MSC Template for Peer Review v2.1
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Responsibility for this manual
The Marine Stewardship Council ‘Peer Review
Template’ and it’s content is copyright of ‘Marine
Stewardship Council’ - © ‘Marine Stewardship
Council’ 2016. All rights reserved.
+ (0) 20 7246 8900, [email protected].
Versions Issued
Version
Date
Number
01 September
2.1
2016
Description of
amendment
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
This template has been adapted from the default ‘Peer Review Template’ for piloting a revised assessment
process. This process aims to simplify the assessment process – reducing complexity and cost whilst
improving effectiveness of stakeholder engagement and maintaining credibility.
Read more about the simplification pilot process >
This template shall be used by peer reviewers of MSC fisheries’ assessments to ensure that the content of
the review is relevant and actionable by Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). This template ensures a
consistent format to facilitate comparisons between different fishery assessments. It will also inform future
developments of the MSC’s scheme requirements.
If you have any queries related to using the template please contact the Peer Review College.
NB1. The peer reviewer information should be removed by the Peer Review College prior to sending the
peer reviewer comments to the CAB, as the peer reviews will be unattributed in the Final Report (FR) and
subsequent reports.
NB2. The CAB shall remove the instructions and information provided on pages i-iv when inserting peer
review comments in the FR and subsequent reports.
Peer Reviewer Information
Contact Name
First
Click or tap here to enter
First Name.
Fishery Assessment Details
Fishery Name
Click or tap here to enter Fishery Name.
Peer Review
College contact
details
[email protected]
Peer Review
Due date
Click or tap to enter Peer Review due date.
Last
Click or tap here to enter Last
Name.
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on the
evidence presented in the assessment report?
Justification
Certifier Response
Do you think the condition(s) raised are appropriately written to achieve the
SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe?
Justification
Yes/No
Certifier Response
Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to close the conditions raised?
Justification
Yes/No
Yes/No
Certifier Response
Performance Indicator Review
Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Second Draft Report:

For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves),
please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 1.

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome
at Error! Reference source not found..

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Error!
Reference source not found..
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Table 1
For reports using one of the Default Assessment Trees
Performance
Indicator
Has all
available
relevant
informatio
n been
used to
score this
Indicator?
Does the
information
and/or
rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
Will the
condition(s)
raised
improve the
fishery’s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Example:
1.1.1
No
No
NA
1.1.1
Select
Select
Select
1.1.2
Select
Select
Select
1.2.1
Select
Select
Select
1.2.2
Select
Select
Select
1.2.3
Select
Select
Select
2.1.1
Select
Select
Select
2.1.2
Select
Select
Select
Justification
Please support your answers by referring to
specific scoring issues and any relevant
documentation where possible. Please attach
additional pages if necessary.
Note: Justification to support your answers is only
required where answers given are ‘No’.
The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The
80 scoring guidepost asks that there is
evidence that rebuilding strategies are
rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on
simulation modelling or previous performance
that they will be able to rebuild the stock within
the timeline specified. However, no timeline
has been specified based on previous
performance, or simulation models.
Certifier Response
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Has all
available
relevant
informatio
n been
used to
score this
Indicator?
Does the
information
and/or
rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
Will the
condition(s)
raised
improve the
fishery’s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
2.1.3
Select
Select
Select
2.2.1
Select
Select
Select
2.2.2
Select
Select
Select
2.2.3
Select
Select
Select
2.3.1
Select
Select
Select
2.3.2
Select
Select
Select
2.3.3
Select
Select
Select
2.4.1
Select
Select
Select
2.4.2
Select
Select
2.4.3
Select
Select
Select
2.5.1
Select
Select
Select
2.5.2
Select
Select
Select
2.5.3
Select
Select
Select
3.1.1
Select
Select
Select
3.1.2
Select
Select
Select
Performance
Indicator
Select
Justification
Please support your answers by referring to
specific scoring issues and any relevant
documentation where possible. Please attach
additional pages if necessary.
Note: Justification to support your answers is only
required where answers given are ‘No’.
Certifier Response
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Has all
available
relevant
informatio
n been
used to
score this
Indicator?
Does the
information
and/or
rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
Will the
condition(s)
raised
improve the
fishery’s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
3.1.3
Select
Select
Select
3.2.1
Select
Select
Select
3.2.2
Select
Select
Select
3.2.3
Select
Select
Select
3.2.4
Select
Select
Select
Performance
Indicator
Justification
Please support your answers by referring to
specific scoring issues and any relevant
documentation where possible. Please attach
additional pages if necessary.
Note: Justification to support your answers is only
required where answers given are ‘No’.
Certifier Response
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Table 2
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework
Justification
Does the report
clearly explain how
the process(es)
applied to determine
risk using the RBF
has led to the stated
outcome?
Are the RBF
risk scores
wellreferenced?
1.1.1
Select
Select
2.1.1
Select
Select
2.2.1
Select
Select
2.3.1
Select
Select
2.4.1
Select
Select
2.5.1
Select
Select
Performance
Indicator
Please support your answers by referring to specific
scoring issues and any relevant documentation where
possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary.
Note: Justification to support your answers is only
required where answers given are ‘No’.
Certifier Response
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
Table 3
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?
Yes/No
Note – Justification needed only when ‘No’ is selected.
Justification
Certifier Response
MSC Peer Review Template v2.1
General Comments
General Comments on the Second Draft Report can be added below and on additional pages.