Version of Fisheries Standard used for this assessment. Evaluation of the fishery Likely scoring levels The Client Preparation Preparation Assessment Report shall include a completed version of Table 1 for all Performance Indicators that are assessed. The likely scoring level shall be completed using the key below. Definition of scoring Score colour shading Instructions for ‘Likely Scoring Level’ column Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 scoring issues. Fail (<60) Add either text (pass/pass with condition/fail) or the numerical range (<60/60-79/≥80) appropriate to the estimated outcome to the cell. Shade the cell of each PI evaluation table with the colour which represents the estimated PI score. Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all of the scoring issues at SG80. A condition may therefore be needed. Pass with Condition (60-79) Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery may meet one or more scoring issues at level. Pass (≥80) Table 1. Overview of likely scoring levels per Performance Indicator Principle Performance Indicator Likely Scoring Level Principle 1 Sustainable fish stocks 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4
Number of PIs under 60 Principle 2 Minimising environmental impacts 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Number of PIs under 60 Principle 3 Effective management 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Number of PIs 60 Detailed self-assessment
Guide post A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the stock. Met? b Rebuilding evaluation Guide post Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe. There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design
Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide post Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. The HCRs are expected to keep the fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. Met? b HCRs robustness to uncertainty post The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. The HCRs take account of a wide of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? c HCRs evaluation Guide post There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective Evidence clearly that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation
appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. levels required under the HCRs. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide post Some relevant information to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. Sufficient relevant information to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? b Monitoring Guide post Stock abundance and UoA removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.
b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Met? c Management strategy implementation post There is some evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully. is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? d Shark finning post It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? e Review of alternative measures Guide post is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species and they are implemented as appropriate. There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) related related
PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adeqaute to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status. Met? b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide post Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide post Information is adequate to support measures to manage main primary species. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species. Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Discussion References
Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in Guide post There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for the UoA that is expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. There is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor secondary species. Met? b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/species). There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. Met? c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some evidence that the measures/partial strategy is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented
Guide post Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? b VME habitat status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? c Minor habitat status
measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully. strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? d Compliance with management requirements and MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide post There is qualitative evidence that the UoA complies with its management requirements to protect VMEs. is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. There is clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide post The types and distribution of the main habitats are broadly understood. OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. OR The distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats.
Met? b Investigation of UoA impacts post Main impacts of the UoA on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail. Main impacts of the UoA on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail. Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. Met? c Understanding of component functions Guide post The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? d Information relevance Guide post Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on the components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? e Monitoring Guide post Adequate data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level. Information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80)
Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities post Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? b Consultation processes Guide post The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including knowledge, to inform the management system. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? c Participation
Guide post The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates effective engagement. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide post Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy. Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Met? Discussion
References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives post Objectives, are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the management system. and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the management system. Well defined and measurable short and objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the management system. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes
Met? c Compliance Guide post Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Met? d Systematic non-compliance Guide post There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Met? Discussion References Likely Performance Indicator Level (e.g. <60, 60-79, ≥80) PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide post There are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific management system. There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the fishery-specific management system. Met?