Marine Stewardship Council
Full Assessment Reporting Template
Version 2.0, 8 October 2014
Copyright notice
The Marine Stewardship Council “Full Assessment Reporting Template” and its content is
copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2014. All rights
reserved.
Senior Policy Manager
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: [email protected]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page i
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Version Control
Amendments Issued
Version
No.
Date
Description Of Amendment
1.0
15th August 2011
Date of first release
1.1
24th October
Appendix 1.1 – replace optional PISG
rationale text with requirement CR
27.10.6.2
Increase numbering within text boxes to
aide referencing. (Sections: 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
4.3, 4.4.3, 5.1, 6.4, Appendix 1.1 and
Appendix 3)
1.2
10th January 2012
1.3
15 January 2013
2.0
8 October 2014
2.0 Erratum
8 April 2015
Instructions for non-default assessment
trees.
Section 4.2, 6.3 and A1.3: Amended to
include re-certification requirements for
outstanding conditions.
Appendix 4.1: requirement to justify
surveillance score included
Appendix 1.1: requirement to identify
modified or additional PI evaluation
tables included.
Appendix 1 Evaluation table PI 1.2.2:
Scoring Issue 1 at SG100 removed from
PI 1.2.2. This was a duplicate of SI1 at
SG80.
Updated in line with changes found in
the Certification Requirements, v1.3.
Version issued incorporating changes
agreed at TAB 21 regarding RBF
(Section 4.4.3, Appendix 1.2 SICA
Tables), LTL & RBF (Section 3.3 and PI
1.1.2), Shark Finning (PIs 1.2.1 and
2.1.2), HMS & SSS (Section 3.5 and PIs
3.1.1, 3.2.2), and Transparency &
Integrity (PI 3.2.2).
Changes were made to the following
sections to correspond to text changed
from previous versions of the CR and
not previously incorporated: Section
3.5, Section 5.2, PIs 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 2.1.1,
2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.3, 3.1.2.
Minor edits, wrong and missing
referencing and typos were corrected
throughout.
Updated in line with changes found in
the Fisheries Certification
Requirements, v2.0.
Minor formatting edits were corrected in
the Evaluation Tables to allow rows to
break across pages.
Appendix 1.1 & 1.2 – amendments
made in line with April 2015 release of
FCR v2.0 erratum
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page ii
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
This document is to be cited as:
MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0
Table of Contents
Using the Full Assessment Reporting Template .................................................................... v
Re-assessments (see FCR 7.24) ................................................................................... v
Multiple Units of Assessment .........................................................................................vi
Multiple scoring elements ...............................................................................................vi
Modifications to Default Assessment Trees................................................................... vii
Corporate Branding ....................................................................................................... vii
Further customisation................................................................................................... viii
Deleting instructions and guidance .............................................................................. viii
Comments ................................................................................................................... viii
Title Page.............................................................................................................................. 1
Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary................................................................................................................................ 3
1.
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4
2.
Authorship and Peer Reviewers ..................................................................................... 5
3.
Description of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 6
3.1
4.
5
Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought ........................... 6
3.1.1
Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ................................ 7
3.1.2
Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries ....... 7
3.2
Overview of the fishery ........................................................................................ 7
3.3
Principle One: Target Species Background ......................................................... 7
3.4
Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ................................................................ 8
3.5
Principle Three: Management System Background ............................................. 8
Evaluation Procedure ................................................................................................... 10
4.1
Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...................................................................... 10
4.2
Previous assessments....................................................................................... 10
4.3
Assessment Methodologies ............................................................................... 10
4.4
Evaluation Processes and Techniques .............................................................. 11
4.4.1
Site Visits ....................................................................................................... 11
4.4.2
Consultations ................................................................................................. 11
4.4.3
Evaluation Techniques................................................................................... 11
Traceability .................................................................................................................. 13
5.1
Eligibility Date .................................................................................................... 13
5.2
Traceability within the Fishery ........................................................................... 13
5.3
Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ..................................................... 14
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further
Chains of Custody........................................................................................................ 14
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page iii
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
6
Evaluation Results ....................................................................................................... 15
6.1
Principle Level Scores ....................................................................................... 15
6.2
Summary of PI Level Scores ............................................................................. 15
6.3
Summary of Conditions ..................................................................................... 15
6.3.1
Recommendations ......................................................................................... 16
6.4
Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ........................................... 16
6.5
Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ................................ 16
References ......................................................................................................................... 17
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales .................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1.1
Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale .......................................... 18
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...................................................... 63
Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 ......................................... 63
Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) ........................................... 65
Appendix 1.2.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) .................................................. 67
Appendix 1.3 Conditions .................................................................................................. 70
Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports........................................................................................ 71
Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions.................................................................................. 72
Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency .................................................................................... 73
Appendix 5 Objections Process .......................................................................................... 74
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page iv
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Using the Full Assessment Reporting Template
The following reports shall be prepared using the Full Assessment Reporting Template:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Preliminary draft report (PDR),
Peer review draft report (PRDR),
Public comment draft report (PCDR),
Final report (FR) and
Public certification report (PCR).
If a section is not required for all the above named reports BOLD CAPITALS are used to
confirm in which reports a section shall appear.
In this template you will find numbered sections for each element of the above-named
reports.
Each numbered section has instructions (contained within a box) about the content MSC
requires within that part of the report. Sometimes an instruction can be traced to an
individual requirement in one of the scheme documents. At other times, an instruction
represents an amalgam and rationalisation of multiple requirements.
Many reporting requirements which were found in the Fisheries Certification Methodology
(superseded scheme document) Appendix 1 are now found as instructions in the template
and do not appear elsewhere in the Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR).The use of
this template is mandatory to ensure that these requirements are met.
Basic introductory text about the fishery should be included in Sections 3.3-3.5 of the report.
Key aspects of the fishery should be summarised fully in the scoring tables (Appendix 1.1)
against relevant PIs. By laying out the report in this way we intend that duplication of a long
introductory section about the fishery in the evaluation tables is avoided.
Appendix 1.1 contains evaluation tables based on tables in FCR v2.0, Annex SA. If any
discrepancies are noted between the Annex SA tables and the template evaluation tables,
teams shall use the wording given in Annex SA, not in the template (please also inform
MSC, so that corrections can be made).
Any references used to support statements in the evaluation tables of the reports shall be
included in the 'References' section of the table and an in-text reference (e.g. number or
author, date) made to the relevant source (see FCR 7.15.2).
Re-assessments (see FCR 7.24)
If a fishery qualifies for reduced re-assessment, the Reduced Re-assessment Reporting
Template may be used. If it does not, the Full Assessment Reporting Template (FA
Template) shall be used for re-assessments.
The FA Template contains sections that are applicable at re-assessment only, including
Section 4.2 ‘Previous Assessments’ and Table 2, where conformity assessment bodies
(CABs) are required to provide a summary of the previous assessment conditions and
whether they were closed or not. The intention behind this requirement is to make it totally
clear (for the CAB, the fishery client and stakeholders) at the end of the certification period
which conditions have been achieved and which ones carried over and if so, why.
Text from previous assessments may be re-used in other sections of the FA Template. This
is appropriate in situations where no substantial changes have occurred in the fishery with
respect to the background, P1, P2 and P3 sections of the report and there are no new
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page v
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Certification Requirements added to these sections. If changes to the text used in previous
sections are made, the CAB should make it clear to stakeholders where these updates have
been made, for example by using different coloured font or other form of highlighting.
Multiple Units of Assessment
Appendix 1.1 of the report shall be prepared taking appropriate account of each different
Unit of Assessment (UoA) for the fishery. This means preparing separate tables for each
UoA to enable certification bodies to meet the MSC requirement to submit Assessment
Report(s) relating to any separate UoAs.
The following scenarios are provided as examples of preparing assessment reports for
fisheries with different UoAs:
Example 1. Multiple species, one gear type
For assessments under this scenario, multiple tables should be prepared for each species
considered under Principle 1. Assuming that results for Principles 2 and 3 would be the
same for each species, a single table for each of these Principles should suffice.
Example 2. Multiple gear types, one target species
For assessments under this scenario, a single table for each Principle 1 PI and one for each
Principle 3 PI should be prepared, while multiple tables might be appropriate for Principle 2
to account for the different gear types.
Multiple scoring elements
When multiple scoring elements are assessed in P1 (e.g. multiple stocks of a species) or P2
(multiple gear types, species, habitats), additional rows may be added under the ‘Met’ line
for each separate element so that the scores are clear for each scoring element. Rationale
provided shall include justification for the scores of each element.
Additionally, separate scores may be provided for each scoring element by adding rows
above the ‘overall score’ row, but an overall score shall also be given – see Example 1
below.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page vi
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Example 1 - PI 2.1.1 (Note: PI shortened for illustrative purposes, full PI evaluation tables
provided in Appendix 1)
PI 2.1.1
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder
recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
a
Guidepost
Main primary species
are likely to be above
the PRI
Main primary species
are highly likely to be
above the PRI
There is a high degree of
certainty that main primary
species are above PRI and are
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Species 1
Y
Y
Y
Species 2
Y
N
N
Species 3
Y
Y
N
Justification
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
Score Species 1
Score Species 2
Score Species 3
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
Modifications to Default Assessment Trees
If any changes are made to the default assessment tree (Annex SA) following requirements
in FCR 7.8.5, the PI evaluation tables should be amended to reflect these changes. Where
additional tables have been used in the assessment, PI evaluation tables should be inserted
in the relevant place within Appendix 1.
For enhanced bivalve fisheries (Annex SB) and salmon fisheries (Annex SC), separate
reporting templates are provided. Where there is not a defined default assessment tree for
the fishery type, such as for mixed species fisheries, modifications to the reporting templates
should be dependent on the assessment tree that was consulted on, including any final
changes.
Corporate Branding
The reporting template may be formatted to comply with the CAB corporate identity.
It is the structure and content of the fishery assessment report that must be as specified in
the template.
Examples of appropriate amendments are:
a. A title page with the company logo
b. A company header used throughout the report.
c. A company footer replacing the current MSC footer (which should still at the least
also include page numbering).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page vii
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
CABs should note that in sections where orientation of pages changes the formatting of
company headers may become corrupted. Landscape sections of the report have been
‘unlinked from previous sections’ to minimise formatting issues.
Further customisation
Additionally, the following Sections may be deleted from the template if they are not
applicable to the assessment (e.g. in fisheries which are not enhanced, or where the RBF is
not used in scoring any PI):









Section 3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
Section 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based
Fisheries (ISBF)
Section 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter
Further Chains of Custody
Section 6.3.1 Recommendations
Section 6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions
Appendix 5 Objections Process
The numbering of these sections has been arranged to minimise the effect of this on the
numbering of other sections.
Additional sections may be added to the report, if needed. These should only be included at
the end of sub-sections or by adding new sections at the end of the report.
Deleting instructions and guidance
The following parts of this document are not intended to appear in the report and should be
deleted:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Introductory pages i to viii.
The boxes containing instructions.
The GREY instructions
Notes and guidance enclosed in square brackets or in italics
The MSC’s default footer
Comments
Anyone wishing to comment on this document or any other MSC scheme documents is
encouraged to do so by sending an email to [email protected].
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page viii
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Title Page
On a title page (front page):
Fishery name
Report Title [e.g. Public Certification Report]
CAB name and authors’ names
Client name(s)
Date
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 1
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Contents
Insert a table of contents.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 2
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Glossary
(OPTIONAL)
Insert a Glossary or list of acronyms, if desired. Note that any terms defined here shall not
contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 3
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
1 Executive Summary
The summary shall include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Names of team members.
A brief explanation of the process that was pursued and the events that occurred.
The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation.
The determination / draft determination reached with supporting rationale.
Any conditions attached to the certification and the time-scale for compliance.
[Optionally, the summary may include additional, non-binding management
recommendations.]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 4
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers
(ASSESSMENT TEAM INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS, PEER
REVIEWER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT
REPORTS)
1.
a.
b.
c.
The report shall contain:
Names, qualifications and affiliations of team members.
Specification of which person is the team leader.
Names of the peer reviewers.
2. If the Risk Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery the report
shall state which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.
(References: FCR 7.5, FCR Annex PC)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 5
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
3 Description of the Fishery
3.1
3.1.1
Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought
UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)
(ALL REPORTS EXCEPT PCR)
The report shall include a statement of the CAB’s determination that the fishery is within
scope of the MSC certification sought.
The report shall also describe:
a. The UoA(s).
b. A rationale for choosing the UoA(s).
c. Description of the proposed UoC and any other eligible fishers at the start of the
certificate (prior to any certificate sharing).
(References: FCR 7.4.7-7.4.8)
3.1.2
Final UoC(s)
(PCR ONLY)
The PCR shall describe:
a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification.
b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c).
c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.
(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10)
3.1.3
Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data
The report shall include a completed TAC and catch data table using Table 1. [Note that a
separate table should be provided for each species or gear, if possible.]
Table 1. TAC and Catch Data
TAC
UoA share of TAC
UoC share of total TAC
Total green weight catch by
UoC
Year
Year
Year
Year (most
recent)
Year (second
most recent)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
[YYYY]
[YYYY]
[YYYY]
[YYYY]
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
[n, unit]
[n, unit]
[n, unit]
[n, unit]
[YYYY]
Amount
[n, unit]
page 6
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
3.1.4
Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
For enhanced fisheries, the report shall include:
a. A statement describing how the fishery meets the scope criteria for enhanced fisheries.
b. The assessment processes, analyses and outcomes on which the CAB based its
rationale to determine that the fishery is within scope.
(Reference: FCR 7.4.3)
3.1.5
Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
Where the fishery in assessment is an ISBF, the report shall include:
a. A statement describing how the fishery meets the scope criteria for ISBF.
b. The assessment processes, analyses and outcomes on which the CAB based its
rationale to determine that the fishery is within scope.
(Reference: FCR 7.4.4, Annex SD)
3.2
Overview of the fishery
The report shall include:
a. A summary of basic information about the management operation (e.g. ownership,
history, and organisational structure) and the sea/freshwater area that was evaluated.
b. Species types, management history, fishing practices (including configurations of gear(s)
used), historic fishing levels, other resource attributes and constraints.
c. User rights (both legal and customary), the legal/administrative status of the operation
and involvement of other entities including responsible government agencies.
Sections 3.3-3.5 should include an elaboration of the information submitted in the MSC
Notification Report Form required by FCR 7.8.7.1.
3.3
Principle One: Target Species Background
1. The report shall have a summary of the fishery based on the topics below, referencing
electronic or other documents used:
a. Outline of the fishery resources including life histories as appropriate.
b. Outline of status of stocks as indicated by stock assessments, including a description of
the assessment methods, standards, and stock indicators, biological limits, etc.
c. History of fishing and management.
2. The report shall indicate if the target species is key LTL (FCR Annex SA 2.2.9) or not. If
there are multiple P1 species, the report shall indicate which are key LTL and which are not.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 7
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
3.4
Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
1. The report shall have a summary of the UoA based on the topics below, referencing
electronic or other documents used:
a. The aquatic ecosystem, its status and any particularly sensitive areas, habitats or
ecosystem features influencing or affected by the UoA.
b. The Primary, Secondary and endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species
including their status and relevant management history.
c. Specific constraints, e.g. details of any unwanted catch of species, their conservation
status and measures taken to minimise this as appropriate.
d. Details of any critical environments or sources of concern and actions required to
address them.
e. If cumulative impacts (e.g. combined impacts of MSC UoAs) need consideration (either
within Primary, Secondary, ETP or Habitats PIs), the report shall contain a summary of
how this has been addressed, i.e. what other MSC UoAs/fisheries were considered and
how the cumulative impacts were taken into account.
2. The report shall include the catch and UoA related mortality of all main Primary, main
Secondary and ETP species together with a description of the adequacy of information,
identification of data sources used and whether they are qualitative or quantitative.
3.5
Principle Three: Management System Background
1. The report shall have a summary of the UoA and the fishery-specific management system
based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Area of operation of the UoA and under which jurisdiction it falls (see also point 2 below).
Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the UoA.
Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan.
Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups.
Details of other non-MSC fishery users or activities, which could affect the UoA, and
arrangements for liaison and co-ordination.
f. Details of the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised
participants.
g. Objectives for the fishery (referring to any or all of the following if relevant):

Resource

Environmental

Biodiversity and ecological

Technological

Social

Economic
h. Outline the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery.
i. Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and
particulars of the nature of those rights.
j. Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the
objectives within a specified period. These may include general and specific measures,
precautionary measures, contingency plans, mechanisms for emergency decisions, etc.
k. Particulars of arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance
and enforcement.
l. Details of any planned education and training for interest groups.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 8
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
m. Date of next review and audit of the management plan.
[Note: Some of the above may be of a generic nature and hence be dealt with in the general
rules of fishing (e.g. a national fishery legislation), in which case these can be referred to in
the plan, without repeating all the details. However, specific points or detail may be required
for specific fisheries.]
2. The report shall indicate which combination of jurisdictional categories apply to the
management system of the UoA, including consideration of formal, informal and/or traditional
management systems when assessing performance of UoAs under Principle 3, including:
 Single jurisdiction
 Single jurisdiction with indigenous component
 Shared stocks
 Straddling stocks
 Stocks of highly migratory species (HMS)
 Stocks of discrete high seas non-HMS
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 9
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
4 Evaluation Procedure
4.1
Harmonised Fishery Assessment
If relevant, in accordance with FCR 7.4.16 and Annex PB, the report shall describe:
a. Processes, activities and specific outcomes of efforts to harmonise fishery assessments
in cases where assessments overlap or new assessments overlap with pre-existing
fisheries.
(Reference: FCR 7.4.16, FCR Annex PB)
4.2
1.
Previous assessments
The report shall contain:
a. A summary of any previous assessments of the client operations.
b. Conclusions reached from that previous assessment.
2.
a.
b.
i.
ii.
iii.
Using Table 2 below, the report shall also contain:
Details of any conditions that were closed at or between the previous surveillance audits
and the PCDR, with a written justification of the reasons for closing the conditions.
In cases where a condition has not been closed:
A justification for why progress on that condition has been judged to be adequate by
the CAB following the requirements specified in FCR 7.23.13.1 and 7.23.13.2
(excepting 7.23.13.2.b).
Details of the conditions that the CAB proposes to carry over or reformulate within the
re-certification.
Details of actions that have been applied to fishery clients when inadequate progress
has been made towards meeting a condition.
(Reference: FCR 7.24.2.2, 7.23.13)
Table 2. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions [Add or delete rows as needed]
Condition
PI(s)
Year
Justification
closed
[Number & summary]
4.3
1.
[PIs]
[e.g. Year
3. Or
indicate if
not yet
closed]
Assessment Methodologies
The report shall state:
a. The version number of the FCR used to assess the fishery.
b. The version number of the ‘MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template’ used to produce
this report.
2.
The report shall also state whether the Default Assessment Tree was used with or
without adjustments.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 10
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
3.
For each change to the default tree, the changes shall be described and the impact
on the following matters shall be analysed and justified:
a. New or altered Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISG).
b. Weights of relative importance assigned to each new or altered PISG.
c. Rationale for each of the changed PISGs used in the assessment, as well as the weight
assigned to each.
Stakeholder comments and CAB responses shall be included as appropriate in Appendix 3.
(References: FCR 7.8.4-7.8.5)
4.4
4.4.1
Evaluation Processes and Techniques
Site Visits
The report shall contain:
a. An itinerary of field activities with dates.
b. A description of main activities and locations that were inspected.
c. Names of individuals contacted during field inspections.
(Reference: FCR 7.9)
4.4.2
Consultations
1.
The report shall contain:
a. Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder
organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives.
b. A summary of information obtained.
2.
The report may also contain:
a. A description of any stakeholder toolbox tools used (see here).
b. A description of any stakeholder engagement strategy or plan carried out.
(Reference: FCR 7.9)
4.4.3
Evaluation Techniques
1.
The report shall describe:
a. The rationale for choosing the media used for public announcements.
b. The methodology used, including sample-based means of acquiring a working
knowledge of the management operation and sea base.
c. The scoring process (e.g. group consensus process).
d. The decision rule for reaching the final recommendation (e.g. aggregate category-level
scores must all exceed 80).
2.
The report shall include (using Table 3 below):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 11
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
a. The set of scoring elements (e.g. species or habitats) that have been considered in each
outcome PI in Principles 1 and 2.
b. Under which component they were assessed.
c. Whether any scoring elements are data-deficient.
(Reference: FCR 7.10.7, FCR Annex PF 5.1.1, FCR Annex SA 3.1.1)
Table 3 Scoring elements [Add or delete rows as needed]
Component
Scoring elements
[e.g. P1, Primary,
Secondary, ETP]
[e.g. species or stock]
3.
Main/Not main
Data-deficient or
not
If the RBF is used the report shall include:
a. The rationale for using the RBF in relation to the criteria set out in FCR 7.7.6 and
FCRTable 3, and stakeholder comments on its use.
b. The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range
of stakeholders including any participatory tools used.
c. A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the
range of opinions.
d. The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the
assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.
(Reference: FCR 7.7.6, Annex PF)
[Note: the outcomes of stakeholder engagement and their supporting rationale are to be
documented in the Evaluation Results section (section 6), while the specific content of
stakeholder written or verbal submissions or information generated in meetings or
workshops are to be provided in Appendix 3 of this report.]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 12
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
5 Traceability
5.1
1.
Eligibility Date
The report shall provide:
a. The eligibility date.
b. The rationale for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability
and segregation systems in the fishery will be implemented by this date.
(Reference: FCR 7.6)
5.2
Traceability within the Fishery
1. The report shall include a description of factors that may lead to risks of non-certified fish
being mixed with certified fish prior to entering Chain of Custody, using Table 4 below. For
each risk factor, there shall be a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the
fishery, and if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in
place.
2. The report shall include:
a. A description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery and how
these systems will allow any products sold as MSC certified to be traced back to the
UoC.
b. An evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.
(Reference: FCR 7.12.1.1, 7.12.1.3, 7.12.1.4)
Table 4 Traceability Factors within the Fishery:
Traceability Factor
Description of risk factor if present. Where
applicable, a description of relevant mitigation
measures or traceability systems (this can
include the role of existing regulatory or fishery
management controls)
Potential for non-certified gear/s to be
used within the fishery
Potential for vessels from the UoC to
fish outside the UoC or in different
geographical areas (on the same trips
or different trips)
Potential for vessels outside of the UoC
or client group fishing the same stock
Risks of mixing between certified and
non-certified catch during storage,
transport, or handling activities
(including transport at sea and on land,
points of landing, and sales at auction)
Risks of mixing between certified and
non-certified catch during processing
activities (at-sea and/or before
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 13
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
subsequent Chain of Custody)
Risks of mixing between certified and
non-certified catch during transhipment
Any other risks of substitution between
fish from the UoC (certified catch) and
fish from outside this unit (non-certified
catch) before subsequent Chain of
Custody is required
5.3
Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
1. The report shall include:
a. A conclusion and determination of whether the product will be eligible to enter further
certified chains of custody and if it is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the
MSC ecolabel.
b. A list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell
product as MSC certified.
c. The point of intended change of ownership of product, and
d. A list of eligible landing points if relevant
e. The point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required.
(References: FCR 7.12.1, 7.12.1.5, 7.12.2, 7.12.2.1 7.12.3)
[Note: If the CAB makes a negative determination under 7.12.1, the CAB shall state in its
reports that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified
or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the Client Group includes other entities such as agents,
unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be
clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.]
5.4
Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter
Further Chains of Custody
1. Where an IPI stock(s) is involved in the certification, the following shall be included in the
report:
a. An evaluation of the species, stock, proportion and weight of the catch of IPI stock(s) and
their eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody.
b. A substantiated rationale of how each of the requirements specified in CR Annex PA are
or are not met for any catches of IPI stock(s), except in cases regarded as exempt under
FCR 7.4.14.2.
(References: FCR 7.12.1.6, 7.4.13-15, Annex PA)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 14
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
6 Evaluation Results
6.1
Principle Level Scores
Table 5 shall be completed documenting the Principle level scores for each of the three MSC
Principles. Such Principle level scores shall be reported to the nearest one decimal place.
Revisions to the table may be made to reflect the actual UoAs in the fishery.
(Reference: FCR 7.10.4)
Table 5: Final Principle Scores
Final Principle Scores
Principle
Principle 1 – Target Species
Principle 2 – Ecosystem
Principle 3 – Management System
6.2
Score
Summary of PI Level Scores
The report shall include a completed copy of appropriate worksheet in the ‘MSC fishery
assessment scoring worksheets’ Excel file found on the MSC website ‘Forms and templates’
page here.
Revisions to the table may be made to reflect the actual UoAs in the fishery.
6.3
Summary of Conditions
1. Assign a number to each condition. Table 6 below shall be completed by listing the
Conditions by number against the relevant Performance Indicator. Add as many rows to
the table as needed.
2. If no conditions are required, the report shall include a statement confirming this. The
table below should then be deleted.
[Note: Table 6 is for summary purposes only. See Appendix 1.3 of this report template for full
requirements for documenting conditions in accordance with the MSC scheme
requirements.]
(RE-ASSESSMENT ONLY: PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)
3. If any of the new conditions relate to conditions raised in the previous assessment or
surveillance audits, CABs shall record this in the final column of Table 6 below.
Table 6: Summary of Conditions
Condition
Condition
number
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
Performance
Indicator
Related to
previously raised
condition?
(Y/N/NA)
page 15
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
6.4
Recommendations
(OPTIONAL)
[If the CAB wishes to include any recommendations to the client, include these here.]
6.5
Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)
1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination
recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery
should be certified.
(Reference: FCR 7.16)
(REQUIRED FOR PCR)
2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the
CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.
6.6
Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment
(OPTIONAL)
Identify any work conducted by the client (or the management agency) specifically targeted
at bringing the fishery to the MSC standard, either prior to or since any pre-assessment
report that was prepared. This information is particularly valuable for MSC’s reporting on the
impacts of its programme.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 16
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
References
The report shall include a reference list detailing all information sources used in assessing
the fishery and preparing the report.
[For example: Author, Year. Title of Article, Title of Journal, Volume number, Page(s).]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 17
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendices
Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales
Appendix 1.1
Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
1.
In the PI evaluation tables for each PI and scoring element, as appropriate, the
rationale shall include:
a. Commentary about the basis for decision. This shall make direct reference to the
relevant indicator, scoring guidepost and issue and whether or not each of the scoring
issues is fully met (Reference: FCR 7.10.6.2).
b. Reference to the source of information used to make a judgement about that indicator.
2.
For all outcome indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.5.1) where
quantitative information has been used in scoring, the report shall include:
a. A referenced URL where stakeholders can view this information, or
b. The quantitative information used.
3.
If the RBF has been used for scoring a PI, the relevant RBF table shall include
rationales for the scores and any changes to the scores in completing the RBF assessment
4.
For any PI for which scoring is not required or where there is a default score of 100,
this information shall be recorded within the relevant evaluation table.
5.
If the RBF was used to score a PI, its use shall be referenced in the justification
boxes and cross referenced to the RBF Outputs section of the report (Appendix 1.2).
6.
Any agreed modifications to PIs in the Standard Default Assessment Tree shall be
incorporated into the evaluation tables that make up Appendix 1.1.
a. Modified evaluation tables as a result of consulting on and using a non-default
assessment tree shall be identified by the suffix M (e.g. PI 1.2.1M).
7.
Additional PI tables shall be created where different PIs have been agreed and are
being used in the assessment.
a.
Additional evaluation tables as a result of consulting on and using a non-default
assessment tree shall be identified by the suffix A (e.g. PI 1.2.5A).
8.
Insert the number of issues met at each guidepost level and insert the PI score.
[For PIs where scoring guideposts have only one scoring issue a ‘P’ may be inserted into the
‘Met?’ column in the PI table in place of a Y or an N to show that the issue has been partially
met. (Reference: FCR 7.10.6.3)]
9.
If a condition is required, assign it a number for cross referencing to the Conditions
section of this report (Reference: FCR 7.11).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 18
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
PI 1.1.1
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low
probability of recruitment overfishing
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
SG 80
SG 100
Stock status relative to recruitment impairment
Guide
It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the
post
above the point where
stock is above the PRI.
recruitment would be
impaired (PRI).
There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock is
above the PRI.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY
Guide
post
The stock is at or
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock
has been fluctuating
around a level consistent
with MSY or has been
above this level over
recent years.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference
point
Value of reference
point
Current stock status relative
to reference point
Reference
point used in
scoring stock
relative to
PRI (SIa)
[e.g. BLOSS]
[Include value
specifying units.
e.g. 50,000t total stock
biomass]
[Include current stock status in
the same units as the reference
point e.g. 90,000/BLOSS=1.8]
Reference
point used in
scoring stock
relative to
MSY (SIb)
[e.g. BMSY]
[Include value
specifying units.
e.g. 100,000t total
stock biomass]
[Include current stock status in
the same units as the reference
point e.g. 90,000/BMSY=0.9]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 19
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL [NOTE: only use this table for stocks identified as key
LTL]
PI 1.1.1 A
The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem
impacts
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
SG 80
SG 100
Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment
Guide
post
It is likely that the stock is
above the point where
serious ecosystem
impacts could occur.
It is highly likely that the
stock is above the point
where serious ecosystem
impacts could occur.
There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock is
above the point where
serious ecosystem
impacts could occur.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs
Guide
post
The stock is at or
fluctuating around a level
consistent with ecosystem
needs.
There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock
has been fluctuating
around a level consistent
with ecosystem needs or
has been above this level
over recent years.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference
point
Value of reference
point
Current stock status relative
to reference point
Reference
point used in
scoring stock
relative to
ecosystem
impairment
(SIa)
[e.g. B35%]
[Include value
specifying units.
e.g. 50,000t total stock
biomass]
[Include current stock status in
the same units as the reference
point e.g. 90,000/B35%=1.8]
Reference
point used in
scoring stock
relative to
ecosystem
needs (SIb)
[e.g. B75%]
[Include value
specifying units.
e.g. 100,000t total
stock biomass]
[Include current stock status in
the same units as the reference
point e.g. 90,000/B75%=0.9]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 20
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding
PI 1.1.2
Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a
specified timeframe
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
SG 80
SG 100
Rebuilding timeframes
Guide
A rebuilding timeframe is
post
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?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
Rebuilding evaluation
Guide
post
Monitoring is in place to
determine whether the
rebuilding strategies are
effective in rebuilding the
stock within the specified
timeframe.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
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.
(Y/N)
There 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.
(Y/N)
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 21
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy
PI 1.2.1
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
d
SG 100
Harvest strategy design
Guide
post
The harvest strategy is
expected to achieve
stock management
objectives reflected in PI
1.1.1 SG80.
The harvest strategy is
responsive to the state of
the stock and the
elements of the harvest
strategy work together
towards achieving stock
management objectives
reflected in PI 1.1.1
SG80.
The harvest strategy is
responsive to the state of
the stock and is designed
to achieve stock
management objectives
reflected in PI 1.1.1
SG80.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Harvest strategy evaluation
Guide
post
The harvest strategy is
likely to work based on
prior experience or
plausible argument.
The harvest strategy may
not have been fully tested
but evidence exists that it
is achieving its objectives.
The performance of the
harvest strategy has been
fully evaluated and
evidence exists to show
that it is achieving its
objectives including being
clearly able to maintain
stocks at target levels.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Harvest strategy monitoring
Guide
post
Monitoring is in place that
is expected to determine
whether the harvest
strategy is working.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Harvest strategy review
Guide
post
The harvest strategy is
periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
e
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Shark finning
Guide
It is likely that shark
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
It is highly likely that
There is a high degree of
page 22
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 1.2.1
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
post
finning is not taking place.
shark finning is not taking
place.
certainty that shark
finning is not taking place.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
f
[Scoring issue need not be scored if sharks are not a target species].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Review of alternative measures
Guide
There is a regular review There is a biennial
There has been a review
post
of the potential
of the potential
review of the potential
effectiveness and
effectiveness and
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
practicality of alternative
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
measures to minimise
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of
UoA-related mortality of
UoA-related mortality of
unwanted catch of the
unwanted catch of the
unwanted catch of the
target stock.
target stock and they are
target stock, and they are
implemented as
implemented, as
appropriate.
appropriate.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there is no unwanted catch of the target stock].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 23
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools
PI 1.2.2
There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
SG 100
The HCRs are expected
to keep the stock
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.
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.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
HCRs robustness to uncertainty
Guide
post
The HCRs are likely to be
robust to the main
uncertainties.
The HCRs take account
of a wide range of
uncertainties including the
ecological role of the
stock, and there is
evidence that the HCRs
are robust to the main
uncertainties.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
c
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
HCRs evaluation
Guide
There is some evidence
post
that tools used or
available to implement
HCRs are appropriate
and effective in controlling
exploitation.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
Available evidence
indicates that the tools in
use are appropriate and
effective in achieving the
exploitation levels
required under the HCRs.
Evidence clearly shows
that the tools in use are
effective in achieving the
exploitation levels
required under the HCRs.
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 24
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring
PI 1.2.3
Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
SG 80
SG 100
Range of information
Guide
post
Some relevant
information related to
stock structure, stock
productivity and fleet
composition is available
to support the harvest
strategy.
Sufficient relevant
information related 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 related to the
current harvest strategy,
is available.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Comprehensiveness of information
Guide
post
There is good information
on all other fishery
removals from the stock.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 25
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status
PI 1.2.4
There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
c
d
Guide
post
The assessment is
appropriate for the stock
and for the harvest control
rule.
The assessment takes
into account the major
features relevant to the
biology of the species and
the nature of the UoA.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Assessment approach
Guide
post
The assessment
estimates stock status
relative to generic
reference points
appropriate to the species
category.
The assessment
estimates stock status
relative to reference
points that are
appropriate to the stock
and can be estimated.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Uncertainty in the assessment
Guide
post
The assessment
identifies major sources
of uncertainty.
The assessment takes
uncertainty into
account.
The assessment takes
into account uncertainty
and is evaluating stock
status relative to
reference points in a
probabilistic way.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Evaluation of assessment
Guide
post
The assessment has
been tested and shown to
be robust. Alternative
hypotheses and
assessment approaches
have been rigorously
explored.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
e
SG 100
Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration
Justifi
cation
b
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Peer review of assessment
Guide
post
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
The assessment of stock
status is subject to peer
review.
The assessment has
been internally and
externally peer reviewed.
page 26
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 1.2.4
There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met?
Justifi
cation
References
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 27
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome
PI 2.1.1
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder
recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
SG 80
Main primary species stock status
Guide
Main primary species are
Main primary species are
post
likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above
the PRI
OR
OR
If the species is below the
PRI, the UoA has
measures in place that
are expected to ensure
that the UoA does not
hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
b
SG 100
There is a high degree of
certainty that main
primary species are
above the PRI and are
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
If the species is below the
PRI, there is either
evidence of recovery or
a demonstrably effective
strategy in place between
all MSC UoAs which
categorise this species
as main, to ensure that
they collectively do not
hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Minor primary species stock status
Guide
post
Minor primary species are
highly likely to be above
the PRI
OR
If below the PRI, there is
evidence that the UoA
does not hinder the
recovery and rebuilding of
minor primary species
Met?
Justifi
cation
References
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 28
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy
PI 2.1.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder
rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements
measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
SG 100
Management strategy in place
Guide
post
There are measures in
place for the UoA, if
necessary, that are
expected to maintain or to
not hinder rebuilding of
the main primary species
at/to levels which are
likely to above the point
where recruitment would
be impaired.
There is a partial
strategy in place for the
UoA, if necessary, that is
expected to maintain or to
not hinder rebuilding of
the main primary species
at/to levels which are
highly likely to be above
the point where
recruitment would be
impaired.
There is a strategy in
place for the UoA for
managing main and minor
primary species.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy implementation
Guide
post
There is some evidence
that the measures/partial
strategy is being
implemented
successfully.
There 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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
d
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Shark finning
Guide
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?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if no Primary species are sharks].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 29
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.1.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder
rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements
measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.
scoring issue]
e
Review of alternative measures
Guide
post
There is a review of the
potential effectiveness
and practicality of
alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related
mortality of unwanted
catch of main primary
species.
There is a regular review
of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related 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
UoA-related mortality of
unwanted catch of all
primary species, and they
are implemented, as
appropriate.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no unwanted catches of Primary
species].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 30
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for 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 Issue
SG 60
a
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.
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.
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.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
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?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
c
SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species
Guide
post
b
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 31
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
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
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 32
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome
PI 2.2.1
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit
and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a
biological based limit.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
SG 80
SG 100
Main secondary species stock status
Guide
post
Main Secondary species
are likely to be within
biologically based limits.
Main secondary species
are highly likely to be
above biologically based
limits
OR
There is a high degree of
certainty that main
secondary species are
within biologically based
limits.
OR
If below biologically based
limits, there are measures
in place expected to
ensure that the UoA does
not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
b
If below biologically based
limits, there is either
evidence of recovery or
a demonstrably
effective partial strategy
in place such that the
UoA does not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
AND
Where catches of a main
secondary species
outside of biological limits
are considerable, there is
either evidence of
recovery or a,
demonstrably effective
strategy in place between
those MSC UoAs that
also have considerable
catches of the species, to
ensure that they
collectively do not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Minor secondary species stock status
Guide
post
Minor secondary species
are highly likely to be
above biologically based
limits.
OR
If below biologically based
limits’, there is evidence
that the UoA does not
hinder the recovery and
rebuilding of secondary
species
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 33
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.2.1
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit
and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a
biological based limit.
Met?
Justifi
cation
References
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 34
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for 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
a
b
c
SG 100
Management strategy in place
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy implementation
Guide
post
There is some evidence
that the measures/partial
strategy is being
implemented
successfully.
There is clear evidence
that the partial
strategy/strategy is being
implemented successfully
and is achieving its
objective as set out in
scoring issue (a).
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
d
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Shark finning
Guide
post
It is likely that shark
finning is not taking place.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
It is highly likely that
shark finning is not taking
There is a high degree of
certainty that shark
page 35
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.2.2
e
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.
place.
finning is not taking place.
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch
Justifi
cation
There is a review of the
potential effectiveness
and practicality of
alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related
mortality of unwanted
catch of main secondary
species.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Guide
post
[Scoring issue need not be scored if are no unwanted catches of secondary
species].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
There is a regular review
of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of
unwanted catch of main
secondary species and
they are implemented as
appropriate.
(Y/N/Not relevant)
There is a biennial
review of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of
unwanted catch of all
secondary species, and
they are implemented, as
appropriate.
(Y/N/Not relevant)
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 36
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information
PI 2.2.3
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is
adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the
strategy to manage secondary species.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
SG 80
SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species
Guide
post
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate the
impact of the UoA on the
main secondary species
with respect to status.
Some quantitative
information is available
and adequate to assess
the impact of the UoA on
main secondary species
with respect to status.
OR
Quantitative information is
available and adequate
to assess with a high
degree of certainty the
impact of the UoA on
main secondary species
with respect to status.
OR
If RBF is used to score
PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:
b
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate
productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
main secondary species.
If RBF is used to score
PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:
Some quantitative
information is adequate to
assess productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
main secondary species.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species
Guide
post
Some quantitative
information is adequate to
estimate the impact of the
UoA on minor secondary
species with respect to
status.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
c
(Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Information adequacy for management strategy
Guide
post
Information is adequate to
support measures to
manage main secondary
species.
Information is adequate to
support a partial strategy
to manage main
secondary species.
Information is adequate to
support a strategy to
manage all secondary
species, and evaluate
with a high degree of
certainty whether the
strategy is achieving its
objective.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 37
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.2.3
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is
adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the
strategy to manage secondary species.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 38
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome
PI 2.3.1
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of
ETP species
The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species
Scoring Issue
a
b
c
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where
applicable
Guide
post
Where national and/or
international requirements
set limits for ETP species,
the effects of the UoA on
the population/stock are
known and likely to be
within these limits.
Where national and/or
international requirements
set limits for ETP species,
the combined effects of
the MSC UoAs on the
population/stock are
known and highly likely
to be within these limits.
Where national and/or
international requirements
set limits for ETP species,
there is a high degree of
certainty that the
combined effects of the
MSC UoAs are within
these limits.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no national or international
requirements that set limits for ETP species].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Direct effects
Guide
post
Known direct effects of
the UoA are likely to not
hinder recovery of ETP
species.
Known direct effects of
the UoA are highly likely
to not hinder recovery of
ETP species.
There is a high degree of
confidence that there are
no significant detrimental
direct effects of the UoA
on ETP species.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Indirect effects
Guide
post
Indirect effects have been
considered and are
thought to be highly
likely to not create
unacceptable impacts.
There is a high degree of
confidence that there are
no significant detrimental
indirect effects of the
fishery on ETP species.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 39
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:
PI 2.3.2
 meet national and international requirements;
 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Scoring Issue
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to
minimise the mortality of ETP species.
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
a
b
c
Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)
Guide
post
There are measures in
place that minimise the
UoA-related mortality of
ETP species, and are
expected to be highly
likely to achieve national
and international
requirements for the
protection of ETP
species.
There is a strategy in
place for managing the
UoA’s impact on ETP
species, including
measures to minimise
mortality, which is
designed to be highly
likely to achieve national
and international
requirements for the
protection of ETP
species.
There is a
comprehensive strategy
in place for managing the
UoA’s impact on ETP
species, including
measures to minimise
mortality, which is
designed to achieve
above national and
international requirements
for the protection of ETP
species.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no requirements for protection or
rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy in place (alternative)
Guide
post
There are measures in
place that are expected to
ensure the UoA does not
hinder the recovery of
ETP species.
There is a strategy in
place that is expected to
ensure the UoA does not
hinder the recovery of
ETP species.
There is a
comprehensive strategy
in place for managing
ETP species, to ensure
the UoA does not hinder
the recovery of ETP
species
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are requirements for protection or
rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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 an objective
basis for confidence
that the
measures/strategy will
work, based on
information directly
about the fishery and/or
the species involved.
The
strategy/comprehensive
strategy is mainly based
on information directly
about the fishery and/or
species involved, and a
quantitative analysis
supports high
confidence that the
strategy will work.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 40
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:
PI 2.3.2
Justifi
cation
d
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to
minimise the mortality of ETP species.
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy implementation
Guide
post
There is some evidence
that the
measures/strategy is
being implemented
successfully.
There is clear evidence
that the
strategy/comprehensive
strategy is being
implemented successfully
and is achieving its
objective as set out in
scoring issue (a) or (b).
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
e
 meet national and international requirements;
 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species
Guide
post
There is a review of the
potential effectiveness
and practicality of
alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related
mortality of ETP species.
There is a regular review
of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of
ETP species and they are
implemented as
appropriate.
There is a biennial
review of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality ETP
species, and they are
implemented, as
appropriate.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 41
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information
PI 2.3.3
Scoring Issue
a
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts
on ETP species, including:
 Information for the development of the management strategy;
 Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy;
and
 Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
Guide
post
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate the
UoA related mortality on
ETP species.
OR
If RBF is used to score PI
2.3.1 for the UoA:
Some quantitative
information is adequate
to assess the UoA
related mortality and
impact and to determine
whether the UoA may be
a threat to protection and
recovery of the ETP
species.
Quantitative information is
available to assess with a
high degree of certainty
the magnitude of UoArelated impacts,
mortalities and injuries
and the consequences
for the status of ETP
species.
OR
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate
productivity and
susceptibility attributes
for ETP species.
b
If RBF is used to score PI
2.3.1 for the UoA:
Some quantitative
information is adequate to
assess productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
ETP species.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Information adequacy for management strategy
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 42
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for 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 Issue
SG 60
a
b
SG 80
SG 100
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
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 commonly
encountered habitats to a
point where there would
be serious or irreversible
harm.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no VMEs].
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
c
Minor habitat status
Guide
post
There is evidence that
the UoA is highly unlikely
to reduce structure and
function of the minor
habitats to a point where
there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
(Y/N)
Met?
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 43
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy
PI 2.4.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose
a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
Management strategy in place
Guide
There are measures in
post
place, if necessary, that
are expected to achieve
the Habitat Outcome 80
level of performance.
SG 100
There is a partial
strategy in place, if
necessary, that is
expected to achieve the
Habitat Outcome 80 level
of performance or above.
There is a strategy in
place for managing the
impact of all MSC
UoAs/non-MSC fisheries
on habitats.
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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/habitats).
There is some objective
basis for confidence
that the measures/partial
strategy will work, based
on information directly
about the UoA and/or
habitats involved.
Testing supports high
confidence that the
partial strategy/strategy
will work, based on
information directly
about the UoA and/or
habitats involved.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy implementation
Guide
post
There is some
quantitative evidence
that the measures/partial
strategy is being
implemented
successfully.
There is clear
quantitative evidence
that the partial
strategy/strategy is being
implemented successfully
and is achieving its
objective, as outlined in
scoring issue (a).
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
d
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Compliance with management requirements and other 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.
Met?
(Y/N/Not relevant)
Justifi
cation
[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no VMEs].
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
There 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.
(Y/N/Not 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.
(Y/N/Not relevant)
page 44
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.4.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose
a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 45
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for 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
a
Information quality
Guide
The types and distribution
post
of the main habitats are
broadly understood.
OR
If CSA is used to score
PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate the
types and distribution of
the main habitats.
SG 80
SG 100
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.
The distribution of all
habitats is known over
their range, with particular
attention to the
occurrence of vulnerable
habitats.
OR
If CSA is used to score
PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:
Some quantitative
information is available
and is adequate to
estimate the types and
distribution of the main
habitats.
b
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
Guide
post
Information is adequate to
broadly understand the
nature of the main
impacts of gear use on
the main habitats,
including spatial overlap
of habitat with fishing
gear.
Information is adequate to
allow for identification of
the main impacts of the
UoA on the main habitats,
and there is reliable
information on the spatial
extent of interaction and
on the timing and location
of use of the fishing gear.
The physical impacts of
the gear on all habitats
have been quantified fully.
OR
OR
If CSA is used to score
PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate the
consequence and spatial
attributes of the main
habitats.
If CSA is used to score
PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:
Some quantitative
information is available
and is adequate to
estimate the
consequence and spatial
attributes of the main
habitats.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
page 46
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.4.3
c
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.
Monitoring
Guide
post
Adequate information
continues to be collected
to detect any increase in
risk to the main habitats.
Changes in habitat
distributions over time are
measured.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 47
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome
PI 2.5.1
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of
ecosystem structure and function.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
SG 80
SG 100
Ecosystem status
Guide
The UoA is unlikely to
post
disrupt the key elements
underlying ecosystem
structure and function to a
point where there would
be a serious or
irreversible harm.
The UoA is highly
unlikely to disrupt the key
elements underlying
ecosystem structure and
function to a point where
there would be a serious
or irreversible harm.
There is evidence that
the UoA is highly unlikely
to disrupt the key
elements underlying
ecosystem structure and
function to a point where
there would be a serious
or irreversible harm.
Met?
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 48
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy
PI 2.5.2
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of
serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
Management strategy in place
Guide
There are measures in
post
place, if necessary which
take into account the
potential impacts of the
fishery on key elements of
the ecosystem.
SG 80
SG 100
There is a partial
strategy in place, if
necessary, which takes
into account available
information and is
expected to restrain
impacts of the UoA on
the ecosystem so as to
achieve the Ecosystem
Outcome 80 level of
performance.
There is a strategy that
consists of a plan, in
place which contains
measures to address all
main impacts of the
UoA on the ecosystem,
and at least some of
these measures are in
place.
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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/ ecosystems).
There is some objective
basis for confidence
that the measures/partial
strategy will work, based
on some information
directly about the UoA
and/or the ecosystem
involved
Testing supports high
confidence that the
partial strategy/strategy
will work, based on
information directly about
the UoA and/or
ecosystem involved
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Management strategy implementation
Guide
post
There is some evidence
that the measures/partial
strategy is being
implemented
successfully.
There is clear evidence
that the partial
strategy/strategy is being
implemented
successfully and is
achieving its objective
as set out in scoring
issue (a).
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 49
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information
PI 2.5.3
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
SG 100
Information quality
Guide
post
Information is adequate to
identify the key elements
of the ecosystem.
Information is adequate to
broadly understand the
key elements of the
ecosystem.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Investigation of UoA impacts
Guide
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
d
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 50
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 2.5.3
e
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
References
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 51
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework
PI 3.1.1
Scoring Issue
a
b
c
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary
framework which ensures that it:
 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and
 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of
people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
 Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management
Guide
post
There is an effective
national legal system and
a framework for
cooperation with other
parties, where necessary,
to deliver management
outcomes consistent with
MSC Principles 1 and 2
There is an effective
national legal system and
organised and effective
cooperation with other
parties, where necessary,
to deliver management
outcomes consistent with
MSC Principles 1 and 2.
There is an effective
national legal system and
binding procedures
governing cooperation
with other parties which
delivers management
outcomes consistent with
MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Resolution of disputes
Guide
post
The management system
incorporates or is subject
by law to a mechanism
for the resolution of legal
disputes arising within the
system.
The management system
incorporates or is subject
by law to a transparent
mechanism for the
resolution of legal
disputes which is
considered to be
effective in dealing with
most issues and that is
appropriate to the context
of the UoA.
The management system
incorporates or is subject
by law to a transparent
mechanism for the
resolution of legal
disputes that is
appropriate to the context
of the fishery and has
been tested and proven
to be effective.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Respect for rights
Guide
post
The management system
has a mechanism to
generally respect the
legal rights created
explicitly or established by
custom of people
dependent on fishing for
food or livelihood in a
manner consistent with
the objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system
has a mechanism to
observe the legal rights
created explicitly or
established by custom of
people dependent on
fishing for food or
livelihood in a manner
consistent with the
objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system
has a mechanism to
formally commit to the
legal rights created
explicitly or established by
custom of people
dependent on fishing for
food and livelihood in a
manner consistent with
the objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 52
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 3.1.1
References
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary
framework which ensures that it:
 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and
 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of
people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
 Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 53
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open
to interested and affected parties.
PI 3.1.2
The roles 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
a
b
c
SG 80
SG 100
Roles and responsibilities
Guide
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, roles and
responsibilities are
explicitly defined and
well understood for all
areas of responsibility
and interaction.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Consultation processes
Guide
post
The management system
includes consultation
processes that obtain
relevant information
from the main affected
parties, including local
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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 their
effective engagement.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 54
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open
to interested and affected parties.
PI 3.1.2
References
The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are
involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant
parties
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 55
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives
PI 3.1.3
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decisionmaking that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the
precautionary approach.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
SG 80
SG 100
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 decisionmaking, consistent with
MSC fisheries standard
and the precautionary
approach are explicit
within management
policy.
Clear long-term objectives
that guide decisionmaking, consistent with
MSC fisheries standard
and the precautionary
approach, are explicit
within and required by
management policy.
Met?
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 56
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for 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
a
SG 80
SG 100
Objectives
Guide
post
Objectives, which are
broadly consistent with
achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC’s
Principles 1 and 2, are
implicit within the fisheryspecific management
system.
Short and long-term
objectives, which are
consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed
by MSC’s Principles 1
and 2, are explicit within
the fishery-specific
management system.
Well defined and
measurable short and
long-term objectives,
which are demonstrably
consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed
by MSC’s Principles 1
and 2, are explicit within
the fishery-specific
management system.
Met?
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
(Y/N/Partial)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 57
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes
PI 3.2.2
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making
processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives,
and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
SG 100
Decision-making processes
Guide
post
There are some decisionmaking processes in
place that result in
measures and strategies
to achieve the fisheryspecific objectives.
There are established
decision-making
processes that result in
measures and strategies
to achieve the fisheryspecific objectives.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Responsiveness of decision-making processes
Guide
post
Decision-making
processes respond to
serious issues identified
in relevant research,
monitoring, evaluation
and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take
some account of the
wider implications of
decisions.
Decision-making
processes respond to
serious and other
important issues
identified in relevant
research, monitoring,
evaluation and
consultation, in a
transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take
account of the wider
implications of decisions.
Decision-making
processes respond to all
issues identified in
relevant research,
monitoring, evaluation
and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take
account of the wider
implications of decisions.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Use of precautionary approach
Guide
post
Decision-making
processes use the
precautionary approach
and are based on best
available information.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
d
SG 80
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process
Guide
Some information on the
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
Information on the
Formal reporting to all
page 58
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 3.2.2
e
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making
processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives,
and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
post
fishery’s performance and
management action is
generally available on
request to stakeholders.
fishery’s performance
and management action
is available on request,
and explanations are
provided for any actions
or lack of action
associated with findings
and relevant
recommendations
emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation
and review activity.
interested stakeholders
provides
comprehensive
information on the
fishery’s performance
and management
actions and describes
how the management
system responded to
findings and relevant
recommendations
emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation
and review activity.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Approach to disputes
Guide
post
Although the
management authority or
fishery may be subject to
continuing court
challenges, it is not
indicating a disrespect or
defiance of the law by
repeatedly violating the
same law or regulation
necessary for the
sustainability for the
fishery.
The management system
or fishery is attempting to
comply in a timely fashion
with judicial decisions
arising from any legal
challenges.
The management system
or fishery acts proactively
to avoid legal disputes or
rapidly implements
judicial decisions arising
from legal challenges.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 59
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement
PI 3.2.3
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management
measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.
Scoring Issue
SG 60
a
b
c
d
SG 80
SG 100
MCS implementation
Guide
post
Monitoring, control and
surveillance mechanisms
exist, and are
implemented in the
fishery and there is a
reasonable expectation
that they are effective.
A monitoring, control and
surveillance system has
been implemented in the
fishery and has
demonstrated an ability to
enforce relevant
management measures,
strategies and/or rules.
A comprehensive
monitoring, control and
surveillance system has
been implemented in the
fishery and has
demonstrated a
consistent ability to
enforce relevant
management measures,
strategies and/or rules.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Sanctions
Guide
post
Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist and
there is some evidence
that they are applied.
Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist, are
consistently applied and
thought to provide
effective deterrence.
Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist, are
consistently applied and
demonstrably provide
effective deterrence.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
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?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Systematic non-compliance
Guide
post
There is no evidence of
systematic noncompliance.
Met?
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 60
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
PI 3.2.3
References
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management
measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 61
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation
PI 3.2.4
Scoring Issue
a
b
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the
fishery-specific management system against its objectives.
There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management
system.
SG 60
SG 80
SG 100
Evaluation coverage
Guide
post
There are mechanisms in
place to evaluate some
parts of the fisheryspecific management
system.
There are mechanisms in
place to evaluate key
parts of the fisheryspecific management
system
There are mechanisms in
place to evaluate all parts
of the fishery-specific
management system.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
Internal and/or external review
Guide
post
The fishery-specific
management system is
subject to occasional
internal review.
The fishery-specific
management system is
subject to regular
internal and occasional
external review.
The fishery-specific
management system is
subject to regular
internal and external
review.
Met?
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Justifi
cation
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this
scoring issue]
References
[List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 62
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs
(REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS WHERE THE RBF HAS BEEN USED)
Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1
Complete the CA tables below for each data-deficient species identified under PI 1.1.1,
including rationales for scoring each of the CA attributes.
(Reference FCR Annex PF 3.1)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 63
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Table 1.2.1.a: Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Target Species
Scoring element
Consequence subcomponents
Population size
PRINCIPLE ONE:
Stock status outcome
Reproductive capacity
Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range
Rationale for most vulnerable
subcomponent
Rationale for consequence score
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 64
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Consequence Score
Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)
1. The report shall include an ‘MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF’ for each PI (1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1
and/ or 2.3.1) where the RBF is used
2. Complete one PSA Rationale Table (1.2.2a) for each data-deficient species identified
within a given PI, unless the options in PF4.1.4 and 4.1.5 are chosen.
3. When required according to PF4.4.3, complete one susceptibility rationale section (B.
Susceptibility in Table 1.2.2a) for each fishery impacting the given scoring element.
4. In PIs 2.1.1 or 2.2.1, if the team groups species according to similar taxonomies to reduce
the number of PSAs undertaken, the team shall list all species and group them and indicate
which species are most at-risk, using Table 1.2.2.b.
(Reference: FCR Annex PF 4)
Table 1.2.2.a. PSA Rationale Table
PI number
A. Productivity
Scoring element (species)
Attribute
Average age at maturity.
Rationale
[Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC PSA
Worksheet for RBF’, here and in cells below]
Score
Average maximum age
Fecundity
Average maximum size
Average size at maturity
[Not to be used when scoring invertebrate species – delete
if not applicable]
[Not to be used when scoring invertebrate species – delete
if not applicable]
Reproductive strategy
Trophic level
Density dependence
[To be used when scoring invertebrate species only –
delete if not applicable]
B. Susceptibility
Fishery only where the
scoring element is scored
cumulatively
Attribute
[Insert list of all the fisheries impacting the given scoring element, as
required in PF4.4.3].
Areal Overlap
Encounterability
Rationale
[Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC PSA
Worksheet for RBF’, here and in cells below]
[Note specific requirements in PF4.4.6.2, where the impacts
of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account]
[Note specific requirements in PF4.4.7.3, where the impacts
of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account]
Score
Selectivity of gear type
Post capture mortality
Catch (weight) only where
the scoring element is
scored cumulatively
[Insert catch data per fishery (gear) impacting stock.
Weights for each fishery shall be assigned according to proportions of total catch of the given stock as set out in
PF4.4.4-5]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 65
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Table 1.2.2.b. Species grouped by similar taxonomies (if PF4.1.5 is used)
[DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE]
Species Scientific name
Species Common
name (if known)
Taxonomic grouping
e.g. Genus species
subspecies
indicate species
common name, if
known
Indicate the group that
this species belongs to,
e.g. Scombridae,
Soleidae, Seranidae,
Merluccius spp.
Most at-risk
in group?
(Y/N)
Y/N
[Add more rows as
needed]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 66
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 1.2.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)
The report shall include:
a. An ‘MSC CSA Worksheet for RBF’ for PI 2.4.1 where the RBF is used to assess this PI
b. Complete one CSA Rationale Table for each habitat assessed.
(Reference: FCR Annex PF 7)
Table 1.2.3 CSA Rationale Table
PI number
Consequence
Regeneration of
biota
Natural
disturbance
Removability of
biota
Removability of
substratum
Substratum
hardness
Substratum
ruggedness
Seabed slope
2.4.1
Habitat
Rationale
[Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC CSA Worksheet for
RBF’]
Spatial
Gear footprint
Rationale
Score
Score
Spatial overlap
Encounterability
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 67
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 1.2.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)
1. Complete the SICA tables below for PI 2.5.1 including rationales for scoring each of the
SICA attributes.
(Reference FCR Annex PF 8)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 68
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Table 1.2.4a. SICA Scoring Template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem (Reference: CR Table PF19)
Spatial scale of
fishing activity
Temporal scale
of fishing
activity
Intensity of
fishing activity
Relevant subcomponents
Species composition
PRINCIPLE TWO:
Ecosystem outcome
Functional group
composition
Distribution of the
community
Trophic size/structure
Rationale for spatial
scale of fishing activity
Rationale for temporal
scale of fishing activity
Rationale for intensity
of fishing activity
Rationale for
Consequence score
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 69
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Consequence Score
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
(REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS WHERE CONDITIONS ARE NEEDED FOR
CERTIFICATION)
The report shall document all conditions using the table below.
[Complete a separate copy of Table 1.3.1 for each condition]
The action plan proposed by the client shall also be included for the PRDR and subsequent
reports.
(References: FCR 7.11, 7.14.10, 7.15.1)
(RE-ASSESSMENT ONLY, PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)
1. If conditions are raised in the re-assessment, the CAB shall include an explanation of:
a. If and how any of the new conditions relate to previous conditions raised in the previous
assessment or surveillance audits.
b. If and why any conditions that were raised and then closed in the previous assessment
are being raised again in the reassessment.
2.
If conditions are carried over from a previous assessment, the CAB shall include an
explanation of:
a. Which conditions are still open and being carried over.
b. Progress made in the previous assessment against these conditions.
c. Why recertification is being recommended despite outstanding conditions from the
previous assessment.
(Reference: FCR 7.24.2.2, 7.23.13.1, 7.23.13.2 (except 7.23.13.2.b))
Table A1.3: Condition X
Performance
[insert relevant PI number and text]
Indicator
Score
[insert from scoring template table]
Rationale
[cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy text
here]
[if condition relates to a previous condition or one raised and closed in the
previous assessment include information required here]
Condition
Milestones
[insert milestones and resulting scores where appropriate]
Client action plan
[include any details in line with requirements in FCR 7.11.2]
Consultation on
condition
[include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in FCR
7.11.3]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 70
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports
(PCDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)
The report shall include the unattributed reports of the peer reviewers in full using the ‘MSC
peer review template’ available on the MSC website forms and templates page here.
The report shall also include the explicit responses of the team that include:
a. Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions
have been made.
b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest
changes but the team makes no change.
[Note that if undertaking peer reviews before Peer Review College is operational; CABs shall
ensure that the ‘Contact information’ table in the Peer Review report is removed before
inserting in this report.]
(Reference: FCR 7.14.11 and sub-clauses)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 71
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions
1. The report shall include:
a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in
FCR 7.15.4.1.
b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits
regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR
7.15.4.2)
c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above
requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)
(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)
2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public
comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points
raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify:
a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made.
b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest
changes but the team makes no change.
(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 72
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency
1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level
following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1.
2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance
audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2
3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.
Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale
Year
Surveillance
Number of
activity
auditors
e.g.3
e.g.On-site audit
e.g. 1 auditor onsite with remote
support from 1
auditor
Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit
Year
Anniversary date Proposed date of
of certificate
surveillance audit
e.g. 1
e.g. May 2014
e.g. July 2014
Rationale
e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced
that information needed to verify progress
towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be
provided remotely in year 3. Considering that
milestones indicate that most conditions will be
closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have
an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with
remote support – this is to ensure that all
information is collected and because the
information can be provided remotely.
Rationale
e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June
2014, proposal to postpone audit to include
findings of scientific advice
Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program
Surveillance
Level
e.g. Level 5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
e.g. On-site
surveillance audit
e.g. On-site
surveillance audit
e.g. On-site
surveillance audit
e.g. On-site
surveillance audit
& re-certification
site visit
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 73
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Appendix 5 Objections Process
(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED
AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)
The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.
(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0
Date of issue: 8 October 2014
page 74
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014