidered as consistent with achieving sustainability, such objectives should not bedesigned to meet social needs at the expense of ecological considerations.
In evaluating such objectives for consistency with achieving outcomes in Principles 1 and 2,
the CAB needs to determine if the fishery is subject to considerations which may lead theemphasis on social or economic objectives to pose potential risks to achieving the outcomesrequired by Principles 1 and 2.

GSA4.7.2 ▲Example:An 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) ▲Background
The focus for this PI is on the decision-making processes themselves, and if they actually
produce measures and strategies within the fishery-specific management system. It is
not an evaluation of the quality of those measures and strategies as this is covered
elsewhere in the tree structure under P1 and P2. SG60, SG80 and SG100 refer to decisionmaking processes taking account of the wider implications of decisions. This means theprocesses take account of, for example, the consequences of decisions on management
objectives for target species on the ecosystem, and of the impacts on those who depend on
the fishery for their livelihoods.

Scoring issue (a) –Objectives Assessing informal and traditional approaches▲“Established” decision-making processes should be understood to mean that there is aprocess 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 the fishery. 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 theextent to which the system is recognised by stakeholders in the fishery and the durability or
permanency of the decision-making process.
CABs may need to use semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders to obtain
information about how any decision-making process works. This may involve selecting acase study event (e.g., stock decline in the past, a specific observation across the fishery orother ecological change) and determining from interviews if, and how decisions were madein response to the event. As with general requirements relating to the use of semi-structured

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 109© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

interviews, a means of cross checking views and validating CAB conclusions and scoresshould be evidenced.

Scoring issue (d) – Decision making process ▲Scoring issue (d) considers the importance of stakeholder access to fishery information anddata, and access to information on actions taken by management to ensure stakeholders areable to provide quality input into the decision-making processes.
Accountability should be understood in the general sense of the word, essentially thatmanagement is answerable to stakeholders on management of the fisheries, and that this isdemonstrated by the provision of information on the fishery to stakeholders.
The team could assess the extent to which transparency and accountability is embedded
within the management system by considering the extent and means by which management
provides account of, and information on, the fishery to stakeholders.
The data that are required to be available to stakeholders excludes data or information thatis subject to national privacy and data protection regulation and laws associated with thefishery.
When considering the public access to information on the fisheries’ performance and data,
the team could include consideration of:•

The extent to which accurate and up to date data available to management is reported tothe public or at least accessible on request to stakeholders.

•

The resolution at which data are available and ensuring that it is appropriate to thenature and type of the fishery and of sufficient clarity to ensure meaningful engagementof 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 be considered to have implications for sustainability.

•

Availability of information, or at least non-confidentiality of information, on who hasaccess (license holders) to the resource.

•

Availability of information on infractions against fishery regulation and consequentpenalties and/or fines.

•

Availability of information on outcomes and impact of management decision where suchinformation is available.

At the SG60 level, it should be expected that at least a general summary of information listedon SA4.8.5 on, subsidies, allocation, compliance and fisheries management decisions) isavailable to (fishery, government and non-government) stakeholders on request.
At the SG80 level, it should be expected that in addition to the information provided at the
SG60 level, information listed in SA4.8.6 decisions, data supporting decisions, and thereasons for decisions, are made available to all stakeholders on request.
At the SG100 level, it should be expected that the information listed in the SG60 and SG80
levels are available openly, publicly and regularly to all stakeholders.

Scoring Issue (e) Approach to disputes ▲Scoring issue (e) relates to the issue of approach to disputes through the presence orabsence of actual legal disputes.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 110© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

If a fisheries management agency is subject to court challenges, it is the record of repeatedviolation of the same law or regulation, the timely attempts to comply with binding judicial
decisions, or acting proactively to avoid legal disputes that are important in determining thelevel of performance against this part of the PI.
When assessing the importance of any evidence relating to this issue, the team should
consider if any violations of the same law or regulations compromise the ability of the
management system to deliver sustainable fisheries in accordance with the outcomesintended by P1 and P2.
Assessment of fisheries against this issue 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 responsiveness or otherwise of local managers or
leaders should be considered and scored.
Semi-structured interviews may be used by CABs to determine the extent to whichstakeholders believe that local ‘managers’/leaders respect or otherwise, any judgements or
decisions made by any higher or other authority.
The interviews can also be used to determine the extent to which:•Managers implement their own rules.

•

Stakeholders believe the management system is sufficiently proactive to avoid disputes.

CABs may consider collective, participative and publically accountable involvement inmanagement of the fishery by a broad spectrum of local stakeholders of the fishery as
potential evidence of the presence of proactive avoidance of legal disputes. Supporting
evidence may come from multiple and cross-checked, semi-structured interviews from a
range of stakeholders representing different interests within the community.

GSA4.9Compliance and Enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ▲Background
The MSC Fisheries Standard recognises, but does not require, continued improvement infisheries management beyond the MSC defined “best practice” standard. To meet the MSC
Fisheries Standard, there must be a monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) system inplace as evidence that fishers comply with the requirements of the management system andthere is no evidence of systematic non-compliance (PI 3.2.3).
This requirement extends to compliance with management measures associated with MPAs
and other spatial management approaches. Compliance is judged with respect to the formal
requirements of an MPA’s management system relating to fishing activity, including any
requirements for research and impact assessment, rather than with respect to an MPA’s
objectives, which are unsupported by specific PIs (see GSA3.14 for discussion of habitat
management strategies).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 111© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Box GSA9: Marine protected areas and other spatial management approaches

Considering marine protected areas and other spatial management approaches
Marine protected areas (MPAs) and other spatial management approaches arepotentially valuable management tools. In this context, the term “MPAs” refers to the fullrange of MPA categories defined by the IUCN23, from strict nature reserves to protectedareas with sustainable use of natural resources, and “other spatial management”
including requirements that are part of fishery management arrangements or plans.
While there is not an explicit requirement to have MPAs or other spatial management
approaches in place for fisheries to meet the MSC standard, MSC does require that theeffectiveness of the management system—to which an MPA or other approach may
contribute—is sufficient to achieve the sustainability of fish and other species andecosystem impacts. It should be noted that an MPA may or may not contribute to thedelivery of a sustainable fishery. (See GSA4.9 for discussion on MPAs and compliance.)

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
In all scoring issues in this PI, assessments may consider the likelihood of infractions in aparticular fishery as the basis for determining the suitability of the MCS system for thefishery.
Evaluation of effectiveness of MCS in fisheries where a less formalised MCS system exists
may consider the role and effectiveness of a range of factors in deterring illegal activity.
These factors may include the following:•

Social disapproval;•

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(e.g., preferences regarding size).

The extent to which fishery participants are subject to fines, penalties or other repercussions,or disincentives such as public “naming and shaming”, for violating fishery customs, rules orregulations important for sustainability may also be considered. These may include fines andpenalties imposed by community institutions or other local bodies.

Scoring issue (b) Sanctions ▲At SG80 and SG100 for scoring issue (b), in some fisheries management systems, or forparticular types of fisheries, it may be difficult to demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant
management measures, strategies and/or rules if violations are rare. However, an absenceof violations (or absence of a record of sanctions and penalties for violations) does notnecessarily indicate that compliance and enforcement are effective; it could mean that MCS
is in fact ineffective and what is happening is an absence of detection.

23 Dudley, N. (editor), 2008.

Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland,

Switzerland, IUCN.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 112© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Scoring issue (c) Compliance ▲In scoring issue (c), at SG60, SG80 and SG100, while assessing the existence andimplementation of MCS surveillance systems, efforts to inform fishers about their obligations
under the fishery-specific management system may be considered, but the assessment
should not be limited to this.

GSA4.10 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation PI (PI
3.2.4) ▲Background
This PI focuses on whether the management system has a process of monitoring andevaluating management performance, appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensityof the fishery, and relevant to fishery-specific management and supporting structures thatare able to effect change. This PI intends to evaluate if the management system itself isreviewed, not to re-assess the efficacy of the previous PIs.

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 (i.e., Compliance and Enforcement PI 3.2.3);•

Collaborating in and initiating a fishery-specific or national research plan;•

Responding to feedback and response, and•Monitoring systems as required by the Management Strategy and Information PIs in P1
and P2.

Assessing informal and traditional approaches
Assessments against this PI may consider whether there are opportunities and/or forums for
decision-makers to receive feedback on the management system. It should also consider
other practices such as exchange of information between the community and the
management institution. The regularity of such opportunities should be considered in scoring
fisheries against both scoring issues in this PI.
Where community organisations are operational, these monitoring systems can be selfdetermined, but do require the support of an external evaluation from a higher authority, andevidence that specific checks may be made. The external authority might include provincial
or national government agency, university, NGO or donor. Activities that should be verified
should ensure compliance with the following indicators: an effective organisational structure
to implement decisions and corrective actions; evidence that policies are formulated, initiatedand monitored, and where relevant take account of community and scientific advice, which
may include consideration of supporting risk assessments undertaken by a scientificorganisation or University; evidence of an effective system of custodial management andself-determined fisheries control systems.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 113© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

The process of review, should however, not be explicit to a sub-management or community
organisation. In the event 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, a review should also
include the higher authorities and their performance in ensuring management against
national and international measures, and that the correct tools are in place to ensure thatappropriate decisions at national level and passed down to the sub management andcommunity organisations.

GSA4.10.1

External review ▲At SG80 and 100, “external review” means external to the fisheries management system, but
not necessarily international. Depending on the scale and intensity of the fishery, it could beby:•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, and•External expert reviewers.

End of Annex GSA GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 114© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex GSB Modifications to the Default Tree forEnhanced Bivalve Fisheries – Guidance ▲Foreword to Annex GSB
Annex GSB is intended to provide supplemental guidance and interpretation when applying
the default assessment tree (Annexes SA, GSA) and the modifications to it (Annex SB) for
assessing enhanced bivalve fisheries. The numbering of sections in this Annex corresponds
to the equivalent sections in Annex SA.

GSB2 Principle 1
GSB2.1 General requirements for Principle 1 ▲With enhanced catch-and-grow (CAG) bivalve fisheries, management is not based onreference points or the concept of managing stock size. Shellfish are either captured aslarvae on ropes or caught as seed and moved to favourable areas for grow out. Instead of
removing animals from the system, survivorship is improved through the provision ofsubstrate and better growing conditions. In the end, this process may actually contribute toincreasing stock size and biomass instead of reducing it. Since bivalve culture cannot lead to
exploitation rates that approach limit reference points, it is not managed as such. Scoringenhanced CAG bivalve fisheries for P1 stock status is therefore not usually appropriate.
However, teams still need to determine that there is no threat to the target species, and if so
confirmed there is no need to score P1 nor to have a P1 expert on the team.
Management strategies for bivalve culture are based on limiting the impact of the farming
activity on the environment, with a particular focus on carrying capacity and benthic habitats.
The strategies usually contain a number of elements such as number of farms per site,
number of lines per farm, and locations where farming can and cannot occur (to protect
certain habitat types). Information on biomass produced is gathered but not for the purposeof assessing stock status. Production surveys can provide management with useful
information when used in combination with other environmental indices to give a good
picture of the risk posed by the farming activity to the environment. However, they are notmeasures designed to maintain the wild population at high productivity levels or BMSY.
Therefore, scoring the harvest strategy and harvest control rules and tools PIs for shellfish
farming is not appropriate.

GSB2.1.2 ▲Translocation

Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries involving translocations that remove seed stock fromsource locations should be scored against the stock status, harvest strategy/control rules
and tools PIs to ensure that the exploitation of the source seed resource is properly
managed. Since it is problematic to assess stock size in relation to biomass or fishingmortality, the RBF may be used.
Translocations of native species among different geographic areas may also pose risks to
the genetic diversity of wild populations. This issue is most often associated with escapesfrom salmon net pen culture. However, the life history and genetic characteristics of bivalve
populations are very different from those of salmon and other finfish. Salmon populations arehighly structured by homing behaviour and adaptations to natal freshwater spawning

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 115© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

grounds. Marine shellfish, on the other hand, have widely dispersing planktonic larvae andtypically show minimal genetic divergence over broad spatial scales.24 While there is a low
risk for translocations of marine shellfish to affect the genetic integrity of wild populations(depending on the scale of the translocation), it is still necessary for assessment teams to
examine each situation and provide rationale and evidence explaining the level of risk if itexists. This will be achieved by scoring the Genetic outcome PI.

GSB2.1.3 ▲Hatchery

The use of hatchery propagated seed in bivalve fisheries is increasing. Although beneficial tostocks undergoing restoration or rebuilding, hatchery enhancement may also pose a risk towild populations. Hatchery-based enhancement may reduce the genetic diversity of wild
stocks, leading to reduced fitness and adaptability. This is brought about by intentional orunintentional artificial selection (“domestication” selection) in the hatchery environment.
Certain practices that are used in hatcheries to maximise larval survival and growth maylead to decreased survival when seed is placed in the wild. For example, the fine-meshscreens used in shellfish hatcheries to cull small individuals from larval cultures may also
select for rapid larval development. If rapid larval development in the hatchery environment
were to correlate with poor post-settlement survival and growth, the reproductive success of
the wild population may be compromised. This is especially true if the use of hatchery seedis widespread and overwhelms local wild stocks. Many traits could be subject to suchdomestication selection, and it would be difficult to develop a practical methodology by which
to measure genotype-by-environment interaction for larval traits across both hatchery andnatural habitats. Nevertheless, risks from hatchery enhancements on genetic diversity or
adaptation are manageable with appropriate designs and monitoring.25
Efforts should be made to address genetic concerns specific to the species and thegeographic region where the seed will be out-planted. Best practices for managing thegenetic impacts of hatchery enhancement include:•

maintaining a large number of broodstock to ensure against inbreeding and random
genetic changes;•

rotating broodstock within spawning seasons and between years;•

avoiding the return of hatchery-propagated stock to the hatchery and using it asbroodstock;•

using local broodstock to limit the mixing of genetically divergent populations;•maintaining the scale of hatchery enhancement and the reproductive potential ofhatchery seed well below the size and reproductive potential of the wild population.

GSB3 Principle 2
GSB3.1 General requirements for Principle 2 ▲All Principle 2 PISGs are applicable to enhanced hatch-and-catch (HAC) bivalve fisheries.
24 Hedgecock D, S Edmands, and P Barber. 2007. Genetic approaches to measuring connectivity.

Oceanography 20:70-79.
25 Hedgecock D, and K Coykendall. 2007. Genetic risks of hatchery enhancement: The good, the bad, and theunknown. In Ecological and Genetic Implications of Aquaculture Activities. Edited by TM Bert, pp. 85-101.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 116© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSB3.1.1
There are normally no primary or secondary species captured in enhanced CAG bivalve
fisheries based solely on sprat collection; therefore PIs for primary and secondary species
do not need to be scored. Fisheries with some level of dredging, however, may involve thecapture of primary or secondary species; for these species the primary and secondary PIs
are required to be scored as per the requirements in Annex SA.
There is a potential for enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries to interact with ETP species.

GSB3.1.3.1 ▲For suspended culture, the scoring of Principle 2 habitat PIs should clearly focus on thebenthic impacts of bio-deposition and organic enrichment, and the scoring of ecosystem PIs
should clearly focus on issues relating to carrying capacity and the trophic effects of bivalve
filtration/feeding.

Benthic Organic Enrichment
One way in which suspended bivalve culture can impact the environment is by increasing
the amount of organic material that settles on the seabed. When shellfish feed, they filterorganic matter from the water column and repackage it into faster sinking particles. As thisorganic sediment builds up underneath bivalve farms, changes to benthic habitat andcommunities may occur. The extent and severity of these habitat changes is most often site
specific and relate to a variety of factors including the following:•

Scale, duration, and intensity of shellfish production.

•

Growing practices and methods.

•

Concentration of suspended organic matter available for shellfish filtration.

•

Water depth and sedimentation rate.

•

Local currents and prevailing winds.

During certain situations these factors may combine to produce significant negative effects
that can be seen at both the local and wider ecosystem level.
Total ‘free’ sulphide (S2-) in surficial (0-2 cm) sediments is a cost-effective indicator of theorganic enrichment effects of suspended shellfish cultivation on benthic communities. In
general, there is a consistency between changes in various biological and geochemicalvariables and total S2- in surface sediments along organic enrichment gradients. Other
metrics such as redox potential, sediment oxygen demand, sediment organic content andbenthic diversity indices may also be used to assess a specific farming operations impact on
the benthic environment but are less ideal due to measurement challenges, costs and/or
inherent variation.26
Impacts to benthic biodiversity resulting from increased S2- concentrations can be significant
and occur even at low S2- levels. The transition from normal to hypoxic conditions has been
identified as occurring at 1,500 μM S2-. This threshold represents a transition from“moderate” to “reduced” macrobenthic sulphide concentration and changes in the benthic
macrofauna community structure. Anoxic sediments are characterised by S2- concentrations>6,000 μM. A transition within the hypoxic class of sediments at 3,000 μM has been
identified where less S-tolerant taxa disappear but more tolerant opportunistic species have
26 Bivalve Aquaculture Dialogue. 2010. Bivalve Aquaculture Dialogue Standards.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem17872.pdf
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 117© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

not yet increased in abundance. S2- levels above 3,000 μM represent a condition that exerts
severe hypoxic stress on benthic community structure and characterise a polluted sedimentcondition that poses a high risk to benthic habitat.27
Shellfish farming may occur where the natural benthic environment is already heavily
enriched with organic matter prior to the initiation of any culture activities. In these cases,
comparing measurements taken underneath farms to control sites outside of the farm canshow that the culture activity is not directly responsible for the anoxic conditions.
Assessment teams could apply the sulphide methodology in justifying their scores for habitat
status:•For the SG 60 level for habitats, assessment teams must justify that the fishery is
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 ‘free’ sulfide in surficial
sediment beneath farms of ≤ 3,000 µM.

•

For the SG 80 level for habitats, assessment teams must 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 ‘free’ sulfide in surficial
sediment beneath farms of ≤ 1,500 µM.

•

For the SG 100 level for habitats, assessment teams must 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 ‘free’ sulfide in surficial sediment beneath farms, such as would be found atbackground levels for that environment.

Phytoplankton Depletion/Ecological Carrying Capacity
Bivalve aquaculture dominates the energy flow of a marine system when the phytoplankton
consumed by the total production of cultured molluscs exceeds the combined reproduction
rate and tidal replenishment rate of phytoplankton in the system. If phytoplankton
consumption due to culture activities exceeds ecological carrying capacity, significant
changes to ecological processes, species, populations, or communities in the growing
environment may occur. Methods for determining the impact of suspended bivalve farming
operations range from simple clearance and retention time calculations to expensive andcomplex computer modelling of ecological carrying capacity of affected water bodies. Whileit can be difficult to account for all the variables involved in coastal ecological processes,
relatively simple calculations can be used to determine whether or not production is likely tobe sustainable.
The main threat associated with the translocation of shellfish is the introduction of diseases,
pests, or invasive species. There are many historically documented cases of shellfish
introductions serving as vectors for disease and non-native species. In some of these cases
the introductions have resulted in mass mortalities of native species and severely disrupted
ecosystems. Biosecurity measures have been put in place in many areas in order to prevent
such occurrences; yet regulations and enforcement may be insufficient to prevent intentionalor accidental introductions. It is important that these risks are assessed through establishedprotocol and validated through independent scientific review. For general guidance ontranslocation see Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Process G7.7.1.2.b.
The removal of seed from an area either through dredging or spat collection may have P2
impacts (e.g., habitat impacts of the dredging activity or ecosystem impacts from seedremoval). For this reason CABs should consider P2 impacts for all sources of shellfish seed.
27 Hargrave, B.T., Holmer, M., Newcombe, C.P. 2008. Towards a classification of organic enrichment in marine

sediments based on biogeochemical indicators. Mar. Poll. Bull. 56: 810-824.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 118© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSB4 Principle 3
GSB4.1 General requirements for Principle 3 ▲In cases where P1 is not scored, scoring of P3 should focus only on the relevant
management systems applicable to maintaining sustainable P2 outcomes.

Assessment Trees for Enhanced Bivalve Fisheries
See following Figures
Figure GSB1: Default assessment tree: Principle 1

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 119© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSB2: Default assessment tree: Principle 2

Figure GSB3: Default assessment tree: Principle 3

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 120© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSB4: Enhanced HAC bivalve fishery Principle 1

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 121© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSB5: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery based solely on spat collection withouttranslocation: Principle 2

Figure GSB6: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery based solely on spat collection withtranslocation: Principle 1

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 122© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

MSC Principles & Criteria
for Sustainable Fishing(MSC Standard)

Principle 1

Principle 2

OutcomeHarvest Strategy(Management)

PI 1.1.1: Stock Status

PI 1.1.2: Stock Rebuilding
PI 1.1.3: Genetic Oucome

Principle 3

PI 1.2.1: Harvest Strategy

PI 1.2.2: Harvest Control Rules & Tools

PI 1.2.3: Information/Monitoring

PI 1.2.4: Assessment of Stock Status
P1 scored by RBF
on all seed source

Figure GSB7: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery based solely on spat collection withtranslocation: Principle 2

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 123© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSB8: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery with seed collection by dredging/fishing and notranslocation: Principles 2 and 3

Figure GSB9: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery with seed collection by dredging/fishing andtranslocation: Principle 1
MSC Principles & Criteria
for Sustainable Fishing(MSC Standard)

Principle 1

Principle 2

OutcomeHarvest Strategy(Management)

PI 1.1.1: Stock Status

PI 1.1.2: Stock Rebuilding
PI 1.1.3: Genetic Oucome

Principle 3

PI 1.2.1: Harvest Strategy

PI 1.2.2: Harvest Control Rules & Tools

PI 1.2.3: Information/Monitoring

PI 1.2.4: Assessment of Stock Status
P1 scored by RBF
on all seed source

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 124© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Figure GSB10: Enhanced CAG bivalve fishery with seed collection by dredging/fishing andtranslocation: Principle 2

Table GSB1: Summary of scoring required for different types of enhanced bivalve fisheries

1

HAC

Hatchery
produced

2

CAG

On ropes/collectors

3

CAG

On ropes/collectors

4

CAG

By dredging

5

CAG

By dredging

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

SecondarySpeciesPrimary Species

Translocation PIs(P2 impacts)

Genetic
Management &Information (P1Genetic Outcome(P1)

Principle 1

Trans-location

Scoring Required For:

Spat/Seed
collection

Enhancement
Type

Fishery Type

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(RBF)

✓

✓

✓

✓

(RBF)

End of Annex GSB GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 125© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex GSC Modifications to the Default Assessment Treefor Salmon Fisheries – Guidance ▲Foreword to Annex GSC Guidance ▲Salmon assessments differ from assessments of wholly marine species due to their complex
population structure and the existence of artificial production in some places. They arecomplicated by the fact that any one salmon fishery may simultaneously harvest multiple
populations and/or species, where each population and species can have different inherent
abundances and productivities and therefore different abilities to persist in the presence of agiven long-term harvest rate.
Annex GSC provides guidance and interpretation in applying the default assessment tree
(Annex SA) and the modifications for salmon fisheries (Annex SC), based on the above
considerations.
Assessment teams should not deviate from this guidance without justification.
For the purposes of the MSC, salmon fisheries with an enhancement component are
required to conform to the scope criteria in Table 1 in the Fisheries Certification Process.
Enhancement is used to define any activity aimed at supplementing the survival and growthof one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of
selected elements of the salmon populations beyond a level that is sustainable by naturalprocesses.

GSC1 General Requirements
GSC1.1.1 ▲For the purposes of salmon assessments, the assessment team should consider Annex
GSC guidance as taking precedence over Annex GSA. Where no guidance is provided,
Annex GSA should be used.

GSC1.1.2 ▲All salmon fisheries, even those that are not enhanced, are scored in all PIs in Annex SC.

GSC1.1.3 ▲Examples of SMUs and populations are in Table GSC1.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 126© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSC1: Terms and definitions

Term

Guidance to definitions in Annex SC

Population

Examples of populations, one or more of which would normallycomprise a single SMU, include Conservation Units (CUs) underCanada’s WSP or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) under NOAA’s
application of the US Endangered Species Act for salmon.

StockManagement
Unit (SMU)

In practice, an SMU may be comprised of an array of wild production
components, such as populations of Prince William Sound Pink salmon(Figure GSC1 A) or it may represent a collection of populations such as
Early Summer, Summer, or Late Fraser River sockeye. In somesituations, a population may be larger and more widely distributed thanthe localized management units such as terminal chum fisheries in
British Columbia (Figure GSC1:B). In this situation, these component
SMUs may be treated as one SMU for assessment purposes as long as
the impacts of fishing on the population and the component SMUs are
similar. Reference points are set for and evaluated at the SMU level,taking into account specific thresholds or other constraints that apply to
one or more component populations of that SMU.

Figure GSC1: Two potential scenarios illustrating the relationship between populations and
SMUsADocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

B

page 127© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSC2 Principle 1
GSC2.1 General requirements for Principle 1
GSC2.1.1 ▲The complexity of salmon population dynamics requires that within Principle 1 thesustainable management of salmon should be considered at two levels (Portley and Geiger
201428);•

Level 1: the level of the SMU. The objective of management should be to ensure thatspawner abundance in the SMU is maintained at a level consistent with high production(for example a target such as SMSY, or a proxy that reflects equal or lower risks to one ormore populations).

•

Level 2: the level of the populations within an SMU. The objective of management
should be to ensure that the diversity and productivity of these populations aremaintained at levels that ensure a high probability of persistence over time, and to allowthat they could 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 status of an SMU is assessed 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, andshould follow the guidance for PIs 1.2.1 to 1.2.4 as appropriate.

GSC2.2.1 ▲Escapement based reference points generally refer to spawner abundance only inassessments of current status relative to limit and target reference points. Where otherreference points are used, such as target harvest rate, fishing mortality or other proxies
teams may refer to GSA 2.2.3.1.

GSC2.2.2 ▲Assessment teams are required to evaluate whether achievement of spawning goals issolely for wild (natural-origin) salmon, i.e., after excluding hatchery fish, the contribution from
spawning channels, and removal of fish for hatchery brood stock.

28

Portley N and Geiger HJ (2014) Stock management units and limit reference points in salmon
fisheries: Best practice review and recommentdations to the MSC. Marine Stewardship Council Science
Series 2: 89 – 115.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 128© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSC2.2.2.1 ▲Factors that should be considered in estimating escapement of only wild fish include:•

relative abundance of artificially-produced versus wild salmon•

presence and enumeration of artificially-produced fish in the salmon fishery and on thewild spawning grounds, and•management system’s intent of how artificially-produced fish are accounted for in termsof meeting reference points.

GSC2.2.2.2 ▲Where the management does not make a distinction between wild and artificially-produced
salmon, assessment teams should reduce the score of the PI by a factor which reflects themagnitude of the uncertainty in the estimates of stock status caused by the lack ofenumeration of artificially produced fish.

GSC2.2.3 ▲In some situations scoring PI 1.1.1 for salmon fisheries is not straightforward. Where thefollowing situations arise, the following guidance applies:•

If there are no limit reference points defined by management, as is often the case withsalmon fisheries, assessment teams should refer to the guidance in GSC2.7.

•

In the event that 15 years of data are not available equivalent percentages should apply
to the timeframe that is available.

•

If the target reference point is expressed as a range, with an upper and a lower bound,the SMU should have met or exceeded the mid-point of the escapement goal range
and/or the assessment team should look for evidence that directed fishing is lowered as
the lower bound is approached.

•

The threshold levels in SC2.2.3.1 and SC2.2.3.2 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 theescapement goals were in the most recent years, then SG 80 is not met.

•

For species or stocks that display cyclic dominance, such as pink salmon whereseparate stock dynamics pertain to alternate years, or Fraser sockeye where each cycle
line spawns only every fourth year, each cycle line may be considered separately.

For example, pink salmon even-year and odd-year populations should be assessed
separately.
•Long-term climate and ecosystem changes often affect salmon production andabundance.

Consideration of environmental variability and its impact on stock status is covered in Annex
SA2.2.7.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 129© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSC2.3 Stock rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ▲The requirements for rebuilding salmon SMUs differ from those for other species in thefollowing ways;•

The complex structure of salmon stocks requires rebuilding strategies to account for
specific populations that may have lower productivities than the SMU average. One
example is effective differential harvest protection through proven time and area
strategies to minimize harvest impacts on low-abundance or less productive populations.

•

Reduced stock status may be caused by the fishery, other human intervention such as
habitat degradation, or environmental change. In the former case the rebuilding strategy
is the responsibility of the fishery management agency.

If, in the latter two cases, the impact is out of the management control of the fishery (i.e., thefishery management agency) the fishery response should take into account the multipurpose
nature of the use patterns in those waterways (e.g., 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 thefollowing:•

Routine use of artificial production to meet escapement goals as a rebuilding strategy
could be described as simply using artificial production to mitigate overfishing andmaintain harvest rates that are not sustainable, and therefore would generally not meet
the SG60 guidepost.

•

Habitat modification may be occasionally used to assist rebuilding.

Given that the focus of the MSC assessment is on the wild stock, there should be only
limited and temporary 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 be targeted at a specific population within an SMU that is severely depleted andhas not responded to other significant management action. In the extreme case thiswould include recovery hatchery programs (see GSC2.9) designed to prevent theextirpation of severely depleted populations. It is important that any population where
artificial production is used as part of the rebuilding strategy is neither targeted by thefishery nor exposed to non-targeted harvesting that substantially reduces rebuilding
attempts. In the case where an artificial production strategy is used, it should beconsidered as 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 and verify thatit has been carefully designed to contribute to the long-term viability of the depleted wild
population.
Under these types of programs, addressing demographic risks often result inunintentional interactions between cultured and wild fish that will exceed any routineinteraction benchmarks.
•

The rebuilding plan should justify the need to use enhancement tools (if used), evaluate
the potential risk involved, define the time bound duration for supplementation, andinclude monitoring and evaluation of the supplementation effort to assess the natural
population response in productivity, abundance, life history and genetic diversity.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 130© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01(These are in compliance with the scope criteria for “Hatch and Catch” fisheries as defined in
FCP Section 7.4).

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 for 3 reasons; due to reduced abundance, due to a
failure to enumerate hatchery origin fish in spawning escapements, or a combination of both.
PI 1.1.2 is only triggered when PI 1.1.1 scores below 80 due to a reduced stock status, not if
the sub 80 score is due solely to a failure to enumerate artificially-produced fish on the
spawning grounds. In the latter case, a condition should be added in PI 1.3.3.

GSC2.3.2 ▲There should be a clear expectation of component population rebuilding except under well
documented 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 that are 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 while conducting other fisheries. The rebuilding timeframes
for individual populations may exceed those for the SMU.

GSC2.4 Harvest strategy PI (PI 1.2.1) ▲The harvest strategy is an important element in management’s maintenance of the diversity
and productivity of component populations.

GSC2.4.1 ▲Activities that demonstrate fisheries managers attempt to minimise harvest on weak
populations include:•Fisheries are managed to achieve 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 thosebenchmarks is monitored when stock status problems are perceptible at the SMU level;
and•When faced with stock-status problems, provisions linking population status withmanagement of SMUs are enacted. Generally population-specific reference points have
not replaced SMU reference points, but harvest control rules can be adapted to accountfor component population status.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 131© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

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, and 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 Harvest control rules and tools PI (PI 1.2.2) ▲As a result of the stock structure of salmon, there will likely be a distribution of impacts
across populations.
Teams should consider this in terms of the population’s natural productivity as well as thedifferential harvesting from each population.
This may vary over time due to changes in both natural processes and fishery activities ormanagement.

GSC2.5.2 ▲In the event that it is not possible to distinguish component populations while the fishery is
operating or to regulate catches of specific populations, the team should evaluate whether
fishery managers attempt to utilize differential harvest and selection pressure on fish withdifferent life-history traits (such as return timing and size/age at return) which may vary
among component populations, in order to minimize impact on any one life history.
Further considerations may include:•

Demonstrated understanding that underlying component population structure exists andneeds to be conserved within the SMU;•

The range in productivity levels of different component populations;•

Expected variability in environmental conditions that could differentially affect population
capacity and productivity; and•Expected variability in meeting SMU goals due to natural variation in catchability of fish,
non-compliance with regulations by fishing vessels, and management error.

GSC2.6 Information and monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) ▲In this PI, Assessment teams should consider whether the information collected supports theHarvest Strategy at the SMU level while also maintaining individual component populations
include.

GSC2.6.1 ▲For example, ‘sufficient relevant information’ (SG80) might include:•

evidence that the abundance of wild component populations has been maintained at
levels and spatial distributions as described from aerial and other index survey counts ofspawners that show persistence of the populations.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 132© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

evidence that the management strategy has incorporated approaches that minimize
fishery impacts on weak wild populations for example, time/area closures to minimize
harvests of weak populations, and/or targeting and achieving the upper end of the TRP
escapement range for the SMU as a means to maintain populations with lower
productivity.

•

explicit trade-off and risk analyses, such as that undertaken for the Skeena River
Independent Science Review (Walters et al. 200829), which considers how the current
definition of SMU reference points and management strategies, combined with possible
variability in status and productivity of individual stock components, affects the status ofindividual populations.

A ‘comprehensive range’ (SG100) of information would include more rigorous analyses, forinstance in addition to the above, stochastic simulations/risk analyses that also explicitly take
into account observation error and uncertainty reflected by deviations between managementtargets and final end-of-season outcomes. An example of such analyses includes theharvest control rules recently developed for Fraser River, British Columbia sockeye salmon(Pestal et al. 201230). The paper explored alternative harvest control rules/guidelines that can
respond to decreases in productivity.

GSC2.7 Assessment of stock status PI (PI 1.2.4) ▲The assessment of stock status includes consideration of 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 nor PRI, the intent
should be consistent with Box GSA3 in guidance for the Default Tree.

Scoring issue (b) – Assessment approach
In scoring issue (b), Assessment approach, reference points in salmon fisheries may takeseveral forms.
Target reference points are required to be consistent with maximum sustainable yield (MSY),
or a proxy that reflects equal or lower risks to one or more component populations.
For example, a Biological Escapement Goal (BEG) is defined as the escapement thatprovides the greatest potential for maximum sustained yield, and is generally developed
using the best biological information (ADF&G31). Another approach is SMSY, or the spawner
abundance at maximum sustainable yield (DFO32). Where such quantitative reference points
cannot be defined, the following guidance allows for proxies so long as they are consistent
with maintaining high production.
a. Target reference points may be expressed as escapement goals, target harvest rates or
fishing mortality targets. The goals may take the form of Biological Escapement Goals(BEG), Management Escapement Goals (MEG), and Sustainable Escapement Goals(SEG), along with Conservation Unit Benchmarks, among others. They may be
calculated using a variety of methods such as Ricker spawner recruit analysis, yield
analysis, spawning habitat capacity, or sustained yield analysis. Target reference points
29 http://www.psf.ca/sisrp.pdf
30 Pestal, G., A-M. Huang, A. Cass and the FRSSI Working Group. Updated methods for assessing harvest rules

for Fraser River Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Research Document 2011/133, Pacific Region,
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
31

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fadfg%3Dsonar.escapementgoals

32

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdfs/wsp-eng.pdf

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 133© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

may be single points or ranges. Any method of analysis is acceptable as long as the goalis maintaining high production or achieving a high probability of maintaining a substantial(e.g., >BMSY) population over the long term. Examples are provided in Table GSC2.
b. Limit reference points are only sometimes explicitly defined in salmon fisheries and may
take the form of minimum stock size threshold, Sgen, or others as defined bymanagement (examples in Table GSC2).
Where a limit reference point is not defined a default limit reference point should be an
escapement of at least 50% of the SMSY escapement goal, or some other proxy of highabundance as described in (a) above (Portley and Geiger 201433).
For escapement goals expressed as ranges, the team should consider whether the range isquantitatively derived, and the logic by which it was established. The Assessment teamshould determine whether the range will maintain the population around SMSY andsubsequently whether the default LRP is more appropriately defined as 50% of the lower
bound of the range the lower bound of the range, or 50% of the midpoint of the range.
Table GSC2 shows example Target and Limit Reference Points for salmon fisheries inselected jurisdictions. This list is not all inclusive and other reference points may be used solong as they are consistent with an annual percent harvest rate that achieves maximum
sustainable yield or spawner abundances at MSY (SMSY).

33

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 v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 134© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Table GSC2: Example Target and Limit Reference Points for salmon fisheries in selectedjurisdictions
Management
RegionExisting Target
Reference Points

Existing Limit Reference
Points

Suggested Proxy
Limit Reference
Points when LRPs are
not established bymanagement

1. Alaska

Three types of
escapement goals
expressed in numbers offish all are potentiallyuseable based on thedata available and themethod used:

Minimum stock size
thresholds (for stocks
harvested by the Southeast
Alaska troll fishery): 50% of
the escapement goal’s
lower bound with the
exception of those Chinook
salmon escapement goals
that have been reviewed by
the Pacific Salmon
Commission’s Chinook
Technical Committee (forthese stocks. The minimum
threshold amounts to 50%of the midpoint between theescapement goal upperand lower bounds).

50% of the escapement
goal SMSY point
estimate

•

•

•
•
•

2. British
Columbia

Biological
Escapement Goals(BEGs)
Sustainable
Escapement Goals(SEGs)
Optimal Escapement
Goals (OEGs)

Various escapement
goals expressed in
numbers of fish andspecific to particular
fisheries, including:
•
•
•
•
•

Management
Escapement Goals(MEGs)
interim escapement
goals
minimum escapement
goals
escapement goals
Slim (85% of theescapement that
produces MSY – for
Chinook)••

Sgen (currently
integrated into theharvest control rules for
the Barkley Sound,
B.C. fishery, foreseen
in other fisheries in the
future).
Total Allowable
Mortality rule cutoffs(Fraser River, B.C.
sockeye)Tyee test fisheryescapement cutoff(Skeena River, B.C.
sockeye)•Sgen (if abenchmarking
result is available)
50% of theescapement goal
SMSY point estimate

3. Russia

escapement goals(generally expressed interms of habitat capacity,
i.e., 70-100% filled habitat
capacity)

None defined

35-50% filled habitat
capacity

4. PacificNorthwest

Various escapement
goals expressed in
numbers of fish andspecific to particular
fisheries, including:

Minimum stock size
thresholds (generally 50%
of escapement goals, butwith some exceptions
described in Amendment
16 of the West Coast
Salmon ManagementPlan).

50% of the escapement
goal SMSY point
estimate•••

escapement goals
upper management
thresholds

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 135© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Scoring issue (g) – Definition of Stock Management Units (SMUs)
In scoring issue (g), Definition of Stock Management Units (SMUs), the following issues
could be considered relevant at SG60:•

Knowledge of physical habitat (lakes, rivers, etc.) and the wild populations that inhabit
them and,•A rationale for choosing those populations as the basis for an SMU taking into accountthe objective of maintaining diversity and productivity of component populations.

Additional information is expected at SG80 such as:•

Identification and description of wild populations,•

Description of which wild populations have management goals,•

Description of which wild populations are monitored and,•

Rationale for choice of wild populations having goals and monitoring, in respect of 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 characterized by substantial population diversity andvarying productivities, as compared to simpler and more homogeneous SMUs.
•

If the SMU is composed of a single population, then 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, then the establishment of reference
points may be defined as an aggregate for the components. However, the aggregate
reference points and management strategies for the SMU should ensure that the wild
production components are maintained at a level that ensures a high probability of their
persistence over time.

GSC2.7.1.1 ▲For salmon fisheries that are influenced by artificial production, reference points should bebased only on natural-origin (wild) fish. Evaluation of reference points for enhanced fisheries
should consider the potential for artificially produced fish to confound evaluation. The
assessment team should consider relative abundance of artificially produced versus wild
salmon; both presence and abundance of artificially produced fish in the fishery and on the
spawning grounds. For such fisheries reference points are expected to be based only on
natural-origin (wild) fish. Evaluation of reference points for enhanced fisheries should
consider the potential for artificially produced fish to confound evaluation.
The intent of management should be to maintain high production of the wild SMU andproductivity of component populations to the extent to which the natural environment willallow.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 136© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSC2.7.2 ▲Within a watershed geographic proximity and habitat type are predictors of correlations inabundance of component population.34
Therefore, indicator populations should:•

Contain representative numbers of various spawning habitat types found within thewatershed and•

Be distributed geographically throughout the SMU.

In assessing coherence and correlation that team may interpret•‘Some evidence of coherence’ at the SG80 level to be a mean pairwise correlation ofat least 0.4, and•‘Well correlated’ at the SG100 level to be a mean pairwise correlation of at least 0.6 orby means with similar outcome and intent.

GSC2.7.3 ▲The assessment of this indicator includes biological factors as well as how the rationale anddefinition of the SMUs have informed reference points (PI 1.2.4) and management strategies(PI 1.2.1).
A well-defined SMU is one that managers can directly influence through management
actions and harvest controls, which implies an understanding of how changes to harvest
patterns impact escapement.
Inclusion of populations within an SMU (since the SMU is typically defined to aggregate
populations for the purpose of defining a management objective for practical fishery decision
making) should be based on sharing, to some extent, similar characteristics, such as•

Run timing,•

Common region of origin,•

Genetic characteristics,•

Coastal migration patterns (i.e., exposure to interception fisheries),•

Population productivities, and•Exposure to environmental conditions that affect annual survival rates.

GSC2.7.3.1 ▲Enhancement increases the chance of overharvesting the less-abundant and/or lessproductive salmon stocks that migrate through fishing areas at the same time as theartificially-produced fish.
The team should assess whether wild and artificially influenced components are clearly
distinguished in defining SMUs and when evaluating their adequacy to support
establishment of reference points and management strategies.
34 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 v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 137© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

In the special case of side channel enhancement facilities, in order to estimate SMU status,
it is important to identify the overall channel and wild stock contributions to catch andescapement. These estimates might be based on run reconstruction techniques (e.g., backcalculating relative contributions of component populations at various prior times and areas
based on relative spawning escapement abundances). Assessment might also include
periodic evaluation of juveniles produced from the channels in relation to the number ofadults spawning. In some cases, depending on the population differences within a river
system, it might be possible to estimate the contribution of spawning channel fish by use ofgenetic stock identification techniques. The assessment team may also consider how similar
the channel environmental conditions are relative to the natural environmental conditions(i.e., flow, temperature, complexity, competitors, predators, etc.).

GSC2.8 General guidance to enhancement PIs ▲Enhancement activities are assessed against their impacts on the natural reproductive
component of the associated wild salmon stock under assessment in Principle 1 (impacts ofenhancement activities on other species, the same species outside of the UoA and thereceiving ecosystem will be assessed under Principle 2). This mirrors the treatment ofsalmon in existing MSC fishery assessments and is consistent with FAO’s 2010 Guidelines
for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery products from Inland Capture Fisheries.
Table GSC3: Enhancement Terms and Definitions

Term

Definition

Habitat enhancement

May take the form of spawning channels, lakefertilization, predator removal, artificial gravel beds
etc.

‘Integrated’ hatcheryproduction

This is typically used for supplementation andrecovery type programs.

pHOS

These fish may be strays or may be the result of
returns of hatchery fish that were intended.

‘Segregated’ hatcheryproduction

This type is typically used for harvest augmentation
hatcheries.

GSC2.9 Enhancement outcomes PI (PI 1.3.1) ▲This performance indicator was added to address the potential for negative effects ofenhancement activities on the genetic diversity, local adaptation and reproductive capacity of
the wild salmon stocks.
Potential negative impacts may include:•

Outbreeding depression due to translocation of dissimilar brood stock into locallyadapted populations;•Inbreeding depression or loss of native genetic diversity due to directed or inadvertent
hatchery selection or domestication;•

Excessive impact on wild fish for hatchery broodstock;•

Reduced natural juvenile survival due to predation, competition and other ecologicalinteractions;

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 138© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

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, and•Reduction in smolts per spawner due to increased density dependent effects.

The risks (probabilities as well as magnitudes of various negative effects) of these impacts
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 geographicaldistribution, and•Straying of returning adults (hatchery fish to natural spawning grounds and natural-origin
fish used 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 thestudies required for the team to judge that outcomes are likely being met can beconsiderably less than in cases with substantial artificial production programs. Low-levelsystems of artificial production will be characterised by, inter alia:
o The proportion of hatchery releases or production of juveniles from artificial
habitat compared to total artificially produced and wild production in a unit ofcertification is relatively small (<10%);o The management system has implemented measures and strategies that are
known to be effective at limiting the level and spatial extent of straying, ando Unique wild populations are not likely to interact with hatchery fish spawning
naturally.

•

Recovery hatchery programs (artificial production programs designed for the specificconservation purpose of preventing the extirpation of severely depressed populations)
are generally subject to more stringent design characteristics and performancebenchmarks than other hatchery programs. The goal of a recovery hatchery is typicallyto increase the number of naturally spawning adults in the population. Consequently, thestandard default assumptions (Box GSC1 below) do not apply.
Recovery hatchery programs are implemented only after targeted commercial fishing on
the population has been eliminated or severely restricted. These programs aretemporary in nature and are intended to supplement depressed natural populations orprovide fish for artificial recolonisation of streams that have experienced local or broodyear extinctions, to maintain genetic diversity within and among stocks, and to conserve
valuable or rare genes and genotypes. They may, or may not, rely on captive broodstockto accomplish these goals. Recovery hatcheries attempt to minimize or eliminate
negative effects common to fish culture, resulting in as close to wild fish as possible(primary success criteria are increased abundance of spawners and/or outmigrants,
increased abundance of natural origin spawners, maintained or increased long term
fitness (productivity and life history), lowered chance of extinction, recolonisation of a

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 139© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

self-sustaining population, and/or brood-year reconstruction, while avoiding negative
hatchery impacts as much as possible).
•

Spawning channels differ from hatchery programs but they should be scored in asimilar way.

In these systems, the entire natural reproduction life cycle occurs in a natural habitat, withthe main artificial production interventions being enhanced spawning gravel habitat andcontrolled channel flows. Once fish enter the spawning channel, all reproduction processes(e.g., mate selection, redd building, incubation and any rearing) occur without humanintervention. Spawning channels differ from hatchery programs but they should be scored ina similar way.
The potential impacts of spawning channels would not be assessed according to Box GSC 1
because the consequences of straying of adult returns would typically not present the same
concerns as hatcheries, as long as the channel was (a) isolated from other spawning
populations that were genetically dissimilar to the population being enhanced in the
spawning channel or (b) the channel exactly or very closely mimics the natural environment.
However the assessment team should consider the size of the program and similarity withpopulations in proximity (based on expected straying distances) in assessing the likelihoodthat the spawning channel operation could be having a significant impact on genetic and life
history diversity of wild populations.

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, and/or 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 proportions of
pHOS and proportion of wild populations/ spawning areas being affected by artificial
production are likely to have significant negative impacts on wild stocks. If other system
specific benchmarks have been adopted by the fishery management system, the teamshould evaluate their appropriateness in terms of delivering similar levels of performance tothose in Box GSC1 (see below).

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 140© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Box GSC1 was developed following specific best practice considerations and sciencedeveloped from fitness modelling and empirical studies of yearling smolts released from theriverine species such as Chinook, coho, and steelhead hatcheries (e.g., Ford 2002, Grant
1997, Paquet et al 2011).35
Specific studies on chum and pink salmon are rare but the Recovery Implementation
Science Team (RIST 2009 36) 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 forpink and chum salmon because their hatchery rearing is the shortest of all species. While
the magnitude of relaxation will be situation specific, assessment teams should provide
rationale to support their decisions.
If additional evidence from species-specific studies is considered by the CAB to be more
relevant to a specific situation a reasoned argument for adjusting the default impact
guidelines should be made.
Box GSC1: Default acceptable impact guidelines for artificial production

Default acceptable impact guidelines for artificial production
The intent of this guidance is to help ensure that the majority of genetic diversity andproductive capacity of the SMU is protected from the risks of enhancement activities infreshwater production areas. The guidelines in the Box are primarily derived from studies
on Chinook, coho, sockeye and steelhead. Impact guidelines for pink and chum may berelaxed from these levels with sufficient justification (see above).
At the eSG60 level• Regardless of hatchery production strategy, pHOS at the level of the population
should be negligible (<1%) in greater 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:• no more than 10% for segregated hatchery programs, such that individual
population pHOS values above 10% would be expected to occur only inareas in closer proximity to hatchery facilities where values might beaffected by smaller wild spawning populations that are not important
potential contributors to the wild diversity or productive capacity of the
SMU.
• no more than 33% for integrated hatchery programs•

The level of enhancement in the remaining populations is unspecified at SG60.

35 Ford, M. J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conservation

Biology 16:815–825. [contd.][Refs contd] W. Stewart Grant (editor). 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,
130 pp. (especially see ‘Conclusions of Panel, pp. 140-157)
Paquet, P.J., T. Flagg, A. Appleby, J. Barr, L. Blankenship, D. Campton, M. Delarm, T. Evelyn, D.Fast, J.
Gislason, P. Kline, D. Maynard, L. Mobrand, G. Nandor, P. Seidel and S. Smith. 2011. Hatcheries, conservation,and sustainable fisheries—achieving multiple goals: results of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's ColumbiaRiver basin review. Fisheries, 36:11, 547-561.
36 RIST, 2009 http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_documents/RIST_RME_Review_2009_09_16_09_cor.pdf
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 141© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

At the SG80 level
Further pHOS at the level of the SMU should be:•

For segregated hatchery programs:• no more than 5%;•

For integrated hatchery programs (These limits are presented graphically in Figure
GSC2):• Where pNOB < 5%, no more than 5%• equal or less than pNOB, where 10% > pNOB > 5%
• no more than 10% for programs where pNOB is less than 20%;
• no more than 0.5 x pNOB for programs operating between 20% and40%pNOB;• no more than 20% for programs operating at pNOB > 40%.

Figure GSC2 below depicts the maximum allowable average proportion of hatcheryorigin fish in natural spawning populations (pHOS) within an SMU at SG80, in relation to
the proportion of natural origin (wild) fish contributing to the hatchery broodstock (pNOB).
These guidelines are based primarily on studies of riverine species such as Chinook,coho, and steelhead. They may be modified for pink and chum salmon, and for otherspecies, with sufficient reasoned argument and justification.
Figure GSC2: Maximum allowable pHOS for overall SMU at SG80

At the SG100 level
pHOS should be negligible (< 1%) in all populations in an SMU.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 142© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Further Guidance in application of Box GSC1:• pHOS at the level of the SMU is intended to reflect an estimate of the proportion ofhatchery-origin fish spawning naturally in the SMU divided by the total natural
spawning escapement in the SMU, which may be calculated as the simple 4-yrarithmetic mean of these estimates.
•

Where there are both segregated and integrated hatchery fish spawning naturally
within the SMU, the assessment team should consider the limits above in theirassessment.

•

Where there are hatchery-origin spawners on the spawning grounds of the SMU
under assessment that originate from outside the SMU under assessment, theyshould be assessed at segregated criteria limits above. Strays from outside the SMU
present a greater genetic risk than those originating within the SMU and are therefore
only permitted at lower limits.

GSC2.9.1.3 ▲In the event that there are no scientific studies available and no information or estimates of
pHOS nor pBNOB exist the team should carefully consider the potential impact based on themagnitude of hatchery origin fish released or the percentage of hatchery fish in the harvestof the SMU.
Scoring should be precautionary, and sufficient justification provided as to why themagnitude or percentage of hatchery fish is likely to have a small impact with minimalhatchery origin fish reaching the spawning grounds (i.e., a small pHOS). Factors that might
be considered include whether the hatchery type is an integrated or segregated hatchery
program, whether there is differential harvesting to avoid hatchery fish on appearing on the
spawning grounds, the location of the hatchery, the release site, and where the fish are
eventually harvested, and whether the management agency remove hatchery fish prior toaccessing the spawning grounds.

GSC2.10Enhancement management PI (PI 1.3.2) ▲Management is expected to address the potential for negative effects of enhancement
activities on the local adaptation, genetic diversity and reproductive capacity of the wild
salmon stocks.

Scoring issue (a) – Management strategy in place ▲For scoring issue (a), ‘Management strategy in place’, in achieving the SG80 outcome, themanagement system would reasonably be expected to design and manage its hatcheryprogram outcomes with an understanding of the wild population structure and characteristics
that its hatchery programs could be expected to affect, as well as the development of somebasic hatchery management objectives with respect to limits on impacts within this context. It
could consider, inter alia,•

Identification and description of populations within the SMU;•

The level and spatial distribution of genetic and life history diversity (e.g., run timing,
spawning timing, age structure, juvenile life history forms, other unique phenotypic traits);•

Populations with unique characteristics;

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 143© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01•

The relative abundance of wild populations (magnitude, spatial distribution);•

Expected spatial distribution and magnitude of natural spawning of hatchery returns inrelation to wild population abundance and diversity; and•Objectives/intent for limiting the magnitude and spatial distribution of pHOS consistent
with protecting the diversity and productive capacity of the SMU and its component wild
populations.

GSC2.10.1 ▲A likelihood of minimizing the numbers and proportions of hatchery fish interbreeding withwild fish in natural spawning areas is expected to be supported by the use and evaluation ofproven artificial production and harvest management strategies. Common examples typically
include:•Siting of hatchery facilities in areas that are isolated from areas of high wild salmon
abundance and diversity for the species being produced;•

Ensuring release at sites and with strategies that are likely to maximize imprinting andhoming;•Identifying high value watersheds where hatcheries are not used;•

Fishing strategies that result in differential harvest rates between hatchery and wild fish
to both limit straying and ensure sustainable wild harvest rates;•

Marking hatchery fish releases so that the distribution and composition of hatchery andwild fish can be monitored in fisheries, spawning grounds and in hatchery broodstock;•

Active exclusion of marked hatchery fish from spawning in the wild through managementof passage through weirs;•

Scaling hatchery release numbers to a level that is consistent with not exceeding
hatchery stray benchmarks in concert with other strategies.

GSC2.11

Enhancement information PI (PI 1.3.3) ▲This performance indicator was added to address information needed to evaluate thepotential for negative effects of enhancement activities on the genetic diversity andreproductive capacity (such as density-dependent competition for spawning habitat) of thewild salmon stocks consistent with the direction identified in MSC guidance on scope criteria
for enhanced fisheries (FCP Section 7.4). Guideposts address the same potentiallydamaging enhancement effects identified under PI 1.3.1. Specific guideposts in this indicatorare based on those identified in other comparable P1 indicators regarding collection of
relevant information (PI 1.2.3) and assessment adequacy (PI 1.2.4). Marking and monitoring
programs will be particularly relevant to evaluations of sufficiency for this indicator.
The reason for this monitoring is to enable the management system to effectively meet wild
stock escapement goals, evaluate harvest strategies to meet these goals and evaluate theinteraction between hatchery and wild fish on spawning grounds. It is acknowledged that
there are no such marking requirements for fish produced in artificial habitat, but important
information, such as the amount of fry emigrating from these habitats are expected to bemonitored annually to help gauge the potential impact on wild populations.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 144© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Scoring issue (a) – Information adequacy ▲•At SG60: ‘some relevant information’ should be interpreted to mean that some
artificially produced fish carry recognizable marks (e.g., fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolithmarks, parent-based tagging (PBT) or thermal marks) such that approximate estimates
can be made of contributions of hatchery salmon to harvests, hatchery broodstocks andspawning populations. It is reasonable to expect these contribution estimates are either
being made or can been reasonably inferred from an understanding of the dynamics ofthe fishery and enhancement programs, including from an existing understanding of size,
location and general release-to-adult contribution rates.

•

At SG80: ‘sufficient relevant qualitative and quantitative information’ should beinterpreted to mean a large representative fraction of artificially produced fish carryrecognizable marks (e.g., fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolith marks, parent-based tagging(PBT) or thermal marks) to accurately estimate contributions of hatchery salmon toharvests, hatchery broodstocks, spawning populations and escapes. For large hatchery
programs this may be up to 100%. A reasonable expectation is that these estimates are
currently being made via data collected through associated harvest, hatchery andescapement monitoring programs at a level of precision and accuracy necessary tosupport the harvest management strategy. As the levels of hatchery origin spawners
approach the limits stated in Box GSC1, the necessary sampling frequency increases toachieve the required accuracy of estimates of pHOS. Direct estimates are supplemented
by other analytical methods.

•

At SG100: ‘comprehensive range of relevant quantitative information’ should beinterpreted to mean that all artificially produced fish, regardless of program size, carrymarks (e.g., fin clips, coded-wire tags, otolith marks, parent-based tagging (PBT) or
thermal marks) allowing highly accurate and precise estimates of hatchery salmon toharvests, hatchery broodstocks, spawning populations and escapes. A reasonable
expectation is that these estimates of hatchery and wild contributions are currently madethrough associated harvest, hatchery and escapement monitoring programs, at a scale
and intensity of temporal and spatial coverage that provides comprehensive information
and understanding.

GSC2.11.1 ▲Artificially produced fish are expected to be marked, and monitored in catch andescapement, in sufficient quantities in order to enable the fishery to define target reference
points for wild salmon populations and SMUs (e.g., escapement goals), implement harvest
strategies and evaluate levels of interaction between hatchery and wild fish on spawning
grounds. Requirement of this information is implicit within the evaluation of stock status andreference points, which do not include artificially produced salmon.
However, the explicit scoring of enhancement information should only be scored in this PI.

GSC2.11.1.1 ▲The marking requirements described above in the guidance on specific scoring issues do not
routinely apply to fish produced from artificial spawning channels because the same
monitoring and information tools generally are not available for spawning channels ascompared to hatcheries. The absence of confined hatchery methods for incubation andrearing within a spawning channel limits the practical marking tools available. Nevertheless,

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 145© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

in situations where there is an increased likelihood of interactions between spawning
channel strays and dissimilar wild populations in areas of potential interaction, there would
be an expectation that the management system would assess those risks via visual markingof juveniles at emigration from the weir or perhaps via the use of genetic marking
techniques. The need for such information and monitoring would be greater where theconditions of spawning channels differ greatly from the natural environment or where themagnitude 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
GSC3.1 General requirements on Principle 2
GSC3.1.1 ▲In Principle 2 only ETP (PI 2.3.*), Habitats (PI 2.4.*) and Ecosystem (PI 2.5.*) are modified
for salmon assessments.
Primary species (PI 2.1*) and secondary species (2.2.*) should still be scored as in Annex
SA. Additionally, all Annex SA requirements and Annex GSA guidance should be consulted
in addition to the modifications in Annex SC and the supplemental guidance in Annex GSC.

GSC3.1.2 ▲In Principle 2 modifications to the Default Assessment Tree in require the impact ofenhancement activities on Principle 2 components is assessed.
All Performance Indicators and scoring issues should be scored even in the absence ofenhancement activities.

GSC3.13

Habitats outcome PI (PI 2.4.1) ▲Enhancement activities typically operate under a wide range of environmental regulations
and monitoring requirements intended to minimize their impacts on aquatic habitat important
for local biota in the ecosystems where the facilities are located. Like other land and wateruses that can negatively impact fishery resources, enhancement facilities often must be
authorized through a variety of environmental permits or reviews.

Scoring issue (d) – Impacts due to enhancement ▲In scoring issue (d), Impacts due to enhancement, 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 instance, avoid bank erosion orundesired channel modification).

•

Water withdrawals and in-stream water diversion structures for artificial production facility
operation do not prevent access to natural spawning areas, affect spawning behaviour ofDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 146© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

natural populations, or impact juvenile rearing environment. For instance, 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 prevent access tonatural spawning areas, do not affect spawning behaviour or success of wild fish, and do
not result in significant stress, injury, or mortality in natural spawners.

•

A record of compliance with applicable environmental laws designed to protect natural
populations and habitats from potential adverse impacts of artificial production program
operation.

GSC3.13.2 ▲Habitat modifications due to salmon enhancement activities can include both physicalchanges to the river course (e.g., spawning channels), changes to water quality due tohatchery discharge, and the use of a range of man-made structures associated with therearing 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 broodstockcollection;•

Dewatering of downstream water channels used for spawning and rearing;•

Increased water temperature from human activities such that fish mortality rate increases•

Improper screening of water intake systems that cause mortality or entrainment of wild
fish, and•

Discharge of effluents or pollutants contrary to water quality standards.

The team should identify the types and extent of habitat modifications that are associatedwith enhancement activities, and determine that they are unlikely to have adverse impact.

GSC3.14

Habitats management strategy PI (PI 2.4.2) ▲Enhancement facilities typically operate under a wide set of environmental regulations andreview requirements with respect to their potential impacts on aquatic habitat, such as use ofdrugs, fish passage requirements, water discharge permits, and water withdrawal
authorization.
The team should examine evidence to determine whether these requirements are in place
and are being met as part of the overall strategy for meeting the habitat status outcome.

GSC3.14.1 ▲The team should expect to see management strategies that seek to achieve the typicaloutcomes in GSC3.13.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 147© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Examples of such strategies could include:•

Facility design or maintenance plans and construction permit applications thatspecifically consider and avoid known impacts;•

Routine (e.g., daily) inspections, maintenance and assessment activities of physicalparameters such as flows, screen, and weir operations and a record of taking actions in
response to these activities;•

Withdrawal permit operating requirements are being implemented, and if the systemdoes not operate under a formal permitting system, similar operating criteria are being
applied;•

Implementation of regular fish passage procedures based on explicit hatchery objectives
to pass naturally spawning fish above any hatchery weir to enable sustaining natural
production consistent with available habitat capacity;•

Implementation of fish handling protocol, and staff provided with associatedtraining/guidelines, for instance, to ensure that captured adult wild fish are not injured
and that upstream migration delays are minimized;•

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 suchimpacts.

Enhanced salmon fishery interventions may also include lake fertilization to enhance natural
food production, and removal of predators or competitors to maximize early stage salmon
survival.
These impacts should be evaluated in accordance with PI 2.5.1.

GSC3.15

Habitats information PI (PI 2.4.3)

GSC3.15.1 ▲Examples of information that may be expected for enhancement activities include:•

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 passage of fish upstream
is not being impeded;•

Number of adult fish aggregating and/or spawning immediately below water intake pointcompared to number of adult fish passing water intake point;•

Records of any fish mortalities or injuries occurring 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.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 148© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

GSC3.16

Ecosystem outcome PI (PI 2.5.1) ▲Ecological interaction risks between artificially produced salmon, non-ETP wild salmon
populations and other non-ETP species are evaluated in the Ecosystem PIs. Salmon
ecosystem components include effects of disease transmission, as well as intra- and interspecific competition (including that which arises from ecosystem carrying capacity) andpredation within and among salmon species in freshwater, near shore and high seas ocean
waters. Generally, impacts on Principle 1 target species in the UoA are assessed in PI
1.3.1–1.3.3 and not explicitly considered in this section. Impacts on the same species
outside of the UoA or impacts on other salmonid species within the UoA are considered inthis section.

Scoring issue (b) – Impacts due to enhancement ▲In scoring issue (b), Impacts due to enhancement, the team should consider the scale andsize of the programs being assessed as part of creating a general risk framework alongside
objective evidence for negative interactions, or lack of negative interactions.
In this context the team may consider the following factors:•

The magnitude of releases and returns of artificially produced fish in the area being
assessed compared to the wild production from the same area.
In situations where artificially-produced fish constitute a significant proportion of either
juveniles or returning adults to an area, a higher level of evidence should be required tomake a judgment about likelihood.

•

The likelihood that hatchery releases coincide in space and time with the presence ofjuvenile wild salmon.

•

The level of total species production in UoA compared to historic levels while also
considering potential changes in current habitat conditions and natural reproduction
capacity compared to those levels.

•

Indicators of any density dependent processes that could potentially be related to theenhancement program by virtue of known temporal and spatial overlap with species orstocks that are exhibiting demonstrated changes in population dynamics.

GSC3.16.1 ▲Evaluation of ecological and ecosystem effects of enhancement activities includes thepotential effects on both wild salmon and other aquatic species. Note that impacts on thewild stock(s) under assessment (UoA) are considered in PI 1.3.1.
The team should consider interactions at any life stage in both freshwater and marine
habitats. Consideration should be given to the ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities
across the entire geographic range of the salmon populations.

GSC3.16.2 ▲Disease transmission and predation/competition are different issue areas that have very
different levels of active management and information, monitoring and compliancerequirements and capacities.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 149© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 aresult of predation and competition for resources such as prey or spawning habitat.

GSC3.17

Ecosystem management performance indicator (PI 2.5.2) ▲Current best practice for disease management in enhancement facilities reflects a very
rigorous monitoring and adaptive management system using well-established policies,
guidelines, performance indicators, benchmarks and procedures designed to carefully
protect hatchery and natural fish populations from the importation, dissemination, andamplification 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 these objectives and related outcome for PI 2.5.1.

Scoring issue (d) – Management of enhancement activities ▲In scoring issue (d), ‘Management of enhancement activities’, the team should devote
particular attention to management of potential impacts of the release of fish from large scale
artificial production operation; in particular the strategies for avoiding adverse competitionand predation effects on the receiving ecosystems including inter- and intra-species
competition, both inshore and offshore, including issues of carrying capacity.

GSC3.17.1 ▲The team should consider management of the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem aswell as management of any enhancement activity on the receiving ecosystem, in particular
the management of disease and competition/predation. For example, practices that minimize
overlap in time and space between hatchery releases and the wild component could be
implemented.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 150© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Examples:Examples of strategies for minimizing ecological risk include37•

Methods to minimize 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 (i.e., theNorth Pacific, Columbia Basin, or major sub-basins)•

Releasing only smolts that will promptly out-migrate, unless the release of other life
stages is part of a specific biological objective•

The use of acclimation ponds and volitional releases as a means to minimize
residual fish and straying of returning adults•

Careful timing of releases; e.g., release of predatory hatchery fish after wild salmon
reach large enough sizes to avoid being consumed•

Careful consideration of both the timing and magnitude of releases because highconcentration of hatchery fish in time and space may attract predators, but may also
have an offsetting effect to some unknown extent by "swamping" the predators withso many 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 2.5.3)

GSC3.18.1 ▲With respect to hatchery operations, relevant information to understand the impacts on thereceiving ecosystem may include:•

the collection of environmental health conditions, culture and general health histories,
pathogen detection collected at a relevant level of accuracy and coverage throughout theartificial production cycle consistent with requirements of implementing 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 that may be used to identify the times andareas where artificially produced fish could compete with or prey upon wild fish of thesame species or with other aquatic species, with these potential interactions understoodat a level of detail relevant to the scale and size of the enhancement programs.

37 Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs

and some mitigating strategies. Rev Fish Biol Fish 19:9-31.
Kostow, K. 2012. Strategies for reducing the ecological risks of hatchery programs: Case studies from the PacificNorthwest. Env Biol Fish 94(1): 285-310.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 151© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

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 accordancewith Annex SA.
Further, all Annex SA requirements and Annex GSA guidance should be consulted inaddition to the modifications in Annex SC and the supplemental guidance in Annex GSC.

GSC4.1.2 ▲The team is required to assess the features of each modified indicator that have relevance tothe fishery and associated enhancement activities to ensure there is an institutional andoperational framework for these activities, appropriate to their size and scale, for
implementing the related provisions of Principles 1 and 2 capable of delivering sustainableoutcomes. This additional assessment would include examining specific relevant evidence
and documenting its consideration relative to the scoring process.
The size and scale of enhancement activities (to gauge the appropriateness of theinstitutional and operational framework) can be simply considered by a rough comparison of
the magnitude of releases and returns of artificially produced fish in the area being assessedcompared 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 that are open to stakeholders related to aspects of both the fishery and theenhancement activities.

GSC4.5 Long term objectives PI (PI 3.1.3)
GSC4.5.1 ▲It is necessary for the salmon management agency to demonstrate that its key ecologicalobjective for its enhancement activities is managing sustainable wild salmon populations
while minimizing potentially adverse effects of enhancement activities. The high level orbroad management policy context with respect to the fisheries enhancement activities
incorporates a precautionary approach which places the burden on the enhancement
programs to demonstrate that they are minimizing adverse impacts identified in Principle 1
and 2 indicators, and that this burden increases as the size of the enhancement activities,

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 152© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

individually and cumulatively, increase. That burden of proof will also be higher for
hatcheries than for other forms of artificial production that generally have lower impacts.

GSC4.7 Fishery-specific objectives PI (PI 3.2.1)
GSC4.7.1 ▲’Clear objectives’ may be interpreted to mean whether a management system, with any
significant level of enhancement, has documented enhancement objectives and operational
requirements related to minimizing various impacts on natural population components andecosystem function in a clear operational plan.

GSC4.8 Decision-making processes PI (PI 3.2.2)
GSC4.8.1 ▲In cases where enhancement programs are significant and uncertainties exist about the levelof program impacts, the team should consider whether the management system is making
these 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
the scale and magnitude of potential interactions between wild and enhanced populations,and whether monitoring and evaluation programs are being initiated and/or maintained tocollect essential information to inform future decisions.
It is widely recognized internationally in marine fisheries that an ideal way to increase thechance of meeting management objectives, improving future decision making, andincreasing fairness is to conduct, through probabilistic simulation models/risk assessments,
thorough evaluations of a wide range of management options, data collection procedures,and in some cases methods of data analysis (Walters and Martell 2004 38). Some suchanalyses, variously called Management Strategy Evaluations (Sainsbury et al. 2000 39) andclosed-loop simulations (Walters 1986 40), have been done for Pacific salmon (Walters 1986;
Collie et al. 2012 41; Pestal et al. 2012). The most comprehensive examples of Management
Strategy Evaluations take into account not only time dynamics of fish populations, but also
dynamics of the fishery, observation error, implementation uncertainty (reflecting whenregulations are followed imperfectly), and other sources of uncertainty. The outcome of such
evaluations is identification of state-dependent decision-making rules that will best meetcomplex 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

38 Walters, C.J.

and S.D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J., 399 pp.
39 Sainsbury K.J., A.E. Punt, A.D.M. Smith. 2000. Design of operational management strategies for achieving
fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 731–741.
40 Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan, New York, 374 pp.
41 Collie, J.S., R.M. Peterman, and B.M. Zuehlke. 2012. A fisheries risk-assessment framework to evaluate tradeoffs among management options in the presence of time-varying productivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences. 69(2):209-223, plus supplement.
Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 153© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

updates to the states of the system. Those rules are not subject to change in-season basedon lobbying by special interest groups.
Most decisions in salmon management involve trade-offs between long-term conservation
objectives and short-term fish-harvesting objectives, as well as trade-offs among usergroups. Learning which decisions work best at meeting such complex objectives can befacilitated by decision makers publicly documenting the reasons for various decisions on
fishing regulations and enhancement activities and comparing the expectations against
outcomes.
The assessment team should consider whether such public documentation is provided intheir scoring.

GSC4.9 Compliance and enforcement PI (PI 3.2.3) ▲No modifications to Annex GSA

GSC4.10 Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI (PI
3.2.5) ▲Scoring issue (b) – Internal and/or external review ▲In scoring issue (b) Internal and/or external review:•At the SG60 level, information should be available internally for hatchery program
performance review.

•At the SG80 level, information should be available externally and publicly to enable
external scrutiny of the hatchery performance.

GSC5 Weighting to be Applied in Enhanced Salmon
Fisheries
Default weighting is applied in the MSC scoring spreadsheet, adjusted as appropriate for the
additional PIs in salmon fisheries.

GSC6 Allowances for Inseparable or Practicably
Inseparable (IPI) Catches in Salmon Fisheries
GSC6.1.1 ▲Different from other wholly marine species, in salmon fisheries there may be two different
types of IPI catch. These are ‘non-target’ and ‘non-local’ IPI as described below. Both types
may qualify for IPI allowances so long as the stocks are not certified separately.
a. Non-target IPI: This type of IPI will be a different species than that being assessed in
Principle 1.

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 154© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

b. Non-local IPI: This type of IPI is the same species as that being assessed underPrinciple 1, but it originates from outside of the UoA.

Example: Salmon IPI catches
In British Columbia the P1 target species is Chinook. Other species such as coho may be
incidentally caught at small percentages and thus may fall under IPI allowances.
Furthermore, some Chinook originating from the United States may be caught as theymigrate past the fishing ground in Canada.

GSC6.1.1.1 ▲The limitations applied under SC6.1.1.1 mean that IPI salmon stocks are only eligible forconsideration as IPI if they are less than 5% by weight of the catches. These IPI stocks mustmeet the additional requirements of Annex SA as normal.

GSC6.1.1.2▲
The intention of this clause and subclauses is to demonstrate that the UoA is not hindering
recovery of the IPI stocks and rationale should be consistent with GSA3.4.6.
As such, “a significant portion of the total catch” may be interpreted as 30% or more of thetotal removal of the stock and ‘not to significantly hinder’ should be consistent with
GSA3.4.6.

GSC6.1.3 ▲This amendment to the normal requirement to use the most recent year’s data reflects themulti-cohort nature of salmon species.
For pink salmon, which have a two year life history, the average catch should be calculated
across the most recent years of each cycle line.
For longer-lived salmon species, average recent catches may be calculated across periods
appropriate to their life history in the region of the fishery.
In cases where different salmon species are in consideration as target and IPI species,
average catches should first be calculated based on data from the number of years
appropriate to each species; after which the percentage catches should be determined.

End of Annex SC GuidanceDocument: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 155© Marine Stewardship Council 2018

MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01

Annex GSD: Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) –Guidance ▲BackgroundFisheries that are based on non-native species were previously ineligible for certification to
the MSC standard.
The MSC acknowledges that there are longstanding cases of fisheries introductions wherein
the introduction of the non-native species occurred prior to the existence of guidelines andregulations on introduction of exotic species into new locations and that in many instancesthese introductions are now irreversible and that the fisheries in their current state aresubject to management measures that are designed to ensure sustainable use of the target
species and associated ecosystems.
In light of this and in recognition of the increasing number of these types of fisheries seeking
to be evaluated against the MSC’s standard, the MSC has developed a set of scope criteria
to define the conditions under which an ISBF may be considered within scope of the MSC
standard and programme.
Consistent with best international practice, the intent of this policy is to enable participation in
the MSC of fisheries with longstanding introductions which are irreversible and which are
subject to management measures that promote sustainable use of the resources.
There are certain ecological considerations which may be pertinent to fisheries andmanagement systems where introductions of non-native species have occurred. Suchconsiderations may require modifications to the guidance and default tree used in theirassessment. Initial guidance on aspects of the assessment that may require suchmodifications is provided.
Annex SD is expected to be applicable over a pilot phase period of 18-24 months after which
it is expected that the scope criteria and associated assessment guidance will be subject toreview and revision.
Assessment of introduced species at Principle 1 is potentially complicated because of thevarying, but valid ecological objectives that can exist for fisheries that are based on
introduced species. In most ISBFs, objectives are set to ensure optimum productivity of thetarget (introduced) species. In certain other fisheries, objectives may be set to keep
populations of the introduced 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 for some level of restoration of biodiversity.

GSD2.1.1 ▲ISBFs are required to meet the intent of Principle 1, which is to ensure that exploited
populations are maintained at high abundance levels.
End of Annex SD Guidance
End of Guidance to the Fisheries Standard

Document: MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Standard v2.01
Date of publication: 31 August 2018

page 156© Marine Stewardship Council 2018