Personal tools
Log in

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
 

Risk-Based Framework FAQs

The Risk Based Framework (RBF) is part of the MSC certification requirement (PDF, 2.4mb) that can be used in certain, well-defined instances where there is not enough data available about a fishery to follow the regular, heavily data-based standard assessment methodology.

How does the MSC Risk Based Framework work?

In the absence of sufficient quantitative data, the RBF allows certifiers to use a structured framework to assess the risk that a fishery is operating unsustainably with regard to target, bycatch and retained species, and habitats and ecosystems.

The Framework is two tiered; first is a qualitative, stakeholder-driven process where expert opinion is gathered; this is followed, if necessary, by a semi-quantitative assessment based on the productivity of the species concerned and their susceptibility to fishing gear. 

The RBF methods have been developed for assessing the ‘Outcome’ or status Performance Indicators (PIs) for the five key components (target, retained and bycatch species, habitats, and ecosystems). MSC Outcome Performance Indicators look at the actual situation of the target fish stock and other affected species, habitats, and ecosystems (impact of fishing activities and status). The remaining Information and Management Performance Indicators must all be scored using the standard assessment tree scoring guideposts, however additional guidance applies, particularly in Principle 1, to some other PIs when the RBF is being used.

The RBF procedure fits within the MSC certification requirements as a whole. If, during the course of an MSC assessment using the assessment tree, the assessment team confronts Outcome Performance Indicators which cannot be scored using this due to lack of data, the RBF assessment methods are used to arrive at a score for those PIs. Then, the assessment continues as usual using the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts for the rest of the PIs.

Does a fishery need to decide to use either the assessment tree or the RBF?

No. The RBF is an additional set of methods described in the assessment tree that may be used in some, clearly defined circumstances. A fishery assessment may trigger the use of the RBF on certain Outcome Performance Indicators. The RBF only needs to be used for those indicators that cannot be scored using the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts because of lack of the specific data required. All other indicators must still be scored using the default scoring guideposts.

Can any fishery use the RBF?

Yes, but only in instances where there is not enough data to use the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts. If a fishery has enough data it is always advantageous to undergo the standard MSC assessment (based on the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts), as the additional inbuilt precaution in the RBF will likely result in a lower score than if the available data are used. Additionally, there is guidance within the RBF document requiring certifiers to use all the data available to them to score the fishery in every case. 

Does a certifier need to decide at the outset to use the RBF?

If the RBF is going to be used, it is advantageous to decide this at the start of the assessment process to avoid delays later on due to consultation requirements. The RBF involves additional stakeholder consultation. If a certifier considers that the RBF will be required, this should be indicated at the outset.

If it becomes clear only during the assessment process that there is not enough data available to use the standard MSC process the RBF can be used on one or more indicators. Stakeholders will need to be notified of this change of methodology and additional stakeholder meetings arranged.

Does the RBF allow fisheries an easy pass against the standard?

No. Where data are limited and a potentially higher level of uncertainty exists, the MSC needs to be very confident that the standard is being met. The RBF methods within the Fishery Certification Requirements take an even more precautionary approach than with standard MSC assessments using the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts alone.

As an analogy to this situation, consider walking along a cliff edge where the edge corresponds to the point where the fishery is exploited sustainably, but to its maximum (Maximum Sustainable Yield; or MSY). Falling over the cliff corresponds to overexploiting the fishery. On a clear, calm day with good visibility (i.e. when all the data needed to manage the fishery are available) you may be able to walk along the cliff edge confidently but carefully. If, however, you were to walk this same cliff edge in the fog and wind with limited visibility (i.e. with limited data) you would no doubt wish to stay further away from the cliff edge – just in case.

In practice this means that data-limited fisheries will need to be assessed as being adequately far away from the edge of the cliff—i.e. that they have a very low risk of causing unacceptable impacts to the target, retained and bycatch species, habitats and/or ecosystem to pass the MSC assessment. On the other hand if good data, research and stock assessments were available, a more intensive fishery operating close to MSY (the cliff edge) could pass, using the standard, more quantitative MSC assessment process.

In summary the RBF is more risk-averse, and insist on additional precaution so as to be absolutely sure that the fishery is not operating unsustainably.

What is different about an assessment using the RBF?

Additional stakeholder consultation
The RBF requires additional stakeholder consultation over and above the consultation normally required in an MSC assessment. This is because one of the risk-based assessment methods is based on the provision of qualitative information, or expert opinion, from those knowledgeable about the fishery.

There are also requirements to notify stakeholders if and how the RBF is proposed to be used, and to allow time for comment and feedback.

Certifier training
If a certifier needs to use the RBF during an MSC assessment, at least one member of the assessment team must also have received specific training on the RBF methods.

Doesn’t ‘data-poor’ equate to poor management?

Not necessarily. Many data limited fisheries may be very well managed using precautionary management measures which don’t rely heavily on quantitative data.

Furthermore there is no RBF for assessment of MSC Principle 3 (management). Management of any fishery will still need to be assessed against the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts and accompanying guidance.

Could a large industrial fishery be assessed against the RBF?

In theory it could. But it is unlikely to pass using the RBF. The scale and intensity of such a fishery will normally mean that it attracts a high risk score, unless management is extremely precautionary. Because most large industrial fisheries operate close to MSY (the cliff-edge), they need to have the comprehensive quantitative data required to prove they are sustainable.

Does the availability of the RBF allow fisheries to “dumb down” and not use the full suite of available data in an assessment?

Although in theory, a fishery could attempt to hide data in order to prevent it from being used in an assessment, this is highly unlikely. If it did happen, however, using the RBF will not make it easier for a fishery to pass MSC assessment – even if it is covering up unfavourable data. This is because of the highly precautionary nature of the RBF methods in the absence of information. The MSC requires all available data to be used in an assessment. Data cannot simply be ignored. The assessment process is structured in several stages and requires certifiers to collect data and hold stakeholder consultations. The reason for this is to ensure that all MSC assessments are the best informed that they can possibly be. The RBF can only be used if the best data available to the assessors is still not sufficient to undertake the standard assessment using the default Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts. For example, a data-rich industrial fishery would not be allowed to undertake an RBF assessment of its target species, although even such fisheries may occasionally need to use RBF methods for habitat and ecosystem indicators, where information is much more difficult to collect.

For this reason, even fisheries assessed under the RBF are encouraged to continue to collect additional data to inform future assessments. When a fishery assessed under the RBF receives a conditional pass (60 – 80 MSC score with 80 – 100 score representing an unconditional pass), so that with the available data the risk that the fishery is depleted and in need of recovery cannot be ruled out, the MSC requires that the fishery develops sufficient data to be able to undertake an analytical, qualitative assessment of stock status at the next five-yearly full assessment. Subsequent MSC assessments are not allowed to use the RBF for the stock status Performance Indicator.

Fisheries with a conditional pass using the RBF are also required to further reduce their risk score, i.e. take even more precaution in their fisheries management (using gear with less impact, reduce the area or days of fishing etc.)

Who can use the RBF?

At the moment, only certifiers may use the RBF. Fishery clients may not use the methodologies and present them to certifiers as evidence during an MSC assessment, as they typically would a formal stock-assessment report. Each assessment team must have at least one member who has attended a special MSC RBF training course.

Download the MSC certification requirements (PDF, 2.4mb)

Contact us

For further information please email standards@msc.org.

 

Document Actions