The Fisheries Standard Review

Follow the links below to find out about each of the projects in the Fisheries Standard Review, the Fisheries Certification Process Review and our revisions to the scope criteria for the MSC program.

 - Alternative management approaches for mixed and multispecies fisheries (to be completed on a longer timeframe)

 - Clarifying assessment of dynamic fisheries

 - Clarifying assessment of inseparable and practically inseparable stocks in a catch

 - Clarifying assessment of key low trophic level stocks

 - Clarifying best practice for reducing impacts on endangered, threatened and protected species

 - Clarifying requirements for modified assessment trees

 - Clarifying the assessment of squid, crab and octopus fisheries

 - Ensuring ecosystem performance indicators are clear and consistently applied 

 - The MSC Evidence Requirements Framework

 - Ensuring habitat performance indicators are clear and consistently applied

 - Ensuring the Risk-based Framework continues to deliver precautionary and consistent assessments for data-limited fisheries

 - Expanding our guidance for data-limited fisheries under Principle 1 (to be completed on a longer timeframe)

 - Identifying further solutions to ensure MSC certified fisheries are not involved in shark finning

 - Making the MSC Fisheries Standard more efficient

 - Establishing best practice in monitoring, control and surveillance

 - Proposed changes to the scope of the MSC program

 - Reviewing Principle 1 with a focus on harvest strategies 

 - Supporting the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing 

 - The Fisheries Certification Process Review (including Harmonisation)

In the initial stages of the review we worked with stakeholders to identify the key areas of the Standard that needed to be reviewed. This included carrying out a comprehensive analysis of our requirements, scoring and assessment reports to identify inconsistencies and areas that require clarifying. We also held workshops with Conformity Assessment Bodies and independent experts and carried out benchmarking exercises to understand whether our existing requirements reflect global best practice.

We commissioned research from independent consultants throughout the review to provide additional information, expert views and to offer solutions for further consideration by the MSC executive. Reports from this research have been published on the relevant project pages. 

Our consultation process follows both the ISEAL Standard Setting Code of Good Practice and the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. 

We held public consultations throughout 2020 and 2021 for projects with the greatest complexity and potential to change the intent of the Standard or lead to high-impact changes to requirements. Between May 2020 and July 2021, 190 stakeholders took part in nine online public consultation workshops, and we received over 450 responses to 11 surveys, throughout 2020 and 2021.

A final public review of the proposed Standard and all associated documents was carried out between 01 February and 04 April 2022. We received over 160 responses to our survey and 29 letters from stakeholders. 

For the more technical aspects of the review, we also held targeted consultations with subject-matter experts. Since the start of the review, we have held 12 workshops and two surveys with over 150 technical specialists. 

All stakeholder feedback was considered equally and objectively and fed into our policy development process alongside the other inputs described.

We carried out extensive impact assessments and pilot tests to understand the positive and negative consequences of proposed policies, and judge what revisions will be the most effective in solving the identified issues. 

These impact assessments confirmed whether our new policies simplify the Standard and effectively meet the MSC’s intent, and if they are acceptable to stakeholders and can be audited by assessors. We considered the feasibility of changes for fisheries, and whether any changes impact the accessibility of our program, or retention of certified fisheries in the MSC program. 

We also worked with Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) to carry out mock assessments using our proposed revised requirements. This allows our revised Standard to be applied to ‘on the water’ scenarios to ensure that they are fit for purpose. In addition to providing feedback on individual changes, pilot testing allows us to examine the cumulative impact of changes to the Standard as a whole and identify where interactions between changes occur. 

Outcomes have clarified the effect the new standard would have on fisheries’ scores, conditions and pass rates; identified any impact on accessibility and retention; and indicated whether there is a change in the sustainability bar, intended or otherwise. 

Sensitivity analysis

Each performance indicator (PI) and scoring issue (SI) can contribute differently to the overall Principle level score during a fishery assessment. PIs have different weightings and differing numbers of SIs, so their contribution to the overall score can vary.

As part of the policy development process, we have analysed certified fisheries to understand how the proposed changes to the Standard will impact scoring at both PI and Principle level. This helps us understand if and where the bar for performance has changed and whether the changes align with the intended outcomes of the revisions.

Auditability 

We also carried out auditability assessments with Assurance Services International, an external oversight body for CABs, and assessors to understand whether the proposed revisions to the Standard deliver the MSC’s intent and where further clarity is required.

The MSC governance bodies have played an active role throughout the Fisheries Standard Review. They provide independent quality control and are expertly positioned to evaluate proposals and impact assessments, making sure the wider implications have been considered.

Members of the Stakeholder Advisory Council, Technical Advisory Board and the MSC Executive also formed working groups to support and drive progress in the different aspects of the review.