MSC Certification Requirements Annex CB The Default Tree DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 11 th September 26 th October

Transcription

1 Marine Stewardship Council MSC Certification Requirements Annex CB The Default Tree DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 11 th September 26 th October Guidance for use of this document Additions to or new requirements appear in blue text. Deletions appear in blue comment balloons in the right margin. Consultation notes to stakeholders appear in grey comment balloons in the right margin. Consultation questions appear in grey comment balloons in the right margin. The content table below is hyperlinked. Please click on the section of interest to view changes. Section Page number Consultation topic changes included CB2 C2 Principle 1 Clarifications CB3 C21 (Principle 2 General Requirements) CB3.5 et seq C26 P2 Species Outcome, Management, Info. CB3.14 et seq C47 P2 Habitats CB4 C56 Principle 3 simplifications Page C1

2 Annex CB: The Default Tree - Normative The default tree structure, including the PISGs for each of the three MSC Principles to be used in fishery assessments CB1 CB1.1 CB1.1.1 CB1.1.2 CB1.2 CB1.3 General CABs shall focus all assessments of fisheries against the MSC Fisheries Standard on: The outcomes of fisheries process. The strategies implemented that aim to achieve those outcomes. CABs shall apply requirements set out in Annex CC when using the RBF. CABs shall follow specific annexes for species that require the use of a modified default tree. Deleted: Principles and Criteria CB2 Principle 1 Figure CB1: Principle 1 Default Tree Structure Comment [DH1]: Consultation note: This figure revised to reflect removal of PIs (Reference Points) and (Rebuilding) Page C2

3 CB2.1 CB2.1.1 General requirements for Principle 1 In Principle 1, Teams shall score the whole of the target stock(s) selected for inclusion in the Unit of Assessment. CB2.2 Stock Status PI (PI 1.1.1) Table CB1: PI Stock status PISGs Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Outcome CB2.2.1 Stock status (C1) The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing a. Stock status relative to recruitment impairment and MSY b. Stock exploitation rate It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. It is expected that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at a level consistent with an MSY target in the long term It is likely that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY It is likely that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at or above a level consistent with an MSY target in the long term It is likely that the stock is fluctuating at or above a level consistent with MSY It is highly likely that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at or above a level consistent with an MSY target in the long term The team shall note that in P1 the terms likely and highly likely are used to allow for either qualitative or quantitative evaluation. In a probabilistic context: CB Likely means greater than or equal to the 70th percentile of a distribution (i.e. there shall be at least a 70% probability that the true status of the stock is higher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk of recruitment being impaired). Comment [DH2]: Consultation note: This section is substantively revised, both by the inclusion of exploitation rate as a new scoring issue and the movement of the Reference Points and Rebuilding material into this PI. See also the related new guidance material to assist interpretation. Deleted: It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired Deleted: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired Deleted: Stock status in relation to target reference point Deleted: The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point Deleted: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or h as been above its target reference point over recent years. Deleted: and high degree of certainty CB Highly likely means greater than or equal to the 80th percentile. CB2.2.2 In fisheries that use assessments and reference points that are regarded as proxies of B MSY and/or F MSY, teams shall take account in their scoring of any likely differences between the proxy reference levels and MSY levels and shall provide justification that the assigned scoring guidepost (SG) level is met. Scoring the stock biomass (Scoring Issue 1.1.1a) CB2.2.3 Where information is available on the status of the stock biomass relative to the point below which recruitment may be impaired (PRI) and the point at which MSY may be achieved: Page C3

4 CB At least a 60 score is justified if the stock is currently likely to be above the PRI. CB The stock may be regarded as fluctuating around B MSY (justifying at least an 80 score) if it is currently likely to be above a level half way between the PRI and B MSY. CB A 100 score is justified if the stock is currently likely to be at or above B MSY. CB2.2.4 Where information is not available on the stock status relative to the PRI or MSY levels, proxy indicators may be used to determine scoring issue 1.1.1a. CB Where the fishing mortality rate is used as a proxy for biomass, teams shall demonstrate that F has been low enough for long enough to ensure that the required biomass levels are now likely to be met. a) At least a 60 score is justified if F is estimated to have been at F MSY for at least one generation time of the species. b) At least an 80 score is justified if F is likely to have been below F MSY for at least one generation time. c) A 100 score is justified if F is highly likely to have been below F MSY for at least one generation time. CB Where other proxy indicators are used to score SI 1.1.1a, the team shall justify the use of the indicators as reasonable proxies of stock biomass for either the PRI or MSY. Scoring the stock exploitation level (Scoring Issue 1.1.1b) CB2.2.5 Scoring issue 1.1.1b shall be scored taking account of the current biomass level as scored in SI 1.1.1a. CB In most situations F MSY shall be an upper limit of fishing mortality. a) When stock assessment information is comprehensive, and F MSY is a target reference point in a harvest control rule that has been shown to deliver MSY, levels of F greater than F MSY may meet the required guidepost levels. i. In this situation, teams shall justify how the current levels of fishing mortality still meet the guidepost levels. b) When biomass is higher than B MSY, F levels greater than F MSY may meet the required guidepost levels. CB Where the stock scores 60 against SI 1.1.1a (being likely above the PRI but below a fluctuating-around-b MSY level), the exploitation level shall be low enough to ensure stock rebuilding. a) At least a 60 score is justified if the current F is expected to allow recovery to B MSY within not more than three generation times or 30 years. i. For cases where three generations is less than 5 years, rebuilding timeframes of up to 5 years may still be accepted. Page C4

5 b) An 80 score is justified if the current F is expected to allow recovery to B MSY within not more than two generation times or 20 years. i. For cases where two generations is less than 5 years, rebuilding timeframes of up to 5 years may still be accepted. CB Where the stock scores 80 against SIa (likely fluctuating around B MSY ) a) At least a 60 score is justified if the current F is expected to be at F MSY. b) At least an 80 score is justified if the current F is likely to be at or below F MSY except in the situation of CB a. c) A 100 score is justified if the current F is highly likely to be at or below F MSY except in the situation of CB a. CB Where the stock scores 100 against SIa (likely fluctuating at or above B MSY ) CB2.2.6 a) At least a 60 score is justified if the current F is consistent with a controlled decline to an MSY level allowing for the additional consideration of CB a. b) At least an 80 score is justified if the current F is likely consistent with a controlled decline to an MSY level allowing for the additional consideration of CB a. c) A 100 score is justified if the current F is highly likely consistent with a controlled decline to an MSY level allowing for the additional consideration of CB a. Where information is not available on the exploitation rate consistent with achieving a long term MSY, proxy indicators may be used to determine scoring issue 1.1.1b. CB Where proxy indicators are used to score SI 1.1.1b, the team shall justify the use of the indicators as reasonable proxies of the exploitation rate. Stock complexes CB2.2.7 CB2.2.8 Species fished as stock complexes may be treated the same as multi-species target species considered under PI For each SG the team shall seek evidence that, as an outcome, the levels of likelihood meet the levels of likelihood specified in CB2.2.1 for each separate stock. Where species are fished as stock complexes, the overall target reference points should be consistent with the intent of the PI, and maintain the high productivity of the stock complex. Deleted: Deleted: Reference points used to measure stock status in the fishery CB2.2.9 The team shall verify that s setting of reference points used to measure stock status in the fishery includes consideration of normal stock recruit relationships, any potential impacts on reproductive capacity of changes to Deleted: Page C5

6 genetic structure or sex composition. In scoring stock status against the PRI and B MSY, teams shall note the following: CB In the case where neither B MSY nor the PRI are analytically determined, the following default reference points may be appropriate depending on the species: B MSY =40%B 0 ; PRI=20%B 0 =½B MSY. CB In the case where either B MSY or the PRI are analytically determined, those values should be used as the reference points for measuring stock status unless additional precaution is sought. CB In the case where B MSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B 0, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½B MSY. This case covers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified. CB In the case where B MSY is analytically determined to be lower than 40%B 0 (as in some highly productive stocks), and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be 20%B 0 unless B MSY <27%B 0, in which case the default PRI should be 75%B MSY. CB For stocks with average productivity, where B MSY is not analytically determined but assumed to be 40%B 0 and a trigger reference point is set greater than 40%B 0 for precautionary reasons, the default PRI should still be set at 20%B 0 =½B MSY unless it is analytically determined. This covers situations where the authority has deliberately chosen a conservative target reference point, but where the default PRI is still appropriate. CB In cases where the PRI is set at 20% B 0, a default value for the B MSY may be assumed to be 2xPRI (CB ). In other cases, for instance where the PRI is set at the lowest historical biomass, it cannot be assumed that B MSY = 2xPRI. Teams shall justify any reference point used as a proxy of B MSY in terms of its consistency with B MSY. CB Where has defined a target range for B MSY rather than a single value, the team should score the stock status PI against this range. CB The team should consider if different reference points are required for different components of the stock in their assessment. Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Stock rebuilding CB The team shall interpret generation time as the average age of a reproductive individual in a given fish stock. Deleted: Consideration of Environmental Variability Page C6

7 CB As ecosystem productivity may change from time to time as marine environments change naturally, for instance under conditions of regime shift, the team shall verify that reference points are consistent with ecosystem productivity. CB If changes in fishery productivity are due to natural environmental fluctuations, teams shall accept adjustments to the reference points consistent with such natural environmental fluctuations. CB If fishery productivity is being affected through human-induced impacts (either directly from the fishery or from other sources such as pollution or habitat degradation), no changes to reference points are justified. Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: a. The impacts should be resolved. b. The fishery should receive a reduced score in PI until the stock is above the unadjusted reference points. Consideration of Trophic position CB The team shall consider the trophic position of target stocks to ensure precaution in relation to their ecological role, in particular for species low in the food chain. Deleted: Identification of key Low Trophic Level (LTL) stocks CB Teams shall treat a stock under assessment against Principle 1 as a key LTL stock if: a. It is one of the species types listed in Box CB1 and in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub-criteria i, ii and iii. Comment [DH3]: Consultation note: the section numbering in this section will need to be amended for the final version. The numbering here is as brought forward from the old PI (RPs) including internal crossreferences i. a large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. a large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. there are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e. the ecosystem is waspwaisted ). b. It is not one of the species types listed in Box CB1, but in its adult life cycle phase it meets at least two of the sub criteria in CB2.3.13a i-iii, and additionally meets the following criteria:. i. The species feeds predominantly on plankton; has a trophic level of about 3 (but potentially ranging from 2 to 4); is characterised by small Page C7

8 body size, early maturity, high fecundity and short life span (default values: <30cm long as adults, mean age at maturity <= 2, >10,000 eggs/spawning, maximum age <10 years respectively); and forms dense schools. c. Teams shall provide evidence specifically addressing each of the subcriteria in CB to justify any decision to not define the stock as a key LTL species in the ecosystem under assessment. i. In the case where there is no information on a sub-criterion in CB2.3.13, the stock shall be assumed to meet that sub-criterion. ii. In providing rationales against the key LTL sub-criteria (CB2.3.13aiiii), teams shall document the choice of spatial scale and provide reasonable justification for the choice. CB Teams shall determine whether a species is to be considered a key LTL species based on its status at the time of assessment. The determination shall be reviewed at each surveillance audit. [ 1 ] Box CB1. Species types that are defined as key LTL stocks for the purposes of an MSC assessment. See ASFIS List of Species for species included in different families and orders ( Family Ammodytidae (sandeels, sandlances) Family Clupeidae (herrings, menhaden, pilchards, sardines, sardinellas, sprats) Family Engraulidae (anchovies) Family Euphausiidae (krill) Family Myctophidae (lanternfish) Family Osmeridae (smelts, capelin) Genus Scomber (mackerels) Order Atheriniformes (silversides, sand smelts) Species Trisopterus esmarkii (Norway pout) Scoring of key LTL stocks Table ACB1: PI Stock status PISGs applicable to key LTL stocks Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 1 Derogation, TAB 19 (effective date 15 October 2011) For fisheries that have entered assessment contract before 14 August 2011, requirements from CB to CB shall not apply. Expires 13 August Comment [DH4]: Consultation note: The tracked changes included in the table below show the differences to the standard PISGs for non-ltl species (as in Table CB1). This whole table is proposed for addition here, as a clarification of the approach implemented previously (no actual changes to the bar are intended by this). Page C8

9 Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Outcome Stock status (C1) The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing a. Stock status relative to ecosystem needs b. Stock exploitation rate It is likely that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. It is expected that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at a level consistent with ecosystem needs in the long term It is likely that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs It is likely that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at or above a level consistent with ecosystem needs in the long term It is likely that the stock is fluctuating at or above a level consistent with ecosystem needs It is highly likely that the exploitation rate will maintain the stock at or above a level consistent with ecosystem needs in the long term Deleted: recruitment impairment and MSY Deleted: recruitment would be impaired. Deleted: MSY Deleted: MSY Deleted: an MSY target Deleted: an MSY target Deleted: an MSY target CB Stocks identified as key LTL stocks shall be scored using revised target and limit reference levels as given in Table ACB1 above and as detailed in CB to CB below. CB For key and non-key LTL stocks, default assumptions for B MSY and the PRI, which are stock status reference points relevant in a single-species context, shall remain as given in CB CB When scoring PI at SG60, the expectations for key LTL species shall be as given below: a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs (as referred to in both SIa and SIb) shall be adjusted substantially above the B MSY level determined according to CB2.3.3 in a single species context, and in any case it shall not be less than 40%B 0. b. The default biomass limit level (referred to in SIa and equivalent to the PRI level scored in the single species context) shall be half the ecosystem needs target (given in clause (a) above), and in any case it shall not be less than 20%B 0. i. In the case where the single species PRI is analytically determined, that value shall only be used as the ecosystem needs biomass limit if it is greater than half the ecosystem needs target. c. The stock exploitation rate (fishing mortality) required to meet SIb shall be adjusted to allow for ecosystem needs consistent with the adjustment Deleted: Species Deleted: according to the Deleted: requirements outlined Deleted: species Deleted: B LIM Deleted: Deleted: ( Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category ) Deleted: for Target Reference Points (TRP) and Limit Reference Points (LRP) Deleted: The default generic TRP for a key LTL stock shall be set to allow for Deleted: TRP Deleted: The default generic LRP for a key LTL stock Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: TRP Deleted: B LIM Deleted: LRP Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: TRP Page C9

10 to the biomass target level and substantially below the single species F MSY. CB When scoring PI at SG80, the expectations for key LTL species shall be as given below: a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs shall be 75% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing, i.e. 75%B 0. b. A higher or lower target level, down to the minimum allowed 40%B 0, may still achieve an 80 level score if it can be demonstrated, through the use of credible ecosystem models or robust empirical data for the fishery/ecosystem being assessed, that the level adopted. Deleted: the fourth scoring issue of PI Deleted: ( For key low trophic level species, the limit and target reference points take into account the ecological role of the stock ) Deleted: TRP Deleted: TRP Deleted: s i. Does not impact the abundance levels of more than 15% of the other species and trophic groups by more than 40% (compared to their state in the absence of fishing on the target LTL species); and ii. Does not reduce the abundance level of any other species or trophic group by more than 70%. c. The default biomass limit level shall be half the ecosystem needs target level (as defined in clauses (a) and (b) above), and in any case it shall not be less than 20%B 0. i. In the case where the single species biomass limit is analytically determined, that value shall only be used as the ecosystem limit if it is greater than half the ecosystem needs target level. d. The stock exploitation rate (fishing mortality) normally required to meet SIb at SG80 shall be the minimum of 0.5F MSY or 0.5M. i. Higher or lower fishing mortality reference levels may be used where analytically determined and shown to be applicable in that fishery, and consistent with the maximum allowed ecosystem impacts in CB2.3.18b. CB At SG100, a higher degree of certainty is required when considering the ecological impact of the fishery on the stock. For key low trophic level stocks to score 100 the expectations for ecosystem needs reference levels may remain as specified at SG80, but teams shall demonstrate that biomass levels are fluctuating above the required level and it is highly likely that exploitation rates will maintain target levels in future. CB Where surrogate (proxy) reference points are used in the of a key LTL fishery, the team shall make allowances in their scoring for the differences between such proxies and the above default values, as also required in non-ltl cases (Section CB ). CB Performance against these reference points shall be judged (in PI 1.1.1) in the Deleted: LRP Deleted: TRP Deleted: B LIM Deleted: LRP Deleted: Deleted: TRP Comment [DH5]: Consultation note: This section is proposed for addition at this time, to reflect the inclusion of the new Scoring Issue b. Deleted: role Deleted: of Deleted:, consideration of the ecological role of the stock shall require more certainty that the target reference point is appropriate given its ecological role than at SG80. Deleted: target reference points used shall take into account the requirements outlined in CB to CB Deleted: <#>In the scoring rationale for PI 1.1.2, assessment teams shall show how any surrogate target reference points used are equivalent to the levels required in CB to CB Page C10

11 context of recruitment variability typical for the given species in its ecosystem. CB2.3 Reference Points PI (PI 1.1.2) CB2.4 Stock Rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.3) Comment [DH6]: Consultation note: These two PIs now proposed to be deleted. Associated requirements now incorporated into PI as outlined in the above sections. Page C11

12 CB2.5 Harvest Strategy PI (PI 1.2.1) Table CB4: PI1.2.1 Harvest Strategy PISGs Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Harvest strategy () Harvest strategy There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place a. Harvest strategy design b. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. 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. Deleted: the target and limit reference points Deleted: the target and limit reference points Deleted: the target and limit reference points c. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. d. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. e. Shark finning 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. CB2.5.1 Teams shall interpret: Page C12

13 CB Evaluated at SG100 to mean tested for robustness to uncertainty, appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery. CB Tested at SG80 to mean the involvement of some sort of structured logical argument and analysis that supports the choice of strategy. CB2.5.2 If conditions are set, changes to the Harvest Control Rules or assessment method may be needed to make these conditions operational. If new HCRs or assessment methods require different or additional information, the team shall ensure that it shall be either already available or shall be made part of the condition. Shark finning CB2.5.3 CB2.5.4 If the target species is a shark, the team shall score scoring issue (e) to ensure that shark finning is not being undertaken in the fishery. The CAB shall interpret the level of onboard observer coverage as a level capable of detecting whether shark finning is occurring. CB A default rate of 20% shall apply for good onboard observer coverage, but the CAB may accept other rates with sufficient scientific justification. CB A rate of at least 5% shall apply for some onboard observer coverage. CB2.5.5 When scoring the PI (e ) at SG60, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: CB If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the of sharks, and b. shark fins and carcases are landed in compliance with an appropriate ratio ; i. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight. CB If sharks are processed onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are strong regulations in place governing the of sharks, including but not limited to the prohibition of shark finning; and b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; and c. There is good onboard observer coverage to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.6 When scoring PI (e ) at SG80, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: Page C13

14 CB All sharks are landed with fins naturally attached or, CB If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the of sharks, and b. shark fins and carcases are landed in compliance with an appropriate ratio ; c. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight; and d. There is some onboard observer coverage or other equivalent evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB If sharks are processed onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are regulations in place governing the of sharks; b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; and c. There is good onboard observer coverage to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB2.5.7 When scoring the e. scoring issue of PI (e) at SG100, the expectation shall be that one of the following subparagraphs applies: CB If sharks are landed with fins naturally attached, there is good onboard observer coverage or equivalent evidence that no sharks are landed without fins attached. CB If fins are cut onboard: a. There are regulations in place governing the of sharks;and b. shark fins and carcases are landed in compliance with an appropriate ratio c. CABs shall document the justification for using ratios that deviate from 5% wet weight; and d. There is onboard observer coverage of all operations to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. CB If sharks are processed onboard, such that no appropriate ratio can be determined, the CAB shall verify that: a. There are regulations in place governing the of shark; and Page C14

15 b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies; and c. There is onboard observer coverage of all operations to provide evidence that shark finning is not taking place. 2 2 Derogation, TAB 21 (date of application 14 March 2013) For fisheries commencing assessment before 14 March 2013, the clauses from CB2.5.3 tocb and the modification to the PI (Table CB4) shall apply by 14 March Page C15

16 CB2.6 Harvest Control Rules and Tools PI (PI 1.2.2) Table CB5: PI1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools PISGs Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Harvest strategy Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place a. HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are consistent with the harvest strategy and expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Well defined HCRs are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy, ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with B MSY. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with B MSY most (>70%) of the time. Comment [DH7]: Consultation note: No SG100 level previously existed for this Scoring Issue. This addition carries over the SG100 level previously allowed in the Reference Points PI where additional precaution is in place. The new 70% wording is used to simplify scoring where probabilistic analyses are available. Deleted: and Deleted: which act Deleted: limit reference points are Deleted: limit reference points are b. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including, as appropriate, the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Deleted: design of the harvest control rules take into account Deleted: account for Deleted: selection of the harvest control rules takes into account c. HCRs evaluation 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. CB2.6.1 CB2.6.2 Teams should require additional precaution to be built into the HCR at SG100 so the HCR keeps stocks well above limit reference points. Teams shall accept fisheries as meeting the SG60 level with only available HCRs (instead of HCRs that are in place ) in cases where: Page C16

17 CB2.6.3 a) Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the B MSY level and is not predicted to be reduced below B MSY within the next five years; or b) In fisheries where B MSY estimates are not available, the stock has been maintained to date by the measures in use at levels that have not declined over time, nor shown any evidence of recruitment impairment. In scoring issue a. at the SG60 level, teams shall recognise available HCRs as expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached only in cases where: a) the proposed HCRs have previously been used in other similar fisheries also under the control of the same body, as and when needed; or b) a formal agreement or legal framework is in place that requires the body to adopt HCRs when defined trigger points are reached, and before the point of recruitment impairment is reached. Comment [DH8]: Consultation note: This alternative option has been added following feedback from the first consultation round. Page C17

18 CB2.7 Information and Monitoring PI (PI 1.2.3) Table CB6: PI1.2.3 information and monitoring PISGs Component Harvest strategy PI Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring issues a. Range of information SG60 SG80 SG100 Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. b. Monitoring Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Comprehensiveness of information Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data are available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery 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. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. 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 the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and to this uncertainty. CB2.7.1 The team should identify which information from the information categories in CB is relevant to both the design and effective operational phases of the harvest strategy, Harvest Control Rules and tools, and their evaluation should be based on this information. Page C18

19 CB The team shall determine a combined score for this PI on the quality of data available, weighted by information category on the relevance to the harvest strategy, HCR and tools. Information categories include: a. Stock structure. b. Stock productivity. c. Fleet composition. d. Stock abundance. e. Fishery removals. f. Other data. CB2.7.2 CB2.7.3 Teams shall interpret sufficient information at the SG80 level to mean that all information required to implement the harvest strategy is available at a quality and quantity necessary to demonstrate achievement of the SG80 outcome PI Teams shall interpret a comprehensive range of information and all information at the SG100 level to include information provided by a strategic research plan, that addresses the information needs of. CB2.7.4 The teams shall also consider the veracity of information. Deleted: Page C19

20 CB2.8 Assessment of Stock Status PI (PI 1.2.4) Table CB7: PI1.2.4 Assessment of stock status PISGs Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Harvest strategy Assessment of stock status There is an adequate assessment of the stock status a. Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration b. Assessment approach c. Uncertainty in the assessment d. Evaluation of assessment e. Peer review of assessment The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. CB2.8.1 For SG80, when considering the assessment of a stock which is comprised of multiple sub-stocks or a stock complex, the team should take into account that the level of assessment required for individual stocks within the stock complex should reflect their ecological importance. Page C20

21 CB3 Principle 2 Figure CB2: Principle 2 Assessment Tree Structure CB3.1 CB3.1.1 General requirements for Principle 2 The team shall determine and document under which component P2 species will be assessed prior to scoring the fishery. CB Teams shall provide both the common and the scientific name for each species in a P2 assessment. If applicable, the stock component that each species belongs to shall also be outlined in the report CB3.1.2 CB3.1.3 The team shall consider each P2 species within only one of the Primary species, Secondary species or ETP species components. The team shall interpret Primary species in P2 as: CB species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the Unit of Assessment CB species that are within scope of the MSC program as defined in CR CB species that are Managed and/or Vulnerable Comment [DH9]: Note: Figure revised to reflect renaming of Retained and Bycatch Species (now Primary and Secondary) Deleted: Retained Deleted: Bycatch Page C21

22 a. The team shall interpret Managed species as those where tools and measures that aim to regulate fishing for the species are in place b. Teams shall use one or more of the following criteria to determine whether a species should be classified as Vulnerable CB3.1.4 i. The productivity of the species, as determined by the productivity part of a PSA, has a score of >2.3 ii. The number of mature individuals in the population is at such low levels that any impacts to the population, both anthropogenic and natural, are likely to negatively affect population status The team shall interpret Secondary species in P2 as: CB species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the Unit of Assessment CB species that are within scope of the MSC program, but which cannot be considered Managed or Vulnerable as defined in CB CB species shall also be classified as Secondary if they are not within scope of the program CB3.1.5 CB3.1.6 If a species impacted by the fishery is considered ETP species as defined in CB3.11.1, the CAB shall score the species in the ETP section of the tree. The team shall consider species used as bait in a fishery, if they are caught by the fishery under assessment or elsewhere, as either Primary or Secondary species using the definitions provided under CB and CB respectively Comment [DA10]: Note for Stakeholders. This number may be changed depending upon further analytical work to be done by the MSC late in Comment [DA11]: Note for Stakeholders: MSC defines scope under a number of criteria, listed in Part C. Of specific consideration here is that birds, mammals and reptiles are out of scope. CB3.1.7 The consideration of the impact of the fishery on all components in P2 shall include unobserved, in addition to observed fishing mortality and impacts. Deleted: ACB3.1.2 CB3.1.8 The team shall interpret key words or phrases used in P2 as shown in Table ACB7. Comment [SG12]: Moved to CB Comment [jb13]: Table of definitions moved to the front of the section from the original CB3.20 Deleted: <#>T Deleted: <#>he team should only consider those tools, measures or strategies that manage the impact the fishery is having on the P2 component in the Management Strategy PIs within P2. Deleted: 4 Page C22

23 Table ACB7: Principle 2 Phrases Term Biologically based limits Broadly understood Does not hinder In place If necessary Information is adequate Objective Basis for Confidence Serious or irreversible harm Definition and discussion There is a benchmark against which status of a component can be evaluated, and the benchmark is chosen to provide a low risk of serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem feature. The benchmark should be derived from biological information that is relevant to the ecosystem feature and fishery, although the information does not necessarily have to come from the specific area. There is a general knowledge of the component s status, the fishery s impact on the component, the component s distribution, or the key elements of the component. This general knowledge can be acquired from diverse sources that are relevant to the component and fishery under assessment, but does not have to be locally derived information. The impact of the fishery is low enough that if the species is capable of improving its status, the fishery will not deter that improvement. It does not require evidence that the status of the species is actually improving. When a measure or strategy is in place the measure or strategy has been implemented, and if multiple measures have been identified to address an impact of the fishery, there is a specified process with a clear timetable and endpoint for implementation of all of the measures. The term if necessary is used in the strategy PIs at SG60and SG80 for the primary species, secondary species, habitats and ecosystems components to be applicable to those fisheries that have no impact on the relevant component and where no strategy is required. Adequate refers to the quantity and quality of information needed to justify the level of risk or certainty associated with the specific Scoring Guidepost (SG). The adequacy of information may vary for the different information scoring issues and SGs, depending on what the information is used to support. Objective basis for confidence refers to the levels of information required to evaluate the likelihood that the partial strategy will work. At the first level it is information from expert knowledge; at the next it is expert knowledge augmented by some information collected in the area of the fishery and about the specific components(s) and/or fishery being assessed; and at the highest level it is all preceding information augmented by relatively complete information on the component, much of which comes from systematic monitoring and/or research. Serious or irreversible harm means permanent modification to or destruction of habitat or ecosystem. Regarding habitat, this includes changes in habitat type abundance and disruption of habitat function that are expected to take much longer to recover than the dynamics in Deleted: ecological feature, process, or Deleted: ecosystem Deleted: consideration Deleted: There is a broad understanding of an ecosystem when the main features of the ecosystem and their major inter-relationships can be specified. Deleted: Adequate refers to the accuracy, precision and (when relevant) quantity and relevance of information that is available. It does not refer to what the information may indicate about the status of a species relative to a biologically based limit or the impact of the fishery on an ecosystem feature. Deleted: Information is sufficient... Page C23

24 Term Definition and discussion un-fished situations would imply. Regarding ecosystem, this includes the ecosystem s capacity to deliver ecosystem services. In both cases, some sort of regime change is implied from which recovery may not automatically occur. CB3.2 General Requirements for Outcome PIs CB3.2.1 CB3.2.2 CB3.2.3 If a team determines that a fishery has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. The team shall consider both the current outcome status and the resilience of historical arrangements to function adequately and deliver low risk under future conditions when scoring outcome PIs. The team shall note that the terms likely, highly likely and high degree of certainty are different to the values assigned under P1. To put the P2 values into probabilistic context: CB Likely means greater than or equal to the 60 th percentile in the distribution (i.e. there shall be at least a 60% probability that the true status of the component is within biologically based limits). CB Highly likely means greater than or equal to the 70 th percentile in the distribution. CB High degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 80 th percentile in the distribution. CB3.2.4 The team shall interpret the term above the point where recruitment would be impaired in the SGs for Primary species as outlined in CB2.2.3 and CB2.2.9 under Principle 1. CB The team shall interpret the term within biologically based limit in the SGs for Secondary species to refer to, at a minimum, the point of serious or irreversible harm. CB3.3 General Requirements for Management Strategy PIs CB3.3.1 The team should interpret the term if necessary used in the strategy PIs at SG60 and SG80 for the Primary species, Secondary species, habitats and ecosystems components to be applicable to those fisheries that have no impact on the relevant component and where no strategy is required. CB3.3.2 If a team determines that a Unit of Assessment has no impact on a particular component and has therefore scored 100 under the Outcome PI, the Management Strategy PI shall still be scored. Comment [SG14]: Note: The term fishery is changed to Unit of Assessment (UoA) throughout to make it clear that we are referring to the fishery under assessment where this is used. See separate paper on Unit of Certification for explanation of new UoA term. Page C24

25 CB3.3.3 The team should only consider those tools, measures or strategies that manage the impact the UoA is having on the P2 component in the Management Strategy PIs within P2. CB3.4 General requirements for Information PIs CB3.4.1 CB3.4.2 If a team determines that a fishery has no impact on a particular component and has therefore scored 100 under the Outcome PI, the Information PI shall still be scored. Teams shall interpret the SG100 level relating to information adequate to support a strategy to include information provided by a strategic research plan, that addresses the information needs of. Page C25

26 CB3.5 Primary Species Outcome PI (PI 2.1.1) Table CB8: PI2.1.1 Primary species outcome PISGs Component Retained species CB3.5.1 PI Outcome Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to Primary species and does not hinder recovery of depleted Primary species. Scoring issues a. Primary species stock status SG60 SG80 SG100 Main Primary species are likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired OR If the species is below the point where recruitment is impaired, the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species Main Primary species are highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired OR If the species is below the point where recruitment is impaired, there is evidence that the species is recovering towards the point where recruitment would no longer be impaired There is a high degree of certainty that Primary species are above the point where recruitment would be impaired and are fluctuating around a level that indicates high productivity. The team shall determine and justify which Primary species are considered main and which are not. CB If the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA, or more than 20% of the total catch of that species in the assessment area by all UoA plus non-uoa fishers, that species shall be considered a main species. CB If a species is classified as vulnerable according to CB b, it shall be counted as main if the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA, or more than 10% of the total catch of that species in the assessment area by all UoA plus non- UoA fishers. Deleted: Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue c below. Deleted: Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue c below. Deleted: There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. Comment [RL15]: Note for Stakeholders. This language better reflects the new intent of Primary only being managed or vulnerable fish and shellfish species. These will be held to more appropriate reference points for fish which will aid in the rebuilding requirement. Secondary species will retain the old language since this PI will contain birds, sea stars etc where general biological reference points are more applicable Deleted: b. Target reference points Deleted: Target reference points are defined for retained species. Deleted: c. Recovery and rebuilding Deleted: If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. Deleted: If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Deleted: d. Measures if poorly understood Deleted: If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Comment [RL16]: Moved to CB Deleted: <#>The team shall interpret retained species in P2 as those parts of the retained catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the Unit of Certification Deleted: <#>. Page C26