MSC Pre Assessment Reporting Template v3 2

Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments
Insert CAB Logo or delete

(Format / Shape Fill / Picture)
[Fishery name]
Pre-Assessment Report
Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)
Fishery client
Assessment type Pre-assessment
Date
1
Introduction
This template details the information required from Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) when creating a pre-
assessment report.
If any discrepancies are noted between this template and the MSC Fisheries Standard, CABs should use the
wording of the MSC Fisheries Standard. CABs may make amendments to the scoring tables to reflect multiple Units
of Assessment or multiple scoring elements (e.g. extra rows under each scoring issue). CABs should ensure it is
clear which Unit of Assessment or scoring element is being referenced. CABs should provide rationale for all Units of
Assessment and scoring elements and may group rationales when addressing multiple Units of Assessment or
scoring elements.
Where possible, this template has been designed to be consistent with the full assessment reporting template.
However, the MSC understands that as pre-assessments are conducted with limited resources, some information
detailed in this template may not be available, and that clients may have different needs in terms of pre-
assessments. Please complete all unshaded fields where information is available. For all notes and guidance
indicated in italics, please delete and replace with your specific information. All grey boxes containing instructions
may be deleted, e.g. the ‘Introduction’ section.
1 Contents
Insert a table of contents.
2 Glossary
View the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary. Insert an optional glossary or list of acronyms used. Note that any terms defined
here shall not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary.
3 Executive summary
The CAB shall include in the executive summary:
- The names and a brief description of the assessors or authors.

- A brief explanation of the process applied and summary of assessment activities.
- The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation.
- The extent to which the fishery is or is not consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard.
4 Report details
4.1 Aims and constraints of the pre-assessment
The CAB shall note in the report that a pre-assessment does not attempt to duplicate a full assessment against the
MSC Fisheries Standard. A full assessment involves a group of assessment team members and public consultation
stages that are not included in a pre-assessment. A pre-assessment provides a provisional assessment based on a
limited set of information provided by the client.
The CAB may add other details specific to this pre-assessment as appropriate.
The CAB should outline any limitations placed on this pre-assessment, e.g. inaccessibility of the fishery or paucity of
key data.
4.2 Version details

The CAB shall include in the report a statement on the versions of the fisheries program documents used for this
assessment.
2
Table X – Fisheries program documents versions
Document Version number
MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 0.0
MSC Fisheries Standard Version 0.0
MSC General Certification Requirements Version 0.0
MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template Version 3.2
5 Unit(s) of Assessment
5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment
The CAB may include in the report a statement of the CAB’s determination that the fishery is within scope of the
MSC Fisheries Standard. Where a fishery has been enhanced or the likely Unit(s) of Assessment include introduced
species, the report may include a statement on the fisheries’ position in relation to the scope criteria.
The report should contain possible Unit(s) of Assessment and a justification for choosing the Unit of Assessment.
For geographical area, the CAB should refer to G7.5.6.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.4
Table X – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)
UoA X Description
Species
Stock
Fishing gear type(s)

and, if relevant, vessel
type(s)
Client group
Other eligible fishers
Geographical area
Justification for
choosing the Unit of
Assessment
UoA X Description
Species
Stock

type(s)
Client group

3
Geographical area
Justification for
Assessment
UoA X Description
Species
Stock

type(s)
Client group
Geographical area
Justification for
Assessment
6 Traceability
6.1 Traceability within the fishery
The CAB may include in the report 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 Unit(s) of Assessment.
The CAB may include in the report an evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to
traceability.
The CAB may include in the report any traceability references, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
The CAB may include in the report a description of the factors that may lead to risks of non-certified seafood being
mixed with certified seafood prior to entering Chain of Custody using the table below. For each risk factor, there
should 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.
Table X – Traceability within the fishery
Factor Description
Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Please state whether this occurs within the fishery (e.g.
Certification (UoC)? regularly, rarely, never). If so, please describe how this
potential traceability risk is addressed or mitigated.
If Yes, please describe:
- If this may occur on the same trip, on the same If this is covered by relevant regulatory frameworks, you
vessels, or during the same season; may link to the relevant section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries
- How any risks are mitigated. Standard – Principle 3 – Effective management.
Please state whether this occurs within the fishery (e.g.
Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC
regularly, seasonally, never). If so, please describe how
geographic area?
this potential traceability risk is addressed or mitigated.
If this is covered by relevant regulatory frameworks, you
- If this may occur on the same trip;
may link to the relevant section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries
- How any risks are mitigated.
Standard – Principle 3 – Effective management.
4
Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and
non-certified products during any of the activities
covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-
Please state whether any of these activities occur within
sea activities and on-land activities.
the fishery and a description of this activity including how
this potential traceability risk is addressed or mitigated.
- Transport
- Storage
- Processing
- Landing
- Auction
If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

Does transhipment occur within the fishery?
Please state whether this occurs within the fishery (e.g.
regularly, rarely, never). If so, please describe how this
potential traceability risk is addressed or mitigated.
- If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or
both;
- If the transhipment vessel may handle product
from outside the UoC;
- How any risks are mitigated.
Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution
Please state whether this occurs within the fishery. If so,
between certified and non-certified fish?
please describe how this potential traceability risk is
addressed or mitigated.
If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.
7 Pre-assessment results
7.1 Pre-assessment results overview
7.1.1 Overview
The CAB should include in the report an overview of the key points arising from the analysis, emphasising any
potential obstacles to certification and any issues to be considered prior to entering full assessment.
The CAB may describe any other issues of particular relevance to the fishery, including answers to any questions
raised by the client.
7.1.2 Recommendations
If the CAB wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be
included in this section.
The CAB shall inform the client of:
- Communications that may need to take place with management agencies, conservation groups, post-harvest
sectors, relevant commercial and non-commercial fishing groups to explain the MSC assessment process
and the implications (including costs and benefits) of certification.
- The types and extent of data and information that the client will need to make available for full assessment.
- The location, timing and form of any announcements to be made during full assessment.
- The optional MSC training information on the assessment process for clients.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 7.1.8
7.2 Summary of potential conditions by Principle

Table X – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
Principle of the Fisheries Standard Number of PIs with draft scoring ranges <60
Principle 1 – Stock status
5
Principle 2 – Minimising environmental impacts
Principle 3 – Effective management
7.3 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

The CAB shall include in the report a completed ‘summary of Performance Indicator level scores table below’ and
may include completed full scoring tables for Performance Indicators scored in sections 7.4 – 7.6. If the full scoring
sections are not used, then they may be deleted. The CAB shall indicate in the report if Performance Indicators were
not assessed as part of the pre-assessment, and no score shall be provided.
When scoring the draft scoring ranges, the CAB shall use the following key to determine the result:
- Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 for any scoring issue (Fail <60).
- Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all scoring issues at SG80, a condition may
be needed (Pass with condition 60 – 79).
- Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this Performance
Indicator. Fishery may meet one or more scoring issues at SG100 level (Pass ≥80).
The CAB shall apply cell shading to the draft scoring range cells (e.g. ,60 = red, 60-79 = amber, green = ≥80, or
similar).
Where scoring issues are referred to in the summary tables, scoring issues should be described using the language
from the MSC Fisheries Standard.
Where relevant, comment should be provided on the implication of the individual Performance Indicator scores for
the aggregate Principle scores. This may for example, identify whether there are many Performance Indicators within
one Principle which are likely to raise conditions that may lead to the fishery failing to meet the MSC Fisheries
Standard.
If a fishery is data-deficient and may need to use the MSC Risk-Based Framework (RBF), the CAB shall indicate this
to the fishery (FCP v2.2 Table 3). If the RBF is expected to be used to score PI 1.1.1, no score needs to be provided
for PI 1.1.2 and a default 80 score should be assigned to PI 1.2.4.
For performance indicators 1.1.1 (stock status), 2.1.1 (Primary species outcome), 2.2.1 (Secondary species
outcome) and 2.3.1 (ETP outcome) a preliminary PSA should be conducted as described in FCP PF4, and the result
recorded in the space provided in the table for the relevant PI.
For performance indicator 2.4.1 (Habitats outcome) a preliminary CSA should be conducted as described in FCP
PF7, and the result recorded in the space provided in the table for this PI.
Table X – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
Performance Indicator Draft scoring range Data deficient?
1.1.1 – Stock status <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
Rationale or key points
1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
1.2.1 – Harvest Strategy <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
6
1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
1.2.3 – Information and monitoring <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.1.1 – Primary Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.1.2 – Primary Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.1.3 – Primary Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.2.1 – Secondary Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.2.2 – Secondary Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.2.3 – Secondary Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.3.1 – ETP Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.3.2 – ETP Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
7
2.3.3 – ETP Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.4.1 – Habitats Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.4.2 – Habitats Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.4.3 – Habitats Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.5.1 – Ecosystems Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.5.2 – Ecosystems Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
2.5.3 – Ecosystems Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.1.1 – Legal and customary framework <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.1.3 – Long term objectives <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.2.1 – Fishery specific objectives <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
8
3.2.2 – Decision making processes <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
3.2.4 – Management performance evaluation <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No
9
7.4 Principle 1
7.4.1 Principle 1 background
The CAB may include in the report a summary of the fishery based on the topics below, referencing electronic or
other documents used:
- An outline of the fishery resources including life histories as appropriate.

- An outline of status of stocks as indicated by stock assessments, including a description of the assessment
methods, standards, and stock indicators, biological limits, etc.
- Information on the seasonal operation of the fishery.
- A brief history of fishing and management.
The CAB should provide any information used as supporting rationale in the scoring tables, if used.
The CAB may indicate in the report whether the target species may be key Low-Trophic Level (LTL). If there are
multiple Principle 1 species, the CAB should indicate in the report which are key LTL.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PA, Fisheries Standard v2.01
7.4.2 Catch profiles

The CAB may include in the report any relevant catch profiles showing Unit of Assessment (UoA) catch over time.
7.4.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

The CAB should include in the report a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data table using the table below. If
possible, a separate table should be provided for each species or gear.
Table X – Total Allowable Catch (TAC)

and catch data
TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
UoA share of TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
UoA share of total TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
Year (most
Total green weight catch by UoC YYYY Amount n, unit
recent)
Year (second
Total green weight catch by UoC YYYY Amount n, unit
most recent)
7.4.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales – delete if not

applicable
The CAB may include, in the Performance Indicator scoring tables in the report, sufficient rationale for each Scoring
Issue or for each Performance Indicator and should make reference to Scoring Guideposts (SG). References may be
included in the form of hyperlinks, citations or by providing the quantitative information. The CAB should identify in
the report if there are information gaps.
For any Performance Indicator for which scoring is not required or a default score is applied, the CAB should record
this in the relevant scoring table.
If the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been used to score a Performance Indicator, the CAB should include in the
report a justification for use and the relevant RBF outputs table may include scores and rationales.
Additional scoring tables may be used and should be clearly marked for modified assessment trees, e.g. PI 2.5.2 -
Modified.
10
PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of
PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of
a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is
post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI.
(PRI).
Met? Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Rationale
The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG) (leave blank if
not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below).
Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of
around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has
b Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a
post level consistent with MSY or
has been above this level over
recent years.
Met? Yes / No Yes / No
Rationale
References
The CAB should list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to
reference point
Reference point Insert type of reference point Include value specifying units Include current stock status in
used in scoring e.g. BLOSS. e.g. 50,000t total stock the same units as the
stock relative to biomass. reference point e.g.
PRI (SIa) 90,000/BLOSS = 1.8.
used in scoring e.g. BMSY. e.g. 100,000t total stock the same units as the
MSY (SIb) 90,000/BMSY = 0.9.
Overall Performance Indicator (PI) Rationale
The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for the Performance Indicator, making direct
reference to each scoring issue (delete if not appropriate – e.g. rationale is provided for each Scoring Issue).
11
Draft scoring range <60 / 60-79 / ≥80
More information sought / Information sufficient
to score PI
Information gap indicator If more information is sought, include a description
of what the information gap is and what is
information is sought
Data-deficient? (Risk-Based Framework needed) Yes / No
12
PI 1.1.1A – key Low Trophic-Level – delete if not applicable
Note - only use this for stocks identified as key Low Trophic-Level (LTL).
PI 1.1.1A The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem impacts
Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment

It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of
a above the point where serious stock is above the point where certainty that the stock is
Guide
ecosystem impacts could serious ecosystem impacts above the point where serious
post occur. could occur. ecosystem impacts could
occur.
Rationale
Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs

The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of
around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has
ecosystem needs. been fluctuating around a
b Guide
level consistent with
post ecosystem needs or has been
above this level over recent
years.
Rationale
References

reference point
used in scoring e.g. B35%. e.g. 50,000t total stock the same units as the
ecosystem 90,000/B35% = 1.8.
impairment (SIa)
used in scoring e.g. B75%. e.g. 100,000t total stock the same units as the
ecosystem needs 90,000/B75% = 0.9.
(SIb)
13

to score PI
14
PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding
Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified
PI 1.1.2 timeframe
Rebuilding timeframes
A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable
specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is
the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not
a Guide times its generation time. exceed one generation time
post For cases where 2 for the stock.
generations is less than 5
years, the rebuilding
timeframe is up to 5 years.
Rationale
Rebuilding evaluation
Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that
determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are
rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is
effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on
b Guide stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling,
post timeframe. or previous performance that exploitation rates or previous
they will be able to rebuild the performance that they will be
stock within the specified able to rebuild the stock within
timeframe. the specified timeframe.
Rationale
References

to score PI
15
PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Harvest strategy design

The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is
expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the
management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to
Guide
a post
reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management
together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1
stock management objectives SG80.
reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.
Rationale
Harvest strategy evaluation

The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the
to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been
experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence
Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is
b post achieving its objectives
including being clearly able to
maintain stocks at target
levels.
Rationale
Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is
c Guide expected to determine
post whether the harvest strategy
is working.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
Harvest strategy review

The harvest strategy is
Guide
d post
periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary.
Met? Yes / No
16
Rationale
Shark finning
e It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
Guide
not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is
post not taking place.
Met? Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA
Rationale
not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below). Scoring Issue need not be scored if
sharks are not a target species.
Review of alternative measures

There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative
f Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-
post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted
catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and
they are implemented as they are implemented, as
appropriate. appropriate.
Rationale
sharks are not a target species.
References
The CAB should The CAB should list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

to score PI
17
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
HCRs design and application

Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to
are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating
are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level
exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or
a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate
post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the
level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock,
above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time.
species a level consistent with
ecosystem needs.
Rationale
HCRs robustness to uncertainty

The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a
robust to the main wide range of uncertainties
b uncertainties. including the ecological role
Guide
of the stock, and there is
post evidence that the HCRs are
robust to the main
uncertainties.
Rationale
HCRs evaluation
There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows
tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are
c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the
post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required
controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs.
HCRs.
Rationale
References
18

to score PI
19
PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Range of information
Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of
related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock
stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity,
composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock
a support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals
Guide
the harvest strategy. and other information such as
post environmental information),
including some that may not
be directly related to the
current harvest strategy, is
available.
Rationale
Monitoring
Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by
removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is
at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high
available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree
b sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a
Guide
support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of
post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the
available and monitored with information [data] and the
sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment
support the harvest control and management to this
rule. uncertainty.
Rationale
Comprehensiveness of information
There is good information on
Guide
c post
all other fishery removals
from the stock.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References
20

Information gap indicator
to score PI
Yes / No
If more information is sought, include a description
Data-deficient? (Risk-Based Framework needed)
21
PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

The assessment is The assessment takes into
appropriate for the stock and account the major features
a Guide for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the
post species and the nature of the
UoA.
Rationale
Assessment approach
The assessment estimates The assessment estimates
stock status relative to stock status relative to
b Guide generic reference points reference points that are
post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and
category. can be estimated.
Rationale
Uncertainty in the assessment

The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into
major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is
c Guide evaluating stock status
post relative to reference points in
a probabilistic way.
Rationale
Evaluation of assessment
The assessment has been
tested and shown to be
d Guide robust. Alternative
post hypotheses and assessment
approaches have been
rigorously explored.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
22
Peer review of assessment

The assessment of stock The assessment has been
e Guide
status is subject to peer internally and externally
post review. peer reviewed.
Rationale
References

to score PI
23
7.5 Principle 2
The CAB may include in the report a summary of the Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) based on the topics below,
referencing electronic or other documents used:
- The aquatic ecosystem, its status and any particularly sensitive areas, habitats or ecosystem features
influencing or affected by the UoA.
- The Primary, Secondary and Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species including their status and
relevant management history.
- Specific constraints, e.g. details of any unwanted catch of species, their conservation status and measures
taken to minimise this as appropriate.
- If cumulative impacts need consideration for any Principle 2 Performance Indicators, the report should
contain a summary of how this has been addressed, i.e. which other MSC UoAs/fisheries and how the
cumulative impacts were considered.
The CAB should provide any information used as supporting rationale in the scoring tables.
The CAB may include background information justifying how scoring elements were assigned to components within
Principle 2 of the MSC Fisheries Standard (Fisheries Standard v2.01 Sections SA3.1, SA3.4.2-SA3.4.5, and
SA3.7.1). The CAB may amend the table below to present this information. The CAB may include in the report 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.
Reference(s): Fisheries Standard v2.01
Table X – Scoring elements
Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient
e.g. P1, Primary,

e.g. species or stock (SA
Secondary, ETP, Habitats, Main or Minor
3.1.1.1)
Ecosystems
24
applicable
PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be
PI 2.1.1 impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI
Main primary species stock status

Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of
likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary
PRI. species are above the PRI
OR and are fluctuating around a
OR level consistent with MSY.
If the species is below the
PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the
a Guide in place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence
post ensure that the UoA does not of recovery or a
hinder recovery and demonstrably effective
rebuilding. strategy in place between all
MSC UoAs which
categorise this species as
main, to ensure that they
collectively do not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
Rationale
Minor primary species stock status

Minor primary species are
highly likely to be above the
PRI.
OR
b Guide
post If below the PRI, there is
evidence that the UoA does
not hinder the recovery and
rebuilding of minor primary
species.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References
The CAB should The CAB should list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

25

to score PI
26
PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of
PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as
appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch
Management strategy in place

There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
for the UoA, if necessary, that place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing
are expected to maintain or to necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary
a not hinder rebuilding of the maintain or to not hinder species.
Guide
main primary species at/to rebuilding of the main primary
post levels which are likely to be species at/to levels which are
above the PRI. highly likely to be above the
PRI.
Rationale
Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high
likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial
b plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work,
Guide
general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly
post comparison with similar information directly about the about the fishery and/or
fisheries/species). fishery and/or species species involved.
involved.
Rationale
Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that
the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is
c is being implemented being implemented
Guide
successfully. successfully and is
post achieving its overall
objective as set out in
scoring issue (a).
Rationale
Insert The CAB should The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for each Scoring
Guidepost (SG) (leave blank if not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below).
d Shark finning
Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
27
Rationale
there are no unwanted catches of Primary species.

There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative
e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-
catch of main primary catch of main primary species catch of all primary species,
species. and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as
Rationale
there are no unwanted catches of Primary species.
References

to score PI
28
PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the
PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is
adequate to estimate the is available and is adequate available and is adequate to
impact of the UoA on the to assess the impact of the assess with a high degree
main primary species with UoA on the main primary of certainty the impact of the
respect to status. species with respect to status. UoA on main primary species
with respect to status.
a OR OR
Guide
post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI
2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is Some quantitative information
adequate to estimate is adequate to assess
productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility
attributes for main primary attributes for main primary
species. species.
Rationale
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Some quantitative information
b is adequate to estimate the
Guide
impact of the UoA on minor
post primary species with respect
to status.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to
support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage
c main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and
Guide
species. evaluate with a high degree
post of certainty whether the
strategy is achieving its
objective.
Rationale
29
References

to score PI
30
PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does
PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit
Main secondary species stock status

Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of
likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main
based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above
biologically based limits.
OR OR
If below biologically based If below biologically based

limits, there are measures in limits, there is either
place expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or a
the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective
recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such
that the UoA does not hinder
a Guide recovery and rebuilding.
post 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 have
considerable catches of the
species, to ensure that they
collectively do not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
Rationale
Minor secondary species stock status

Minor secondary species are
highly likely to be above
biologically based limits.
OR
b Guide
post If below biologically based
limits’, there is evidence that
the UoA does not hinder the
recovery and rebuilding of
secondary species
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
31
References

Information gap indicator
to score PI
Yes / No
If more information is sought, include a description
Data-deficient? (Risk-Based Framework needed)
32
PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain
PI 2.2.2 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

There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing
expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary
hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species.
a Guide secondary species at/to levels rebuilding of main secondary
post which are highly likely to be species at/to levels which are
above biologically based highly likely to be above
limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to
UoA does not hinder their ensure that the UoA does not
recovery. hinder their recovery.
Rationale

The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high
likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial
b Guide plausible argument (e.g. measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work,
post general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly
comparison with similar information directly about the about the UoA and/or species
UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. involved.
Rationale

c Guide is being implemented being implemented
post successfully. successfully and is
achieving its objective as
set out in scoring issue (a).
Rationale
d Shark finning
Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
post not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is
33
not taking place.
Rationale
not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below). Scoring issue need not be scored if no
Secondary species are sharks.
Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-
catch of main secondary catch of main secondary catch of all secondary
species. species and they are species, and they are
implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.
Rationale
not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below). Scoring issue need not be scored if no
Secondary species are sharks.
References

to score PI
34
PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to
PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage
secondary species
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

adequate to estimate the is available and adequate to available and adequate to
impact of the UoA on the assess the impact of the UoA assess with a high degree
main secondary species with on main secondary species of certainty the impact of the
respect to status. with respect to status. UoA on main secondary
species with respect to status.
OR OR
a Guide
post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI
2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is Some quantitative information

adequate to estimate is adequate to assess
productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility
attributes for main secondary attributes for main secondary
species. species.
Rationale
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Some quantitative information
b is adequate to estimate the
Guide
impact of the UoA on minor
post secondary species with
respect to status.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale

support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage
main secondary species. manage main secondary all secondary species, and
c Guide
species. evaluate with a high degree
post of certainty whether the
strategy is achieving its
objective.
Rationale
35
References

to score PI
36
PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species
PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where
applicable
Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or
international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set
limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there
a Guide effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the is a high degree of certainty
post population/ stock are known MSC UoAs on the that the combined effects of
and likely to be within these population /stock are known the MSC UoAs are within
limits. and highly likely to be within these limits.
these limits.
Rationale
not applicable – e.g. rationale is provided for the Performance Indicator below). Scoring issue need not be scored if
there are no national or international requirements that set limits for ETP species.
Direct effects
Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of
b UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no
Guide
recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental
post direct effects of the UoA on
ETP species.
Rationale
Indirect effects
Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of
considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no
c Guide
are thought to be highly significant detrimental
post likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA
unacceptable impacts. on ETP species.
Rationale
References
37

to score PI
38
PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:

- meet national and international requirements;
- ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
PI 2.3.2
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise
the mortality of ETP species
Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive
that minimise the UoA-related for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for
mortality of ETP species, and impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact
a are expected to be highly including measures to on ETP species, including
Guide
likely to achieve national and minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise
post international requirements for designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed to
the protection of ETP species. to achieve national and achieve above national and
international requirements for international requirements for
the protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species.
Rationale
there are requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international
agreements.
Management strategy in place (alternative)

that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for
b Guide the UoA does not hinder the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to
post recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not
hinder the recovery of ETP
species.
Rationale
there are requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international
agreements.

The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive
considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on
based on plausible measures/strategy will work, information directly about the
c Guide argument (e.g., general based on information directly fishery and/or species
post experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the involved, and a quantitative
comparison with similar species involved. analysis supports high
fisheries/species). confidence that the strategy
will work.
Rationale
39

the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive
d Guide being implemented strategy is being implemented
post successfully. successfully and is achieving
its objective as set out in
scoring issue (a) or (b).
Rationale
Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

e Guide
measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-
post related mortality of ETP related mortality of ETP related mortality ETP species,
species. species and they are and they are implemented, as
implemented as appropriate. appropriate.
Rationale
References

to score PI
40
PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP
species, including:
PI 2.3.3 - 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
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a
UoA related mortality on ETP UoA related mortality and high degree of certainty the
species. impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related
whether the UoA may be a impacts, mortalities and
OR threat to protection and injuries and the
recovery of the ETP species. consequences for the
a If RBF is used to score PI status of ETP species.
Guide
2.3.1 for the UoA: OR
post Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI
productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA:
susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information
ETP species. is adequate to assess
productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
ETP species.
Rationale

support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive
manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts,
b Guide species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury
post of ETP species, and evaluate
with a high degree of
certainty whether a strategy
is achieving its objectives.
Rationale
References
41

to score PI
42
PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function,
PI 2.4.1 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
Commonly encountered habitat status

The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the
reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to
a of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function
Guide
habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered
post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where
irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
Rationale
VME habitat status

b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function
post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point
or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious
harm. or irreversible harm.
Rationale
there are no VMEs.
Minor habitat status

There is evidence that the
UoA is highly unlikely to
c Guide reduce structure and function
post of the minor habitats to a
point where there would be
serious or irreversible harm.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References
43

to score PI
44
PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of
PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for
a place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all
Guide
expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries
post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats.
performance. performance or above.
Rationale

The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high
considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial
b based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work,
Guide
(e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly
post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA and/or
similar UoAs/habitats). the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved.
involved.
Rationale

There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative
evidence that the evidence that the partial
c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being
post being implemented implemented successfully and
successfully. is achieving its objective, as
outlined in scoring issue (a).
Rationale
d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’

measures to protect VMEs
Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative
post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA
complies with its complies with both its complies with both its
management requirements to management requirements management requirements and
protect VMEs. and with protection measures with protection measures
afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other
45
MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries,
fisheries, where relevant. where relevant.
Rationale
there are no VMEs.
References

to score PI
46
PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the
PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat
Information quality
The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats
the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range,
understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the
known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable
OR relevant to the scale and habitats.
intensity of the UoA.
If CSA is used to score PI
a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR
adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI
types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA:
main habitats. Some quantitative information
is available and is adequate
to estimate the types and
distribution of the main
habitats.
Rationale

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the
broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have
nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully.
gear use on the main the main habitats, and there
habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the
overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction
gear. and on the timing and
location of use of the fishing
b OR gear.
Guide
post If CSA is used to score PI OR
2.4.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI
adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA:
consequence and spatial Some quantitative information
attributes of the main is available and is adequate
habitats. to estimate the consequence
and spatial attributes of the
main habitats.
Rationale
Monitoring
47
Adequate information Changes in all habitat
Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are
c post detect any increase in risk to measured.
the main habitats.
Rationale
References

to score PI
48
PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem
PI 2.5.1 structure and function
Ecosystem status
The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the
disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to
underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements
a Guide
structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem
post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a
serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a
Met? Yes / No / Partial Yes / No / Partial Yes / No / Partial
Rationale
References

to score PI
49
PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or
PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that
if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place
account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to
a impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of
Guide
elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem,
post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these
to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place.
Outcome 80 level of
performance.
Rationale

b based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work,
Guide
(e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly
post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or
similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved.
involved.
Rationale

Rationale
References
50

to score PI
51
PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem
Information quality
a Information is adequate to Information is adequate to
Guide
identify the key elements of broadly understand the key
post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.
Rationale
Investigation of UoA impacts

Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the
these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem
b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from
post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and
not been investigated in some have been have been investigated in
detail. investigated in detail. detail.
Rationale
Understanding of component functions

The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1
components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary,
c species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species
Guide
and ETP species and and Habitats are identified
post Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of
are known. these components in the
ecosystem are understood.
Rationale
Information relevance
Adequate information is Adequate information is
available on the impacts of available on the impacts of
d Guide the UoA on these the UoA on the components
post components to allow some of and elements to allow the
the main consequences for main consequences for the
the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred.
Rationale
52
Monitoring
Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to
e Guide collected to detect any support the development of
post increase in risk level. strategies to manage
ecosystem impacts.
Rationale
References

to score PI
53
7.6 Principle 3
The CAB may include in the report a summary of the UoA and the fishery-specific management system based on the
topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used including:
- 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.
- Details of the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised participants.
- Objectives for the fishery (referring to any or all of the following if relevant):
- Resource
- Environmental
- Biodiversity and ecological
- Technological
- Social
- Economic
- An outline of the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery.
- Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and particulars of the nature of
those rights.
- 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.
- Particulars of arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement.
- Details of any planned education and training for interest groups.
- Date of next review and audit of the management plan.
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.
The CAB may indicate in the report 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
The CAB should provide any information used as supporting rationale in the scoring tables.
Reference(s): Fisheries Standard v2.01
54
applicable
PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework
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);
PI 3.1.1 - 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
Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national
legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding
framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing
a with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other
Guide
necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers
post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes
consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.
Rationale
Resolution of disputes
The management system The management system The management system
incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by
law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent
b resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution
Guide
arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is
post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of
in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been
and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be
context of the UoA. effective.
Rationale
c Respect for rights

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system has
post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally
respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights
created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or
established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of
people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing
for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a
manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles
1 and 2. 1 and 2.
55
Rationale
References

to score PI
56
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
Roles and responsibilities

Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals
involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management
process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified.
a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and
post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly
understood. defined and well defined and well
understood for key areas of understood for all areas of
responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction.
Rationale
Consultation processes
The management system The management system The management system
includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation
processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly
relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant
b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local
post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management
inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates
system. consideration of the consideration of the
information obtained. information and explains
how it is used or not used.
Rationale
Participation
The consultation process The consultation process
provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and
interested and affected encouragement for all
Guide
c post
parties to be involved. interested and affected
parties to be involved, and
facilitates their effective
engagement.
Rationale
57
References

to score PI
58
PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that
PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary
approach
Objectives
Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives
decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making,
with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC
a Guide
Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the
post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are
implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required
policy. policy. by management policy.
Rationale
References

to score PI
59
PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives
The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to

PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
Objectives
Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable
broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term
achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are
expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with
a Guide
Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes
post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles
specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the
fishery-specific management
system.
Rationale
References

to score PI
60
PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes

PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate
approach to actual disputes in the fishery
Decision-making processes
There are some decision- There are established
a making processes in place decision-making processes
Guide
that result in measures and that result in measures and
post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives.
Rationale
Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes
respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues
identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant
research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring,
b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation,
post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take
some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider
implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions.
implications of decisions.
Rationale
Use of precautionary approach

c Guide use the precautionary
post approach and are based on
best available information.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all
post fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders
management action is management action is provides comprehensive
generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s
61
request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and
any actions or lack of action management actions and
associated with findings and describes how the
relevant recommendations management system
emerging from research, responded to findings and
monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations
review activity. emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation and
review activity.
Rationale
Approach to disputes
Although the management The management system or The management system or
authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to
subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly
challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions
e Guide
a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges.
post the law by repeatedly
violating the same law or
regulation necessary for the
sustainability for the fishery.
Rationale
References

to score PI
62
PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in

PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with
MCS implementation
Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive
surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and
exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been
a the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery
Guide
reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a
post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce
strategies and/or rules. relevant management
measures, strategies and/or
rules.
Rationale
Sanctions
Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non-
b compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are
Guide
some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and
post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide
deterrence. effective deterrence.
Rationale
Compliance
Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of
thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers
management system for the with the management system comply with the management
c Guide fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment,
post including, when required, when required, providing including, providing
providing information of information of importance to information of importance to
importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of
management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery.
Rationale
d Systematic non-compliance
Guide There is no evidence of
post systematic non-compliance.
63
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References

to score PI
64
PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific

PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives
There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system
Evaluation coverage
There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in
a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of
post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific
management system. management system. management system.
Rationale
Internal and/or external review

The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific
management system is management system is management system is
b Guide
subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal
post internal review. and occasional external and external review.
review.
Rationale
References

to score PI
65
7.7 Additional scoring tables – delete if not applicable
The CAB should include in the report scoring tables for enhanced bivalve fisheries or salmon fisheries where
relevant. The CAB should copy scoring tables below into Sections 7.2–7.3 to replace default scoring tables and then
delete Section 7.5.
7.7.1 Enhanced Bivalve Fisheries – delete if not applicable

PI 1.1.3 – Genetics outcome
PI 1.1.3 The fishery has negligible discernible impact on the genetic structure of the population
Genetic impact of enhancement activity

The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely An independent peer-
impact genetic structure of to impact genetic structure of reviewed scientific
wild populations to a point wild populations to a point assessment confirms with a
a Guide where there would be serious where there would be serious high degree of certainty that
post or irreversible harm or irreversible harm. there are no risks to the
genetic structure of the wild
population associated with the
enhancement activity.
Rationale
References

to score PI
66
PI 1.2.5 – Genetics management
There is a strategy in place for managing the hatchery enhancement activity such that it
PI 1.2.5 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the genetic diversity of the wild
population
Genetic management strategy in place

There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
place, if necessary, which are place, if necessary, which is to maintain the genetic
expected to maintain the expected to maintain the structure of the population at
a Guide genetic structure of the genetic structure of the levels compatible with the
post population at levels population at levels SG80 Genetic outcome level
compatible with the SG80 compatible with the SG80 of performance (PI 1.1.3).
Genetic outcome level of Genetic outcome level of
performance (PI 1.1.3). performance (PI 1.1.3).
Rationale
Genetic management strategy evaluation

The measures are There is some objective The strategy is based on in-
considered likely to work basis for confidence that depth knowledge of the
b Guide based on plausible argument the partial strategy will work genetic structure of the
post (e.g. general experience, based on information directly population, and testing
theory, or comparison with relevant to the population(s) supports high confidence
similar fisheries/species). involved. that the strategy will work.
Rationale
Genetic management strategy implementation

the partial strategy is being the strategy is being
c Guide implemented successfully, if implemented successfully.
post necessary. There is some evidence that
the strategy is achieving its
overall objective.
Rationale
References
67

to score PI
68
PI 1.2.6 – Genetics information
Information on the genetic structure of the population is adequate to determine the risk
PI 1.2.6 posed by the enhancement activity and the effectiveness of the management of genetic
diversity
Information quality
Qualitative or inferential Qualitative or inferential The genetic structure of the
information is available on information and some population is understood in
the genetic structure of the quantitative information are detail.
a population available on the genetic
Guide
structure of the population. Information is sufficient to
post Information is adequate to estimate the impact of
broadly understand the likely Information is sufficient to hatchery enhancement with a
impact of hatchery estimate the likely impact of high degree of certainty.
enhancement. hatchery enhancement.
Rationale
Information adequacy for genetic management strategy

support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive
manage main genetic manage the main genetic strategy to manage the
b impacts of the enhancement impacts of the enhancement genetic impacts of the
Guide
activity on the stock, if activity on the stock, if enhancement activity on the
post necessary. necessary. stock and evaluate with a
high degree of certainty
whether the strategy is
achieving its objective.
Rationale
References

to score PI
69
70
PI 2.6.1 – Translocation outcome
The translocation activity has negligible discernible impact on the surrounding
PI 2.6.1 ecosystem
Impact of translocation activity

The translocation activity is The translocation activity is There is evidence that the
unlikely to introduce highly unlikely to introduce translocation activity is highly
a diseases, pests, pathogens, diseases, pests, pathogens, or unlikely to introduce
Guide
or non-native species (species non-native species into the diseases, pests, pathogens,
post not already established in the surrounding ecosystem. or non-native species into the
ecosystem) into the surrounding ecosystem.
surrounding ecosystem.
Rationale
References

to score PI
71
PI 2.6.2 – Translocation management
There is a strategy in place for managing translocations such that the fishery does not
PI 2.6.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the surrounding ecosystem
Translocation management strategy in place

There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
which are expected to place, if necessary, that is for managing the impacts of
protect the surrounding expected to protect the translocation on the
a Guide ecosystem from the surrounding ecosystem from surrounding ecosystem.
post translocation activity at levels the translocation activity at
compatible with the SG80 levels compatible the SG80
Translocation outcome level Translocation outcome level
of performance (PI 2.6.1). of performance (PI 2.6.1).
Rationale
Translocation management strategy evaluation

The measures are A valid documented risk An independent peer-
considered likely to work assessment or equivalent reviewed scientific
based on plausible argument environmental impact assessment confirms with a
(e.g. general experience, assessment demonstrates high degree of certainty
b Guide theory, or comparison with that the translocation activity that there are no risks to the
post similar fisheries/species). is highly unlikely to surrounding ecosystem
introduce diseases, pests, associated with the
pathogens, or non-native translocation activity.
species into the surrounding
ecosystem.
Rationale
Translocation contingency measures

Contingency measures have A formalised contingency
been agreed in the case of an plan in the case of an
c accidental introduction of accidental introduction of
Guide
diseases, pests, pathogens, diseases, pests, pathogens,
post or non-native species due to or non-native species due to
the translocation. the translocation is
documented and available.
Rationale
72
References

More information sought / Information
sufficient to score PI
Information gap indicator If more information is sought, include a
description of what the information gap is and
what is information is sought
73
PI 2.6.3 – Translocation information
Information on the impact of the translocation activity on the environment is adequate to
PI 2.6.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery
Information quality
Information is available on the Information is sufficient to Information from frequent and
presence or absence of adequately inform the risk and comprehensive monitoring
diseases, pests, pathogens, impact assessments required demonstrates no impact from
a and non-native species at the in the SG80 Translocation introduced diseases, pests,
Guide
source and destination of the management level of and non-native species with a
post translocated stock to guide performance (PI 2.6.2). high degree of certainty.
the management strategy and
reduce the risks associated
with the translocation.
Rationale
References

to score PI
74
7.7.2 Salmon Fisheries – delete if not applicable
PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
The stock management unit (SMU) is at a level which maintains high production and has a
PI 1.1.1 low probability of falling below its limit reference point (LRP)
Stock status
It is likely that the SMU is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of
a Guide above the limit reference point SMU is above the LRP. certainty that the SMU is
post (LRP). above the LRP.
Rationale
Stock status in relation to target reference point (TRP, e.g. target escapement goal or
target harvest rate)
The SMU is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of
around its TRP. certainty that the SMU has
b Guide been fluctuating around its
post TRP, or has been above its
target reference point over
recent years.
Rationale
Status of component populations

The majority of component
populations in the SMU are
c Guide within the range of expected
post variability.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References

75
reference point
used in scoring e.g. Sgen. e.g. 50,000 spawners. the same units as the
relative to LRP reference point e.g.
(SI a) 90,000/Escapement Goal=1.8.
used in scoring e.g. Escapement Goal. e.g. 100,000 spawners. the same units as the
relative to TRP reference point e.g.
(SI b) 90,000/Escapement Goal=0.9.

to score PI
76
PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding
Where the stock management unit (SMU) is reduced, there is evidence of stock
PI 1.1.2 rebuilding within a specified timeframe
Rebuilding timeframes
A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable
specified for the SMU that is rebuilding timeframe is
the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not
a times its generation time. exceed one generation time
Guide
For cases where 2 for SMU.
post generations is less than 5
years, the rebuilding
timeframe is up to 5 years.
Rationale
Rebuilding evaluation
Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence
determine whether the fishery-based rebuilding that the rebuilding strategies
fishery-based rebuilding strategies are being are being implemented
strategies are effective in implemented effectively, or it effectively, or it is highly
b Guide rebuilding the SMU within the is likely based on simulation likely based on simulation
post specified timeframe. modelling, exploitation rates modelling, exploitation rates
or previous performance that or previous performance that
they will be able to rebuild the they will be able to rebuild the
SMU within the specified SMU within the specified
timeframe. timeframe.
Rationale
Use of enhancement in stock rebuilding

Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are
not routinely used as a very seldom used as a stock not used as a stock
stock rebuilding strategy but rebuilding strategy. rebuilding strategy.
c Guide may be temporarily in place
post as a conservation measure to
preserve or restore wild
diversity threatened by
human or natural impacts.
Rationale
77
References

to score PI
78
PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Harvest strategy design

The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is
expected to achieve SMU responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the
management objectives SMU and the elements of the SMU and is designed to
reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 harvest strategy work achieve SMU management
a Guide including measures that together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI
post address component SMU management objectives 1.1.1 SG80 including
population status issues. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 measures that address
including measures that component population status
address component issues.
population status issues.
Rationale
Harvest strategy evaluation

The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the
to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been
experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence
b Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is
post achieving its objectives
including being clearly able to
maintain SMUs at target
levels.
Rationale
Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is
c Guide expected to determine
post whether the harvest strategy
is working.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is
post periodically reviewed and
79
improved as necessary.
d Met? Yes / No
Rationale
Shark finning
e It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
Guide
Rationale
The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring Issue
need not be scored if sharks are not a target species.

There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative
f Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-
catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and
Rationale
The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring Issue
need not be scored if sharks are not a target species.
References

to score PI
80
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
HCRs design and application

Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to
HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the SMU fluctuating at
available which are exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level
a Guide expected to reduce the as the LRP is approached, consistent with MSY, or
post exploitation rate as the SMU are expected to keep the another more appropriate
LRP is approached. SMU fluctuating around a level taking into account the
target level consistent with ecological role of the stock,
MSY. most of the time.
Rationale
HCRs robustness to uncertainty

The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a
robust to the main wide range of uncertainties
b uncertainties. including the ecological role
Guide
of the SMU, and there is
post evidence that the HCRs are
robust to the main
uncertainties.
Rationale
HCRs evaluation
There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that
tools used or available to indicates that the tools in the tools in use are effective
c Guide implement HCRs are use are appropriate and in achieving the exploitation
post appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the levels required under the
controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required HCRs.
under the HCRs.
Rationale
Maintenance of wild population components

d Guide It is likely that the HCRs and It is highly likely, that the There is a high degree of
post tools are consistent with HCRs and tools are certainty that the HCRs and
maintaining the diversity and consistent with maintaining tools are consistent with
81
productivity of the wild the diversity and productivity maintaining the diversity and
component population(s). of the wild component productivity of the wild
population(s). component population(s).
Rationale
References

to score PI
82
PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Range of information
Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of
related to SMU structure, information related to SMU information (on SMU
SMU production and fleet structure, SMU production, structure, SMU production,
composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, SMU
support the harvest strategy. data is available to support abundance, fishery removals
Indirect or direct the harvest strategy, and other information such as
information is available on including harvests and environmental information),
a Guide some component spawning escapements for including some that may not
post populations. a representative range of be directly related to the
wild component current harvest strategy, is
populations. available, including
estimates of the impacts of
fishery harvests on the
SMU and the majority of
wild component
populations.
Rationale
Monitoring
SMU wild abundance and SMU wild abundance and All information required by
UoA removals are monitored UoA removals are regularly the harvest control rule is
and at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high
available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree
b sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a
Guide
support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of
post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the
available and monitored with information [data] and the
sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment
support the harvest control and management to this
rule. uncertainty.
Rationale
Comprehensiveness of information
There is good information on
Guide
c post
all other fishery removals
from the SMU.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
83
References

to score PI
84
PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status of the SMU
Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

The assessment is The assessment takes into
appropriate for the SMU and account the major features
a Guide for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the
post species and the nature of the
UoA.
Rationale
Assessment approach
The assessment estimates The assessment estimates The assessment estimates
stock status relative to stock status relative to with a high level of confidence
generic reference points reference points that are both stock status and
b Guide
appropriate to salmon. appropriate to the SMU and reference points that are
post can be estimated. appropriate to the SMU and
its wild component
populations.
Rationale
Uncertainty in the assessment

The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into
major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is
c Guide evaluating stock status
post relative to reference points in
a probabilistic way.
Rationale
Evaluation of assessment
The assessment has been
tested and shown to be
d Guide robust. Alternative
post hypotheses and assessment
approaches have been
rigorously explored.
Met? Yes / No
85
Rationale
Peer review of assessment

The assessment, including
The assessment of SMU
design for using indicator
status, including the choice of
populations and methods for
e Guide indicator populations and
evaluating wild salmon in
post methods for evaluating wild
enhanced fisheries, has been
salmon in enhanced fisheries
internally and externally
is subject to peer review.
peer reviewed.
Rationale
Representativeness of indicator stocks

Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are
used as the primary source of used as the primary source of used as the primary source of
information for making information for making information for making
management decisions on management decisions on management decisions on
SMUs, there is some SMUs, there is some SMUs, the status of the
scientific basis for the evidence of coherence indicator streams are well
indicators selection. between the status of the correlated with other
indicator streams and the populations they represent
f Guide
status of the other populations within the management unit,
post they represent within the including stocks with lower
management unit, including productivity (i.e., those with a
selection of indicator stocks higher conservation risk).
with low productivity (i.e.,
those with a higher
conservation risk) to match
those of the representative
SMU where applicable.
Rationale
Definition of Stock Management Units (SMUs)

The majority of SMUs are The SMUs are well-defined There is an unambiguous
defined with a clear rationale and include definitions of the description of each SMU that
for conservation, fishery major populations with a clear may include the geographic
management and stock rationale for conservation, location, run timing, migration
g Guide assessment requirements. fishery management and patterns, and/or genetics of
post stock assessment component populations with a
requirements. clear rationale for
conservation, fishery
management and stock
assessment requirements.
86
Rationale
References

to score PI
87
PI 1.3.1 – Enhancement outcomes
PI 1.3.1 Enhancement activities do not negatively impact wild stock(s)
Enhancement impacts
It is likely that the It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of
enhancement activities do not enhancement activities do not certainty that the
have significant negative have significant negative enhancement activities do not
a Guide impacts on the local impacts on the local have significant negative
post adaptation, reproductive adaptation, reproductive impacts on the local
performance or productivity performance or productivity adaptation, reproductive
and diversity of wild stocks. and diversity of wild stocks. performance or productivity
and diversity of wild stocks.
Rationale
References

to score PI
88
PI 1.3.2 – Enhancement management
Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are in place to address effects of
PI 1.3.2 enhancement activities on wild stock(s)

Practices and protocols are There is a partial strategy in There is a comprehensive
a in place to protect wild stocks place to protect wild stocks strategy in place to protect
Guide
from significant negative from significant negative wild stocks from significant
post impacts of enhancement. impacts of enhancement. negative impacts of
enhancement.
Rationale

The practices and protocols in There is some objective There is clear evidence that
place are considered likely basis for confidence that the the comprehensive strategy is
b to be effective based on strategy is effective, based on successfully protecting wild
Guide
plausible argument. evidence that the strategy is stocks from significant
post achieving the outcome metrics detrimental impacts of
used to define the minimum enhancement.
detrimental impacts.
Rationale
References

to score PI
89
PI 1.3.3 – Enhancement information
Relevant information is collected and assessments are adequate to determine the effect
PI 1.3.3 of enhancement activities on wild stock(s)
Information adequacy
Some relevant information is Sufficient relevant qualitative A comprehensive range of
available on the contribution and quantitative information is relevant quantitative
of enhanced fish to the fishery available on the contribution of information is available on the
a Guide harvest, total escapement enhanced fish to the fishery contribution of enhanced fish
post (wild plus enhanced), and harvest, total escapement to the fishery harvest, total
hatchery broodstock. (wild plus enhanced) and escapement (wild plus
hatchery broodstock. enhanced) and hatchery
broodstock.
Rationale
Use of information in assessment

The effect of enhancement A moderate-level analysis of A comprehensive analysis
activities on wild stock status, relevant information is of relevant information is
productivity and diversity are conducted and used by conducted and routinely used
b taken into account decision makers to by decision makers to
Guide
qualitatively. quantitatively estimate the determine, with a high degree
post impact of enhancement of certainty, the quantitative
activities on wild-stock status, impact of enhancement
productivity, and diversity. activities on wild-stock status,
productivity, and diversity.
Rationale
References

to score PI
90
PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species
PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species

Effects of the UoA on population/stocks within national or international limits, where
applicable
Where national and Where national and/ or Where national and/ or
international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set
limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there
a Guide effects of the UoA and combined effects of the is a high degree of certainty
associated enhancement MSC UoAs and associated that the combined effects of
post activities on the enhancement activities on the MSC UoAs and
population/stock are known the population/stock are associated enhancement
and likely to be within these known and highly likely to be activities are within these
limits. within these limits. limits.
Rationale
The CAB should insert sufficient rationale to support the conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring issue
need not be scored if there are no national or international requirements that set limits for ETP species.
Direct effects
Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree of
UoA including enhancement including enhancement confidence that there are no
b Guide activities are likely to not activities are highly likely to significant detrimental
post hinder recovery of ETP not hinder recovery of ETP direct effects of the UoA
species. species. including enhancement
activities on ETP species.
Rationale
Indirect effects
Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of
considered for the UoA confidence that there are no
c Guide including enhancement significant detrimental
post activities and are thought to indirect effects of the UoA
be highly likely to not create including enhancement
unacceptable impacts. activities on ETP species.
Rationale
References
91

to score PI
92
PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy
The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary
management strategies designed to:
- meet national and international requirements
PI 2.3.2 - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise
the mortality of ETP species
Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

that minimise the UoA-related for managing the UoA and strategy in place for
mortality of ETP species due enhancement activities’ managing the UoA and
to the UoA including impact on ETP species, enhancement activities’
a enhancement activities, and including measures to impact on ETP species,
Guide
are expected to be highly minimise mortality, which is including measures to
post likely to achieve national and designed to be highly likely minimise mortality, which is
international requirements for to achieve national and designed to achieve above
the protection of ETP species. international requirements for national and international
the protection of ETP species. requirements for the
protection of ETP species.
Rationale
need not be scored if there are requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or
international agreements.
Management strategy in place (alternative)

that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for
b the UoA including UoA including enhancement managing ETP species, to
Guide
enhancement activities do not activities do not hinder the ensure the UoA including
post hinder the recovery of ETP recovery of ETP species. enhancement activities do not
species. hinder the recovery of ETP
species.
Rationale
need not be scored if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation
or international agreements.

The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/ comprehensive
considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on
c based on plausible measures/strategy will work, information directly about the
Guide
argument based on information UoA and/or species involved,
post (e.g., general experience, directly about the UoA and/or and a quantitative analysis
theory or comparison with the species involved. supports high confidence
similar UoA/species). that the strategy will work.
93
Rationale

the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive
d Guide being implemented strategy is being implemented
post successfully. successfully and is achieving
its objective as set out in
scoring issue (a) or (b).
Rationale
Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA measures to minimise UoA
post related mortality of ETP and enhancement related and enhancement related
species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and
Rationale
References

to score PI
94
PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA and enhancement
activities impacts on ETP species, including:
PI 2.3.3 - 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

adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a
impact of the UoA and UoA related mortality and high degree of certainty the
associated enhancement on impact and to determine magnitude of UoA- and
ETP species. whether the UoA and associated enhancement
associated enhancement related impacts, mortalities
OR may be a threat to protection and injuries and the
and recovery of the ETP consequences for the
a if RBF is used to score PI species. status of ETP species.
Guide
2.3.1 for the UoA:
post Qualitative information is OR
adequate to estimate
productivity and if RBF is used to score PI
susceptibility attributes for 2.3.1 for the UoA:
ETP species. Some quantitative information
is adequate to assess
productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
ETP species.
Rationale

support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive
manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts,
b Guide species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury
post of ETP species, and evaluate
with a high degree of
certainty whether a strategy
is achieving its objectives.
Rationale
References
95

to score PI
96
PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome
The UoA and its associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or irreversible
harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by
PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the
UoA operates
Commonly encountered habitat status

a of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function
Guide
habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered
post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where
irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
Rationale
VME habitat status

b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function
post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point
or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious
harm. or irreversible harm.
Rationale
need not be scored if there are no VMEs.
Minor habitat status

There is evidence that the
UoA is highly unlikely to
c Guide reduce structure and function
post of the minor habitats to a
point where there would be
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References
97

to score PI
98
PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA and associated
PI 2.4.2 enhancement activities do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for
place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all
a Guide expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries
post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of UoA and associated
performance. performance or above. enhancement activities on
habitats.
Rationale

based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work,
b Guide (e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly
post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA, enhancement
similar UoAs/ enhancement the UoA, enhancement activities and/or habitats
activities/habitats). activities and/or habitats involved.
involved.
Rationale

There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative
evidence that the evidence that the partial
c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being
post being implemented implemented successfully and
successfully. is achieving its objective, as
outlined in scoring issue (a).
Rationale
d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’

measures to protect VMEs
Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative
post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA and evidence that the UoA and
complies with its associated enhancement associated enhancement
management requirements to activities comply with both its activities comply with both its
99
protect VMEs. management requirements management requirements and
and with protection measures with protection measures
afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other
MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries,
fisheries, where relevant. where relevant.
Rationale
need not be scored if there are no VMEs.
References

to score PI
100
PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and
PI 2.4.3 associated enhancement activities and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage
impacts on the habitat
Information quality
The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats
the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range,
understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the
known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable
OR relevant to the scale and habitats.
intensity of the UoA.
If CSA is used to score PI
a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR
adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI
types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA:
main habitats. Some quantitative information
is available and is adequate
to estimate the types and
distribution of the main
habitats.
Rationale

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the
broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear and enhancement
nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA and activities on all habitats have
gear use and enhancement enhancement activities on the been quantified fully.
activities on the main main habitats, and there is
habitats, including spatial reliable information on the
overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction
gear. and on the timing and
location of use of the fishing
b Guide OR gear.
post
If CSA is used to score PI OR
2.4.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI
adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA:
consequence and spatial Some quantitative information
attributes of the main is available and is adequate
habitats. to estimate the consequence
and spatial attributes of the
main habitats.
Rationale
101
Monitoring
Adequate information Changes in all habitat
c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are
post detect any increase in risk to measured.
the main habitats.
Rationale
References

to score PI
102
PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome
The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or irreversible
PI 2.5.1 harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function
Ecosystem status
The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the
disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to
underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements
a Guide
structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem
post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a
serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a
Rationale
Impacts due to enhancement

Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are There is evidence that the
unlikely to disrupt the key highly unlikely to disrupt the enhancement activities are
elements underlying key elements underlying highly unlikely to disrupt the
b Guide ecosystem structure and ecosystem structure and key elements underlying
post function to a point where function to a point where ecosystem structure and
there would be a serious or there would be a serious or function to a point where
irreversible harm. irreversible harm. there would be a serious or
irreversible harm.
Rationale
References

to score PI
103
PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA and enhancement activities do not pose
PI 2.5.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that
if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place
account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to
a impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of
Guide
elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem,
post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these
to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place.
Outcome 80 level of
performance.
Rationale

b based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work,
Guide
(e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly
post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or
similar UoA/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved.
involved.
Rationale

Rationale
d Management of enhancement activities

Guide There is an established There is a tested and There is a comprehensive
post artificial production strategy in evaluated artificial production and fully evaluated artificial
place that is expected to strategy with sufficient production strategy to verify
104
achieve the Ecosystem monitoring in place and with certainty that the
Outcome 60 level of evidence is available to Ecosystem Outcome 100
performance. reasonably ensure with high level of performance.
likelihood that the strategy is
effective in achieving the
Ecosystem Outcome 80 level
of performance.
Rationale
References

to score PI
105
PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA and associated enhancement
PI 2.5.3 activities on the ecosystem
Information quality
a Information is adequate to Information is adequate to
Guide
identify the key elements of broadly understand the key
post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.
Rationale
Investigation of UoA impacts

Main impacts of the UoA and Main impacts of the UoA and Main interactions between the
associated enhancement associated enhancement UoA and associated
b activities on these key activities on these key enhancement activities and
Guide
ecosystem elements can be ecosystem elements can be these ecosystem elements
post inferred from existing inferred from existing can be inferred from existing
information, and have not information and some have information, and have been
been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. investigated in detail.
Rationale
Understanding of component functions

The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA and
components (i.e., P1 target associated enhancement
species, primary, secondary activities on P1 target,
c and ETP species and primary, secondary and ETP
Guide
Habitats) in the ecosystem species and Habitats are
post are known. identified and the main
functions of these
components in the ecosystem
are understood.
Rationale
d Information relevance
Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is
post available on the impacts of available on the impacts of
the UoA and associated the fishery and associated
enhancement activities on enhancement activities on the
these components to allow components and elements to
some of the main allow the main consequences
106
consequences for the for the ecosystem to be
ecosystem to be inferred. inferred.
Rationale
Monitoring
Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to
e Guide collected to detect any support the development of
post increase in risk level. strategies to manage
ecosystem impacts.
Rationale
References

to score PI
107
PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives
The management policy for the SMU and associated enhancement activities has clear
PI 3.1.3 long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries
standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach
Objectives
Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives
decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making,
with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC
a Guide
Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the
post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are
implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required
policy. policy. by management policy.
Rationale
References

to score PI
108
PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives
The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system(s) activities have
PI 3.2.1 clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s
Principles 1 and 2
Objectives
Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable
broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term
achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are
expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with
a Guide Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes
post implicit within the fishery and explicit within the fishery and expressed by MSC’s Principles
associated enhancement associated enhancement 1 and 2, are explicit within the
management system(s). management system(s). fishery and associated
enhancement management
system(s).
Rationale
References

to score PI
109
PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes
The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes

PI 3.2.2 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
There are some decision- There are established
making processes in place decision-making processes
a Guide that result in measures and that result in measures and
post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific and fishery-specific and
enhancement objectives. enhancement objectives.
Rationale
Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes
respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues
identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant
research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring,
b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation,
post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take
some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider
implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions.
implications of decisions.
Rationale
Use of precautionary approach

c Guide use the precautionary
post approach and are based on
best available information.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all
post fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders
management action is management action is provides comprehensive
110
generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s
request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and
any actions or lack of action management actions and
associated with findings and describes how the
relevant recommendations management system
emerging from research, responded to findings and
monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations
review activity. emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation and
review activity.
Rationale
Approach to disputes
Although the management The management system or The management system or
authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to
subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly
challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions
e Guide
a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges.
post the law by repeatedly
violating the same law or
regulation necessary for the
sustainability for the fishery.
Rationale
References

to score PI
111
PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in

PI 3.2.3 the fishery and associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with
MCS implementation
Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive
surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and
exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been
the fishery and associated fishery and associated implemented in the fishery
a Guide enhancement activities and enhancement activities and and associated enhancement
post there is a reasonable has demonstrated an ability activities and has
expectation that they are to enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent
effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant
strategies and/or rules. management measures,
strategies and/or rules.
Rationale
Sanctions
Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non-
b compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are
Guide
some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and
post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide
deterrence. effective deterrence.
Rationale
Compliance
Fishers and hatchery Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of
operators are generally demonstrate fishers and confidence that fishers and
thought to comply with the hatchery operators comply hatchery operators comply
management system for the with the management system with the management system
c fishery and associated under assessment, including, under assessment, including,
Guide
enhancement activities under when required, providing providing information of
post assessment, including, when information of importance to importance to the effective
required, providing the effective management of management of the fishery
information of importance to the fishery and associated and associated enhancement
the effective management of enhancement activities. activities.
the fishery.
Rationale
112
Systematic non-compliance
d Guide There is no evidence of
post systematic non-compliance.
Met? Yes / No
Rationale
References

to score PI
113
PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluations
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific
and enhancement management system(s) against its objectives
PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific and associated enhancement
program(s) management system
Evaluation coverage
The fishery and associated The fishery and associated The fishery and associated
a enhancement program(s) has enhancement program(s) has enhancement program(s) has
Guide
in place mechanisms to in place mechanisms to in place mechanisms to
post evaluate some parts of the evaluate key parts of the evaluate all parts of the
management system. management system. management system.
Rationale
Internal and/or external review

The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and
associated enhancement associated enhancement associated enhancement
b Guide program(s) management program(s) management program(s) management
post system is subject to system is subject to regular system is subject to regular
occasional internal review. internal and occasional internal and external
external review. review.
Rationale
References

to score PI
114
8 Appendices
8.1 Assessment information
8.1.1 Small-scale fisheries
To help identify small-scale fisheries in the MSC program, the CAB should complete the table below for each
potential Unit of Assessment (UoA). For situations where it is difficult to determine exact percentages, the CAB may
use approximations, e.g. to the nearest 10%. Where possible the CAB should indicate the number of vessels in each
potential Unit of Assessment.
Table X – Small-scale fisheries
Percentage of vessels with length Percentage of fishing activity completed

Unit of Assessment (UoA)
<15m within 12 nautical miles of shore
115
8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques
8.2.1 Site visits
The CAB may include in the report:
- A description of any field activities that were conducted during the pre-assessment.
- A list of meetings held.
- Details of any other engagement with stakeholders.
8.2.2 Recommendations for stakeholder participation in full assessment

The CAB may include in the report:
- Details of people to be interviewed or included in a full assessment: local residents, representatives of

stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives.
- A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.
116
8.3 Risk-Based Framework outputs – delete if not applicable
8.3.1 Consequence Analysis (CA)
The CAB should complete the Consequence Analysis (CA) table below for each data-deficient species under PI
1.1.1, including rationales for scoring each of the CA attributes.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF3
Table X – CA scoring template
Consequence
Scoring element Consequence score
subcomponents
Population size
Principle 1: Stock status
outcome Reproductive capacity
Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range
Rationale for most
vulnerable subcomponent
Rationale for consequence
score
117
8.3.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)
The CAB should include in the report an MSC Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) worksheet for each
Performance Indicator where the PSA is used and one PSA rationale table for each data-deficient species identified,
subject to FCP v2.2 Section PF4. If species are grouped together, the CAB should list all species and group them
indicating which are most at-risk.
Table X – PSA productivity and susceptibility attributes and scores
Performance Indicator
Productivity
Scoring element (species)
Attribute Rationale Score
Average age at maturity 1/2/3
Average maximum age 1/2/3
Fecundity 1/2/3
Average maximum size

1/2/3
Not scored for invertebrates
Average size at maturity
1/2/3
Not scored for invertebrates
Reproductive strategy 1/2/3
Trophic level 1/2/3
Density dependence
1/2/3
Invertebrates only
Susceptibility
Fishery
Only where the scoring Insert list of fisheries impacting the given scoring element (FCP v2.2 Annex PF
element is scored 7.4.10)
cumulatively
Attribute Rationale Score
Insert attribute rationale. Note specific requirements in FCP v2.2

Areal Overlap Annex PF4.4.6.b, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA 1/2/3
are taken into account
Insert attribute rationale. Note specific requirements in FCP v2.2
Encounterability Annex PF4.4.6.b, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA 1/2/3
are taken into account
Selectivity of gear type 1/2/3
Post capture mortality 1/2/3
Catch (weight)
Only where the scoring Insert weights or proportions of fisheries impacting the given scoring
1/2/3
element is scored element (FCP v2.2 Annex PF4.4.4)
cumulatively
Table X – Species grouped by similar taxonomies (if FCP v2.2 Annex PF4.1.5 is used)
118
Species common name (if Most at-risk in
Species scientific name Taxonomic grouping
known) group?
Indicate the group that this species
e.g. Genus species belongs to, e.g. Scombridae,
Yes / No
subspecies Soleidae, Serranidae, Merluccius
spp.
119
8.3.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)
The CAB should complete the Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) table below for PI 2.4.1, if used, including
rationales for scoring each of the CSA attributes.
Table X – CSA rationale table for PI 2.4.1 Habitats
Consequence Rationale Score
Regeneration of biota 1/2/3
Natural disturbance 1/2/3
Removability of biota 1/2/3
Removability of substratum 1/2/3
Substratum hardness 1/2/3
Substratum ruggedness 1/2/3
Seabed slope 1/2/3
Spatial Rationale Score
Gear footprint 1/2/3
Spatial overlap 1/2/3
Encounterability 1/2/3
120
8.3.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)
The CAB should complete the Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) table below for PI 2.5.1, if used,
including rationales for scoring each of the SICA attributes.
Table X – SICA scoring template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem
Spatial scale of Temporal scale Intensity of Relevant Consequence

fishing activity of fishing activity fishing activity subcomponents Score
Species
composition
Performance Indicator
Functional group
PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem
composition
outcome
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
121
8.4 Harmonised fishery assessments – delete if not applicable
Harmonisation is required in cases where assessments overlap, or new assessments overlap with pre-existing
fisheries.
If relevant, in accordance with FCP v2.2 Annex PB requirements, the CAB may describe in the report the processes,
activities and specific outcomes of efforts to harmonise fishery assessments. The CAB may identify in the report the
fisheries and Performance Indicators that may be subject to harmonisation at full assessment.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PB
Table X – Overlapping fisheries
Fishery name Certification status and date Performance Indicators to harmonise
122
9 Corporate branding
This template may be formatted to comply with the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) corporate identity. The CAB
shall ensure that content and structure follow the template.
Examples of appropriate amendments are:
a. A title page with the company logo,

b. A company header and footer used throughout the report,
c. Replacement of font styles,
d. Inclusion of contact details for the CAB in relation to consultation,
e. Deletion of any sections that are not applicable, though CABs should leave any sections that will be
populated later in the assessment, and,
f. Deletion of introductory text or instructions.
123
10 Template information and copyright
This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v3.2’.
The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v3.2’ and its content is copyright of
“Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2020. All rights reserved.
Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment
1.0 15 August 2011 Date of first release
1.1 31 October 2013 Updated in line with changes to CR v1.3
Confirmed background sections (Section 3) as optional (use of
‘may’ statements)
Modified Table 6.3 to create a simplified scoring sheet to be

2.0 08 October 2014
completed in place of full evaluation tables
Made amendments to PIs based on Fishery Standard Review

changes (e.g. removed original PIs 1.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.2.4).
2.1 9 October 2017 Inclusion of optional full evaluation tables
3.0 17 December 2018 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.1

3.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability
3.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2
A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).
Marine Stewardship Council

Marine House
1 Snow Hill
London EC1A 2DH
United Kingdom
Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900

Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901
Email: standards@msc.org
124

MSC Pre Assessment Reporting Template v3 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC Pre Assessment Reporting Template v3 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments

Insert CAB Logo or delete

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)

Assessment type Pre-assessment

- The names and a brief description of the assessors or authors.

4.2 Version details

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 0.0

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 0.0

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 0.0

MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template Version 3.2

For geographical area, the CAB should refer to G7.5.6.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.4

Table X – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

Fishing gear type(s)

Other eligible fishers

Fishing gear type(s)

Other eligible fishers

Fishing gear type(s)

Other eligible fishers

Table X – Traceability within the fishery

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

The CAB shall inform the client of:

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 7.1.8

7.2 Summary of potential conditions by Principle

Principle 1 – Stock status

Principle 3 – Effective management

7.3 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

Table X – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

Performance Indicator Draft scoring range Data deficient?

1.1.1 – Stock status <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

1.2.1 – Harvest Strategy <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

Rationale or key points

1.2.3 – Information and monitoring <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.1.1 – Primary Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.1.2 – Primary Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.1.3 – Primary Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.2.1 – Secondary Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.2.2 – Secondary Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.2.3 – Secondary Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.3.1 – ETP Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.3.2 – ETP Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

Rationale or key points

2.4.1 – Habitats Outcome <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.4.2 – Habitats Management <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No

Rationale or key points

2.4.3 – Habitats Information <60 / 60 – 79 / ≥80 Yes / No