MSC_Full_Assessment_Reporting_Template_v2.0_final€¦ · Web viewSee Appendix 1.3 of this report...

Marine Stewardship Council

Full Assessment Reporting Template

Version 2.0, 8 October 2014

Copyright notice

The Marine Stewardship Council “Full Assessment Reporting Template” and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2014. All rights reserved.

Senior Policy Manager

Marine Stewardship Council

Marine House

1 Snow Hill

London EC1A 2DH

United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900

Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901

Email: [email protected]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page iDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Version Control

Amendments Issued

Version No.

Date Description Of Amendment

1.0 15th August 2011 Date of first release

1.1 24th October Appendix 1.1 – replace optional PISG rationale text with requirement CR 27.10.6.2Increase numbering within text boxes to aide referencing. (Sections: 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4.3, 5.1, 6.4, Appendix 1.1 and Appendix 3)

1.2 10th January 2012 Instructions for non-default assessment trees.Section 4.2, 6.3 and A1.3: Amended to include re-certification requirements for outstanding conditions.Appendix 4.1: requirement to justify surveillance score includedAppendix 1.1: requirement to identify modified or additional PI evaluation tables included.Appendix 1 Evaluation table PI 1.2.2: Scoring Issue 1 at SG100 removed from PI 1.2.2. This was a duplicate of SI1 at SG80.

1.3 15 January 2013 Updated in line with changes found in the Certification Requirements, v1.3.Version issued incorporating changes agreed at TAB 21 regarding RBF (Section 4.4.3, Appendix 1.2 SICA Tables), LTL & RBF (Section 3.3 and PI 1.1.2), Shark Finning (PIs 1.2.1 and 2.1.2), HMS & SSS (Section 3.5 and PIs 3.1.1, 3.2.2), and Transparency & Integrity (PI 3.2.2).Changes were made to the following sections to correspond to text changed from previous versions of the CR and not previously incorporated: Section 3.5, Section 5.2, PIs 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 2.1.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.3, 3.1.2.Minor edits, wrong and missing referencing and typos were corrected throughout.

2.0 8 October 2014 Updated in line with changes found in the Fisheries Certification Requirements, v2.0.Minor formatting edits were corrected in the Evaluation Tables to allow rows to break across pages.

2.0 Erratum 8 April 2015 Appendix 1.1 & 1.2 – amendments made in line with April 2015 release of FCR v2.0 erratum

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page iiDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

This document is to be cited as:

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0

Table of ContentsUsing the Full Assessment Reporting Template......................................................................v

Re-assessments (see FCR 7.24)......................................................................................v

Multiple Units of Assessment...........................................................................................viMultiple scoring elements.................................................................................................vi

Modifications to Default Assessment Trees....................................................................viiCorporate Branding.........................................................................................................vii

Further customisation.....................................................................................................viiiDeleting instructions and guidance.................................................................................viii

Comments......................................................................................................................viiiTitle Page.................................................................................................................................1

Contents...................................................................................................................................2Glossary...................................................................................................................................3

1. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................42. Authorship and Peer Reviewers.......................................................................................5

3. Description of the Fishery.................................................................................................63.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought............................6

3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries..................................73.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries........7

3.2 Overview of the fishery...........................................................................................73.3 Principle One: Target Species Background...........................................................7

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background..................................................................83.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...............................................8

4. Evaluation Procedure......................................................................................................104.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment........................................................................10

4.2 Previous assessments.........................................................................................104.3 Assessment Methodologies.................................................................................10

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques................................................................114.4.1 Site Visits..........................................................................................................11

4.4.2 Consultations....................................................................................................114.4.3 Evaluation Techniques.....................................................................................11

5 Traceability......................................................................................................................135.1 Eligibility Date.......................................................................................................13

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery..............................................................................135.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody.......................................................14

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page iiiDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody...........................................................................................................14

6 Evaluation Results..........................................................................................................15

6.1 Principle Level Scores..........................................................................................156.2 Summary of PI Level Scores................................................................................15

6.3 Summary of Conditions........................................................................................156.3.1 Recommendations............................................................................................16

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement.............................................166.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment.................................16

References.............................................................................................................................17Appendices............................................................................................................................18

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales.......................................................................................18Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale...........................................18

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs........................................................63Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1...........................................63

Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).............................................65Appendix 1.2.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)...................................................67

Appendix 1.3 Conditions.....................................................................................................70Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports..........................................................................................71

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions....................................................................................72Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency.......................................................................................73

Appendix 5 Objections Process.............................................................................................74

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page ivDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Using the Full Assessment Reporting TemplateThe following reports shall be prepared using the Full Assessment Reporting Template:

a. Preliminary draft report (PDR), b. Peer review draft report (PRDR), c. Public comment draft report (PCDR), d. Final report (FR) and e. Public certification report (PCR).

If a section is not required for all the above named reports BOLD CAPITALS are used to confirm in which reports a section shall appear.

In this template you will find numbered sections for each element of the above-named reports.

Each numbered section has instructions (contained within a box) about the content MSC requires within that part of the report. Sometimes an instruction can be traced to an individual requirement in one of the scheme documents. At other times, an instruction represents an amalgam and rationalisation of multiple requirements.

Many reporting requirements which were found in the Fisheries Certification Methodology (superseded scheme document) Appendix 1 are now found as instructions in the template and do not appear elsewhere in the Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR).The use of this template is mandatory to ensure that these requirements are met. Basic introductory text about the fishery should be included in Sections 3.3-3.5 of the report. Key aspects of the fishery should be summarised fully in the scoring tables (Appendix 1.1) against relevant PIs. By laying out the report in this way we intend that duplication of a long introductory section about the fishery in the evaluation tables is avoided.

Appendix 1.1 contains evaluation tables based on tables in FCR v2.0, Annex SA. If any discrepancies are noted between the Annex SA tables and the template evaluation tables, teams shall use the wording given in Annex SA, not in the template (please also inform MSC, so that corrections can be made).

Any references used to support statements in the evaluation tables of the reports shall be included in the 'References' section of the table and an in-text reference (e.g. number or author, date) made to the relevant source (see FCR 7.15.2).

Re-assessments (see FCR 7.24)If a fishery qualifies for reduced re-assessment, the Reduced Re-assessment Reporting Template may be used. If it does not, the Full Assessment Reporting Template (FA Template) shall be used for re-assessments.

The FA Template contains sections that are applicable at re-assessment only, including Section 4.2 ‘Previous Assessments’ and Table 2, where conformity assessment bodies (CABs) are required to provide a summary of the previous assessment conditions and whether they were closed or not. The intention behind this requirement is to make it totally clear (for the CAB, the fishery client and stakeholders) at the end of the certification period which conditions have been achieved and which ones carried over and if so, why.

Text from previous assessments may be re-used in other sections of the FA Template. This is appropriate in situations where no substantial changes have occurred in the fishery with respect to the background, P1, P2 and P3 sections of the report and there are no new

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page vDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Certification Requirements added to these sections. If changes to the text used in previous sections are made, the CAB should make it clear to stakeholders where these updates have been made, for example by using different coloured font or other form of highlighting.

Multiple Units of AssessmentAppendix 1.1 of the report shall be prepared taking appropriate account of each different Unit of Assessment (UoA) for the fishery. This means preparing separate tables for each UoA to enable certification bodies to meet the MSC requirement to submit Assessment Report(s) relating to any separate UoAs.

The following scenarios are provided as examples of preparing assessment reports for fisheries with different UoAs:

Example 1. Multiple species, one gear type

For assessments under this scenario, multiple tables should be prepared for each species considered under Principle 1. Assuming that results for Principles 2 and 3 would be the same for each species, a single table for each of these Principles should suffice.

Example 2. Multiple gear types, one target species

For assessments under this scenario, a single table for each Principle 1 PI and one for each Principle 3 PI should be prepared, while multiple tables might be appropriate for Principle 2 to account for the different gear types.

Multiple scoring elementsWhen multiple scoring elements are assessed in P1 (e.g. multiple stocks of a species) or P2 (multiple gear types, species, habitats), additional rows may be added under the ‘Met’ line for each separate element so that the scores are clear for each scoring element. Rationale provided shall include justification for the scores of each element.

Additionally, separate scores may be provided for each scoring element by adding rows above the ‘overall score’ row, but an overall score shall also be given – see Example 1 below.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page viDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Example 1 - PI 2.1.1 (Note: PI shortened for illustrative purposes, full PI evaluation tables provided in Appendix 1)

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Guide-post

Main primary species are likely to be above the PRI

Main primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI

There is a high degree of certainty that main primary species are above PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Species 1 Y Y YSpecies 2 Y N NSpecies 3 Y Y NJustifi-cation

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

References [List any references here]

Score Species 1

Score Species 2

Score Species 3

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

Modifications to Default Assessment TreesIf any changes are made to the default assessment tree (Annex SA) following requirements in FCR 7.8.5, the PI evaluation tables should be amended to reflect these changes. Where additional tables have been used in the assessment, PI evaluation tables should be inserted in the relevant place within Appendix 1.

For enhanced bivalve fisheries (Annex SB) and salmon fisheries (Annex SC), separate reporting templates are provided. Where there is not a defined default assessment tree for the fishery type, such as for mixed species fisheries, modifications to the reporting templates should be dependent on the assessment tree that was consulted on, including any final changes.

Corporate BrandingThe reporting template may be formatted to comply with the CAB corporate identity.

It is the structure and content of the fishery assessment report that must be as specified in the template.

Examples of appropriate amendments are:a. A title page with the company logob. A company header used throughout the report.c. A company footer replacing the current MSC footer (which should still at the least

also include page numbering).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page viiDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

CABs should note that in sections where orientation of pages changes the formatting of company headers may become corrupted. Landscape sections of the report have been ‘unlinked from previous sections’ to minimise formatting issues.

Further customisationAdditionally, the following Sections may be deleted from the template if they are not applicable to the assessment (e.g. in fisheries which are not enhanced, or where the RBF is not used in scoring any PI):

Section 3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries Section 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based

Fisheries (ISBF) Section 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter

Further Chains of Custody Section 6.3.1 Recommendations Section 6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs Appendix 1.3 Conditions Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions Appendix 5 Objections Process

The numbering of these sections has been arranged to minimise the effect of this on the numbering of other sections.

Additional sections may be added to the report, if needed. These should only be included at the end of sub-sections or by adding new sections at the end of the report.

Deleting instructions and guidanceThe following parts of this document are not intended to appear in the report and should be deleted:

a. Introductory pages i to viii.b. The boxes containing instructions.c. The GREY instructionsd. Notes and guidance enclosed in square brackets or in italicse. The MSC’s default footer

CommentsAnyone wishing to comment on this document or any other MSC scheme documents is encouraged to do so by sending an email to [email protected].

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page viiiDate of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Title PageOn a title page (front page):

Fishery nameReport Title [e.g. Public Certification Report]CAB name and authors’ namesClient name(s)Date

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 1Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

ContentsInsert a table of contents.


Glossary(OPTIONAL)

Insert a Glossary or list of acronyms, if desired. Note that any terms defined here shall not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI Vocabulary.


http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme-documents#Vocab

1 Executive SummaryThe summary shall include:

a. Names of team members.b. A brief explanation of the process that was pursued and the events that occurred.c. The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation.d. The determination / draft determination reached with supporting rationale.e. Any conditions attached to the certification and the time-scale for compliance.

[Optionally, the summary may include additional, non-binding management recommendations.]


2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers(ASSESSMENT TEAM INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS, PEER REVIEWER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

1. The report shall contain:a. Names, qualifications and affiliations of team members. b. Specification of which person is the team leader.c. Names of the peer reviewers.

2. If the Risk Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery the report shall state which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.

(References: FCR 7.5, FCR Annex PC)


3 Description of the Fishery3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)(ALL REPORTS EXCEPT PCR)

The report shall include a statement of the CAB’s determination that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought.

The report shall also describe:

a. The UoA(s).b. A rationale for choosing the UoA(s).c. Description of the proposed UoC and any other eligible fishers at the start of the

certificate (prior to any certificate sharing).

(References: FCR 7.4.7-7.4.8)

3.1.2 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe:

a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification.b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c).c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.


3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

The report shall include a completed TAC and catch data table using Table 1. [Note that a separate table should be provided for each species or gear, if possible.]

Table 1. TAC and Catch DataTAC Year [YYYY] Amount [n, unit]UoA share of TAC Year [YYYY] Amount [n, unit]UoC share of total TAC Year [YYYY] Amount [n, unit]Total green weight catch by UoC

Year (most recent)

[YYYY] Amount [n, unit]

Year (second most recent)

[YYYY] Amount [n, unit]


3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

For enhanced fisheries, the report shall include:

a. A statement describing how the fishery meets the scope criteria for enhanced fisheries.b. The assessment processes, analyses and outcomes on which the CAB based its

rationale to determine that the fishery is within scope.(Reference: FCR 7.4.3)

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

Where the fishery in assessment is an ISBF, the report shall include:

a. A statement describing how the fishery meets the scope criteria for ISBF.b. The assessment processes, analyses and outcomes on which the CAB based its

rationale to determine that the fishery is within scope.(Reference: FCR 7.4.4, Annex SD)

3.2 Overview of the fisheryThe report shall include:

a. A summary of basic information about the management operation (e.g. ownership, history, and organisational structure) and the sea/freshwater area that was evaluated.

b. Species types, management history, fishing practices (including configurations of gear(s) used), historic fishing levels, other resource attributes and constraints.

c. User rights (both legal and customary), the legal/administrative status of the operation and involvement of other entities including responsible government agencies.

Sections 3.3-3.5 should include an elaboration of the information submitted in the MSC Notification Report Form required by FCR 7.8.7.1.

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background1. The report shall have a summary of the fishery based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:

a. Outline of the fishery resources including life histories as appropriate.b. Outline of status of stocks as indicated by stock assessments, including a description of

the assessment methods, standards, and stock indicators, biological limits, etc.c. History of fishing and management.

2. The report shall indicate if the target species is key LTL (FCR Annex SA 2.2.9) or not. If there are multiple P1 species, the report shall indicate which are key LTL and which are not.


3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background1. The report shall have a summary of the UoA based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:

a. The aquatic ecosystem, its status and any particularly sensitive areas, habitats or ecosystem features influencing or affected by the UoA.

b. The Primary, Secondary and endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species including their status and relevant management history.

c. Specific constraints, e.g. details of any unwanted catch of species, their conservation status and measures taken to minimise this as appropriate.

d. Details of any critical environments or sources of concern and actions required to address them.

e. If cumulative impacts (e.g. combined impacts of MSC UoAs) need consideration (either within Primary, Secondary, ETP or Habitats PIs), the report shall contain a summary of how this has been addressed, i.e. what other MSC UoAs/fisheries were considered and how the cumulative impacts were taken into account.

2. The report shall include the catch and UoA related mortality of all main Primary, main Secondary and ETP species together with a description of the adequacy of information, identification of data sources used and whether they are qualitative or quantitative.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

1. The report shall have a summary of the UoA and the fishery-specific management system based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:

a. Area of operation of the UoA and under which jurisdiction it falls (see also point 2 below).b. Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the UoA.c. Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan.d. Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups.e. Details of other non-MSC fishery users or activities, which could affect the UoA, and

arrangements for liaison and co-ordination.f. Details of the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised

participants.g. Objectives for the fishery (referring to any or all of the following if relevant): Resource Environmental Biodiversity and ecological Technological Social Economic

h. Outline the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery.i. Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and

particulars of the nature of those rights.j. Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the

objectives within a specified period. These may include general and specific measures, precautionary measures, contingency plans, mechanisms for emergency decisions, etc.

k. Particulars of arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement.

l. Details of any planned education and training for interest groups.


m. Date of next review and audit of the management plan. [Note: Some of the above may be of a generic nature and hence be dealt with in the general rules of fishing (e.g. a national fishery legislation), in which case these can be referred to in the plan, without repeating all the details. However, specific points or detail may be required for specific fisheries.]

2. The report shall indicate which combination of jurisdictional categories apply to the management system of the UoA, including consideration of formal, informal and/or traditional management systems when assessing performance of UoAs under Principle 3, including: Single jurisdiction Single jurisdiction with indigenous component Shared stocks Straddling stocks Stocks of highly migratory species (HMS) Stocks of discrete high seas non-HMS


4 Evaluation Procedure4.1 Harmonised Fishery AssessmentIf relevant, in accordance with FCR 7.4.16 and Annex PB, the report shall describe:

a. Processes, activities and specific outcomes of efforts to harmonise fishery assessments in cases where assessments overlap or new assessments overlap with pre-existing fisheries.

(Reference: FCR 7.4.16, FCR Annex PB)

4.2 Previous assessments 1. The report shall contain:

a. A summary of any previous assessments of the client operations.b. Conclusions reached from that previous assessment.

2. Using Table 2 below, the report shall also contain:

a. Details of any conditions that were closed at or between the previous surveillance audits and the PCDR, with a written justification of the reasons for closing the conditions.

b. In cases where a condition has not been closed:

i. A justification for why progress on that condition has been judged to be adequate by the CAB following the requirements specified in FCR 7.23.13.1 and 7.23.13.2 (excepting 7.23.13.2.b).

ii. Details of the conditions that the CAB proposes to carry over or reformulate within the re-certification.

iii. Details of actions that have been applied to fishery clients when inadequate progress has been made towards meeting a condition.

(Reference: FCR 7.24.2.2, 7.23.13)

Table 2. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions [Add or delete rows as needed]Condition PI(s) Year

closed Justification

[Number & summary] [PIs] [e.g. Year 3. Or indicate if not yet closed]

4.3 Assessment Methodologies1. The report shall state:

a. The version number of the FCR used to assess the fishery. b. The version number of the ‘MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template’ used to produce

this report.

2. The report shall also state whether the Default Assessment Tree was used with or without adjustments.


3. For each change to the default tree, the changes shall be described and the impact on the following matters shall be analysed and justified:

a. New or altered Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISG).b. Weights of relative importance assigned to each new or altered PISG.c. Rationale for each of the changed PISGs used in the assessment, as well as the weight

assigned to each.

Stakeholder comments and CAB responses shall be included as appropriate in Appendix 3.


4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

The report shall contain:

a. An itinerary of field activities with dates.b. A description of main activities and locations that were inspected.c. Names of individuals contacted during field inspections.

(Reference: FCR 7.9)

4.4.2 Consultations

1. The report shall contain:

a. Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives.

b. A summary of information obtained.

2. The report may also contain:a. A description of any stakeholder toolbox tools used (see here). b. A description of any stakeholder engagement strategy or plan carried out.


4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

1. The report shall describe:

a. The rationale for choosing the media used for public announcements.b. The methodology used, including sample-based means of acquiring a working

knowledge of the management operation and sea base.c. The scoring process (e.g. group consensus process).d. The decision rule for reaching the final recommendation (e.g. aggregate category-level

scores must all exceed 80).

2. The report shall include (using Table 3 below):


http://www.msc.org/documents/get-certified/stakeholders/toolbox-for-stakeholder-participation-in-rbf-assessments/view?searchterm=participat

a. The set of scoring elements (e.g. species or habitats) that have been considered in each outcome PI in Principles 1 and 2.

b. Under which component they were assessed. c. Whether any scoring elements are data-deficient.

(Reference: FCR 7.10.7, FCR Annex PF 5.1.1, FCR Annex SA 3.1.1)

Table 3 Scoring elements [Add or delete rows as needed]Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or

not[e.g. P1, Primary, Secondary, ETP]

[e.g. species or stock]

3. If the RBF is used the report shall include:

a. The rationale for using the RBF in relation to the criteria set out in FCR 7.7.6 and FCRTable 3, and stakeholder comments on its use.

b. The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used.

c. A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions.

d. The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.

(Reference: FCR 7.7.6, Annex PF)

[Note: the outcomes of stakeholder engagement and their supporting rationale are to be documented in the Evaluation Results section (section 6), while the specific content of stakeholder written or verbal submissions or information generated in meetings or workshops are to be provided in Appendix 3 of this report.]


5 Traceability5.1 Eligibility Date1. The report shall provide:

a. The eligibility date.b. The rationale for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability

and segregation systems in the fishery will be implemented by this date. (Reference: FCR 7.6)

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery1. The report shall include a description of factors that may lead to risks of non-certified fish being mixed with certified fish prior to entering Chain of Custody, using Table 4 below. For each risk factor, there shall be a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the fishery, and if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place.

2. The report shall include:

a. A description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery and how these systems will allow any products sold as MSC certified to be traced back to the UoC.

b. An evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.

(Reference: FCR 7.12.1.1, 7.12.1.3, 7.12.1.4)

Table 4 Traceability Factors within the Fishery:Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where

applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls)

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used within the fishery

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips)

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or client group fishing the same stock

Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during storage, transport, or handling activities (including transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before


subsequent Chain of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody1. The report shall include:

a. A conclusion and determination of whether the product will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and if it is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

b. A list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified.

c. The point of intended change of ownership of product, andd. A list of eligible landing points if relevant e. The point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required.

(References: FCR 7.12.1, 7.12.1.5, 7.12.2, 7.12.2.1 7.12.3)

[Note: If the CAB makes a negative determination under 7.12.1, the CAB shall state in its reports that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the Client Group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.]

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

1. Where an IPI stock(s) is involved in the certification, the following shall be included in the report:

a. An evaluation of the species, stock, proportion and weight of the catch of IPI stock(s) and their eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody.

b. A substantiated rationale of how each of the requirements specified in CR Annex PA are or are not met for any catches of IPI stock(s), except in cases regarded as exempt under FCR 7.4.14.2.

(References: FCR 7.12.1.6, 7.4.13-15, Annex PA)


6 Evaluation Results6.1 Principle Level ScoresTable 5 shall be completed documenting the Principle level scores for each of the three MSC Principles. Such Principle level scores shall be reported to the nearest one decimal place.

Revisions to the table may be made to reflect the actual UoAs in the fishery.

(Reference: FCR 7.10.4)

Table 5: Final Principle ScoresFinal Principle Scores

Principle ScorePrinciple 1 – Target SpeciesPrinciple 2 – EcosystemPrinciple 3 – Management System

6.2 Summary of PI Level ScoresThe report shall include a completed copy of appropriate worksheet in the ‘MSC fishery assessment scoring worksheets’ Excel file found on the MSC website ‘Forms and templates’ page here.

Revisions to the table may be made to reflect the actual UoAs in the fishery.

6.3 Summary of Conditions1. Assign a number to each condition. Table 6 below shall be completed by listing the

Conditions by number against the relevant Performance Indicator. Add as many rows to the table as needed.

2. If no conditions are required, the report shall include a statement confirming this. The table below should then be deleted.

[Note: Table 6 is for summary purposes only. See Appendix 1.3 of this report template for full requirements for documenting conditions in accordance with the MSC scheme requirements.]

(RE-ASSESSMENT ONLY: PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

3. If any of the new conditions relate to conditions raised in the previous assessment or surveillance audits, CABs shall record this in the final column of Table 6 below.

Table 6: Summary of ConditionsCondition number

Condition Performance Indicator

Related to previously raised

condition? (Y/N/NA)


http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates

6.4 Recommendations(OPTIONAL)

[If the CAB wishes to include any recommendations to the client, include these here.]

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified.


(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment(OPTIONAL)

Identify any work conducted by the client (or the management agency) specifically targeted at bringing the fishery to the MSC standard, either prior to or since any pre-assessment report that was prepared. This information is particularly valuable for MSC’s reporting on the impacts of its programme.


ReferencesThe report shall include a reference list detailing all information sources used in assessing the fishery and preparing the report.

[For example: Author, Year. Title of Article, Title of Journal, Volume number, Page(s).]


Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and RationalesAppendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale1. In the PI evaluation tables for each PI and scoring element, as appropriate, the rationale shall include:

a. Commentary about the basis for decision. This shall make direct reference to the relevant indicator, scoring guidepost and issue and whether or not each of the scoring issues is fully met (Reference: FCR 7.10.6.2).

b. Reference to the source of information used to make a judgement about that indicator.

2. For all outcome indicators (PIs 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.5.1) where quantitative information has been used in scoring, the report shall include:

a. A referenced URL where stakeholders can view this information, orb. The quantitative information used.

3. If the RBF has been used for scoring a PI, the relevant RBF table shall include rationales for the scores and any changes to the scores in completing the RBF assessment

4. For any PI for which scoring is not required or where there is a default score of 100, this information shall be recorded within the relevant evaluation table.

5. If the RBF was used to score a PI, its use shall be referenced in the justification boxes and cross referenced to the RBF Outputs section of the report (Appendix 1.2).

6. Any agreed modifications to PIs in the Standard Default Assessment Tree shall be incorporated into the evaluation tables that make up Appendix 1.1.

a. Modified evaluation tables as a result of consulting on and using a non-default assessment tree shall be identified by the suffix M (e.g. PI 1.2.1M).

7. Additional PI tables shall be created where different PIs have been agreed and are being used in the assessment.

a. Additional evaluation tables as a result of consulting on and using a non-default assessment tree shall be identified by the suffix A (e.g. PI 1.2.5A).

8. Insert the number of issues met at each guidepost level and insert the PI score.

[For PIs where scoring guideposts have only one scoring issue a ‘P’ may be inserted into the ‘Met?’ column in the PI table in place of a Y or an N to show that the issue has been partially met. (Reference: FCR 7.10.6.3)]

9. If a condition is required, assign it a number for cross referencing to the Conditions section of this report (Reference: FCR 7.11).


Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing


a Stock status relative to recruitment impairmentGuidepost

It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI).

It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI.


Justification


b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSYGuidepost

The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification



Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference point

Value of reference point

Current stock status relative to reference point

Reference point used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

[e.g. BLOSS] [Include value specifying units.e.g. 50,000t total stock biomass]

[Include current stock status in the same units as the reference point e.g. 90,000/BLOSS=1.8]

Reference point used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb)

[e.g. BMSY] [Include value specifying units. e.g. 100,000t total stock biomass]

[Include current stock status in the same units as the reference point e.g. 90,000/BMSY=0.9]


CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):


Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL [NOTE: only use this table for stocks identified as key LTL]

PI 1.1.1 A The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem impacts


a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairmentGuidepost

It is likely that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur.

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur.


Justification


b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needsGuidepost

The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification



Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference point

Value of reference point

Current stock status relative to reference point

Reference point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem impairment (SIa)

[e.g. B35%] [Include value specifying units.e.g. 50,000t total stock biomass]

[Include current stock status in the same units as the reference point e.g. 90,000/B35%=1.8]

Reference point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem needs (SIb)

[e.g. B75%] [Include value specifying units. e.g. 100,000t total stock biomass]

[Include current stock status in the same units as the reference point e.g. 90,000/B75%=0.9]




Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe


a Rebuilding timeframesGuidepost

A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the stock.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


b Rebuilding evaluationGuidepost

Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe.

There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place


a Harvest strategy designGuidepost

The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.


Justification


b Harvest strategy evaluationGuidepost

The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument.

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

The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.


Justification


c Harvest strategy monitoringGuidepost

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


d Harvest strategy reviewGuidepost

The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


e Shark finningGuide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of


PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking place.

certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant)

Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if sharks are not a target species].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

f Review of alternative measuresGuidepost

There has been a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there is no unwanted catch of the target stock].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]





Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place


a HCRs design and applicationGuidepost

Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached.

Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


b HCRs robustness to uncertaintyGuidepost

The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties.

The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


c HCRs evaluationGuidepost

There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.

Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy


a Range of informationGuidepost

Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available.


Justification


b MonitoringGuidepost

Stock abundance and UoA removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.


Justification


c Comprehensiveness of informationGuidepost

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status


a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under considerationGuidepost

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule.

The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


b Assessment approachGuidepost

The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category.

The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


c Uncertainty in the assessmentGuidepost

The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty.

The assessment takes uncertainty into account.

The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.


Justification


d Evaluation of assessmentGuidepost

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


e Peer review of assessmentGuidepost

The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.


PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.


a Main primary species stock statusGuidepost

Main primary species are likely to be above the PRI

OR

If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Main primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If the species is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that main primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.


Justification


b Minor primary species stock statusGuidepost

Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species

Met? (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

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


a Management strategy in placeGuidepost

There are measures in place for the UoA, if necessary, that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are likely to above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

There is a partial strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

There is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species.


Justification


b Management strategy evaluationGuidepost

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.


Justification


c Management strategy implementationGuidepost

There is some evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


d Shark finningGuidepost

It is likely that shark finning is not taking place.

It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.

There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if no Primary species are sharks].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this


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

scoring issue]

e Review of alternative measuresGuidepost

There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no unwanted catches of Primary species].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]





Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

PI 2.1.3Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species


a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary speciesGuidepost

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA:Qualitative information is adeqaute to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA:Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species.

Quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status.


Justification


b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary speciesGuidepost

Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


c Information adequacy for management strategyGuidepost

Information is adequate to support measures to manage main primary species.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species.

Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.


Justification




PI 2.1.3Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species




Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

PI 2.2.1The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.


a Main secondary species stock statusGuidepost

Main Secondary species are likely to be within biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits, there are measures in place expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits

OR

If below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.ANDWhere catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that main secondary species are within biologically based limits.


Justification


b Minor secondary species stock statusGuidepost

Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species


PI 2.2.1The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

PI 2.2.2There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.



There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery.

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

There is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor secondary species.


Justification



The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved.

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


Justification




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

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


d Shark finningGuidepost

It is likely that shark finning is not taking place.

It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking

There is a high degree of certainty that shark


PI 2.2.2There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

place. finning is not taking place.Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant)

Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catchJustification

There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


Guidepost

[Scoring issue need not be scored if are no unwanted catches of secondary species].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]





Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

PI 2.2.3Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.


a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary speciesGuidepost

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status.


Justification


b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary speciesGuidepost

Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


c Information adequacy for management strategyGuidepost

Information is adequate to support measures to manage main secondary species.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species.

Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.


Justification




PI 2.2.3Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.




Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

PI 2.3.1The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP speciesThe UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species


a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicableGuidepost

Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the population/stock are known and likely to be within these limits.

Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stock are known and highly likely to be within these limits.

Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no national or international requirements that set limits for ETP species].[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

b Direct effectsGuidepost

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

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

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species.


Justification


c Indirect effectsGuidepost

Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts.

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

PI 2.3.2

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.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.


a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)Guidepost

There are measures in place that minimise the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements].


b Management strategy in place (alternative)Guidepost

There are measures in place that are expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

There is a strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements].


c Management strategy evaluationGuidepost

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

The strategy/comprehensive strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.



PI 2.3.2

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.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

Justification


d Management strategy implementationGuidepost

There is some evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy/comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP speciesGuidepost

There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy;

and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.


a Information adequacy for assessment of impactsGuidepost

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the UoA related mortality on ETP species.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA:Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Quantitative information is available to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.


Justification


b Information adequacy for management strategyGuidepost

Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species.

Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species.

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

PI 2.4.1The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.


a Commonly encountered habitat statusGuidepost

The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

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


Justification


b VME habitat statusGuidepost

The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no VMEs].


c Minor habitat statusGuidepost

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

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



There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.

There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats.


Justification



The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/habitats).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.


Justification



There is some quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear quantitative evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEsGuidepost

There is qualitative evidence that the UoA complies with its management requirements to protect VMEs.

There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.

There is clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.


Justification

[Scoring issue need not be scored if there are no VMEs].


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






Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.


a Information qualityGuidepost

The types and distribution of the main habitats are broadly understood.

OR

If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA.

OR


Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

The distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats.


Justification


b Information adequacy for assessment of impactsGuidepost

Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear.

OR


Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

OR


Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have been quantified fully.


Justification



PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

c MonitoringGuidepost

Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats.

Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.


a Ecosystem statusGuidepost

The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? (Y/N/Partial) (Y/N/Partial) (Y/N/Partial)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.



There are measures in place, if necessary which take into account the potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, which takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place.


Justification



The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved

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


Justification




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

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.


a Information qualityGuidepost

Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem.

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


b Investigation of UoA impactsGuidepost

Main impacts of the UoA on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail.

Main impacts of the UoA on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail.

Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail.


Justification


c Understanding of component functionsGuidepost

The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known.

The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


d Information relevanceGuidepost

Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on the components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification



PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

e MonitoringGuidepost

Adequate data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level.

Information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

PI 3.1.1

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of

people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.


a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective managementGuidepost

There is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2

There is an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

There is an effective national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.


Justification


b Resolution of disputesGuidepost

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system.

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective.


Justification


c Respect for rightsGuidepost

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

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

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


Justification




PI 3.1.1

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of

people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.




Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties.The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties


a Roles and responsibilitiesGuidepost

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

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.


Justification


b Consultation processesGuidepost

The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.


Justification


c ParticipationGuidepost

The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification



PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties.The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties





Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

PI 3.1.3The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach.


a ObjectivesGuidepost

Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy.

Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy.

Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.


a ObjectivesGuidepost

Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

PI 3.2.2The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.


a Decision-making processesGuidepost

There are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justification


b Responsiveness of decision-making processesGuidepost

Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.


Justification


c Use of precautionary approachGuidepost

Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification


d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making processGuide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all


PI 3.2.2The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

post fishery’s performance and management action is generally available on request to stakeholders.

fishery’s performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

interested stakeholders provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.


Justification


e Approach to disputesGuidepost

Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges.

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


Justification






Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.


a MCS implementationGuidepost

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective.

A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.


Justification


b SanctionsGuidepost

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence.


Justification


c ComplianceGuidepost

Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.


Justification


d Systematic non-complianceGuidepost

There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

Met? (Y/N)

Justification



PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.





Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives.There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.


a Evaluation coverageGuidepost

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific management system.

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the fishery-specific management system.


Justification


b Internal and/or external reviewGuidepost

The fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review.

The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review.


Justification






Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

(REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS WHERE THE RBF HAS BEEN USED)

Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1

Complete the CA tables below for each data-deficient species identified under PI 1.1.1, including rationales for scoring each of the CA attributes.

(Reference FCR Annex PF 3.1)


Table 1.2.1.a: Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Target Species

PRINCIPLE ONE:Stock status outcome

Scoring element Consequence subcomponents Consequence Score

Population size

Reproductive capacity

Age/size/sex structure

Geographic range

Rationale for most vulnerable subcomponent

Rationale for consequence score


Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

1. The report shall include an ‘MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF’ for each PI (1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and/ or 2.3.1) where the RBF is used2. Complete one PSA Rationale Table (1.2.2a) for each data-deficient species identified within a given PI, unless the options in PF4.1.4 and 4.1.5 are chosen.3. When required according to PF4.4.3, complete one susceptibility rationale section (B. Susceptibility in Table 1.2.2a) for each fishery impacting the given scoring element.4. In PIs 2.1.1 or 2.2.1, if the team groups species according to similar taxonomies to reduce the number of PSAs undertaken, the team shall list all species and group them and indicate which species are most at-risk, using Table 1.2.2.b.

(Reference: FCR Annex PF 4)

Table 1.2.2.a. PSA Rationale Table

PI number

A. ProductivityScoring element (species)Attribute Rationale Score

Average age at maturity. [Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF’, here and in cells below]

Average maximum ageFecundity

Average maximum size [Not to be used when scoring invertebrate species – delete if not applicable]

Average size at maturity [Not to be used when scoring invertebrate species – delete if not applicable]

Reproductive strategyTrophic level

Density dependence [To be used when scoring invertebrate species only – delete if not applicable]

B. SusceptibilityFishery only where the scoring element is scored cumulatively

[Insert list of all the fisheries impacting the given scoring element, as required in PF4.4.3].

Attribute Rationale Score

Areal Overlap[Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF’, here and in cells below][Note specific requirements in PF4.4.6.2, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account]

Encounterability [Note specific requirements in PF4.4.7.3, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account]

Selectivity of gear typePost capture mortality

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored cumulatively

[Insert catch data per fishery (gear) impacting stock. Weights for each fishery shall be assigned according to - proportions of total catch of the given stock as set out in PF4.4.4-5]


Table 1.2.2.b. Species grouped by similar taxonomies (if PF4.1.5 is used)

[DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE]

Species Scientific name Species Common name (if known)

Taxonomic grouping Most at-risk in group? (Y/N)

e.g. Genus species subspecies

indicate species common name, if known

Indicate the group that this species belongs to, e.g. Scombridae, Soleidae, Seranidae, Merluccius spp.

Y/N

[Add more rows as needed]


Appendix 1.2.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)

The report shall include:

a. An ‘MSC CSA Worksheet for RBF’ for PI 2.4.1 where the RBF is used to assess this PIb. Complete one CSA Rationale Table for each habitat assessed.

(Reference: FCR Annex PF 7)

Table 1.2.3 CSA Rationale Table

PI number 2.4.1 Habitat

Consequence Rationale ScoreRegeneration of biota

[Insert rationale for scores entered in the ‘MSC CSA Worksheet for RBF’]

Natural disturbanceRemovability of biotaRemovability of substratumSubstratum hardnessSubstratum ruggednessSeabed slope

Spatial Rationale ScoreGear footprintSpatial overlapEncounterability


Appendix 1.2.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

1. Complete the SICA tables below for PI 2.5.1 including rationales for scoring each of the SICA attributes.

(Reference FCR Annex PF 8)


Table 1.2.4a. SICA Scoring Template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem (Reference: CR Table PF19)

PRINCIPLE TWO:Ecosystem outcome

Spatial scale of fishing activity

Temporal scale of fishing activity

Intensity of fishing activity Relevant subcomponents Consequence Score

Species composition

Functional group compositionDistribution 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


Appendix 1.3 Conditions(REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS WHERE CONDITIONS ARE NEEDED FOR CERTIFICATION)

The report shall document all conditions using the table below.

[Complete a separate copy of Table 1.3.1 for each condition]

The action plan proposed by the client shall also be included for the PRDR and subsequent reports.

(References: FCR 7.11, 7.14.10, 7.15.1)

(RE-ASSESSMENT ONLY, PRDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

1. If conditions are raised in the re-assessment, the CAB shall include an explanation of:

a. If and how any of the new conditions relate to previous conditions raised in the previous assessment or surveillance audits. b. If and why any conditions that were raised and then closed in the previous assessment are being raised again in the reassessment.

2. If conditions are carried over from a previous assessment, the CAB shall include an explanation of:

a. Which conditions are still open and being carried over.b. Progress made in the previous assessment against these conditions.c. Why recertification is being recommended despite outstanding conditions from the previous assessment.

(Reference: FCR 7.24.2.2, 7.23.13.1, 7.23.13.2 (except 7.23.13.2.b))

Table A1.3: Condition XPerformance

Indicator [insert relevant PI number and text]

Score [insert from scoring template table]

Rationale[cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy text here]

[if condition relates to a previous condition or one raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here]

Condition

Milestones [insert milestones and resulting scores where appropriate]

Client action plan [include any details in line with requirements in FCR 7.11.2]

Consultation on condition

[include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in FCR 7.11.3]


Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

(PCDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

The report shall include the unattributed reports of the peer reviewers in full using the ‘MSC peer review template’ available on the MSC website forms and templates page here.

The report shall also include the explicit responses of the team that include:

a. Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made.

b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes but the team makes no change.

[Note that if undertaking peer reviews before Peer Review College is operational; CABs shall ensure that the ‘Contact information’ table in the Peer Review report is removed before inserting in this report.]

(Reference: FCR 7.14.11 and sub-clauses)


http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions1. The report shall include:

a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in FCR 7.15.4.1.

b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR 7.15.4.2)

c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify:

a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made.b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest

changes but the team makes no change.

(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)


Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level

following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance

audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.23. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationaleYear Surveillance

activityNumber of auditors

Rationale

e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on-site with remote support from 1 auditor

e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance auditYear Anniversary date

of certificateProposed date of surveillance audit

Rationale

e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Level

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site surveillance audit

e.g. On-site surveillance audit

e.g. On-site surveillance audit

e.g. On-site surveillance audit & re-certification site visit


Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)


MSC_Full_Assessment_Reporting_Template_v2.0_final€¦ · Web viewSee Appendix 1.3 of this report...

Documents

Transcript of MSC_Full_Assessment_Reporting_Template_v2.0_final€¦ · Web viewSee Appendix 1.3 of this report...