Personal tools
Log in

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
You are here: Home › About us › MSC standards and certification requirements › MSC certification requirements › History of the Fishery Assessment Methodology
 

History of the Fishery Assessment Methodology

What was used before the fishery certification requirements?

Before the MSC developed its fishery certification requirements (PDF, 2.4mb) the Fishery Certification Methodology (FCM), Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM), and a number of associated TAB Directives and Policy Advisories were used to assess fisheries against the MSC standard for sustainable fishing.

‘Assessment trees’ before and after the FAM

Before the FAM
Prior to the introduction of the FAM, independent certifiers who assess fisheries were required to define how specific characteristics of each fishery would be assessed against the MSC standard.
Certifiers were required to define the following for each fishery assessment: 

  • Performance Indicators: Core indicators of performance relating to each element of the MSC standard, allowing the specific characteristics of the fishery to be assessed by the certifier against the MSC standard,
  • Scoring Guideposts: A guide to what characteristic will achieve particular scores during the assessment. These define the levels of performance needed to achieve passing marks.

Together, these Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts comprised the Assessment Tree, which defined how a fishery was to be assessed against the MSC standard. Certifiers developed their own Assessment Tree for each fishery, and these were published for stakeholder comment as part of the assessment process.

MSC expected that there would be differences between trees, to allow for variation in the characteristics of fisheries. But with around 40 fishery assessments with their own individual Assessment Trees, MSC observed that this approach allowed too much leeway in the interpretation of the standard: different Assessment Trees were being developed by different certifiers for essentially similar fisheries.

After the FAM

The FAM included a default Assessment Tree with standardised Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts for certifiers to use as the basis for all future assessments. Certifiers can still ask MSC to change the default Assessment Tree for a particular fishery, but such changes have to be justified by the fishery’s special characteristics. These cases are expected to be the exception rather than the rule.

How did the MSC FAM and fisheries certification methodology fit together?

While the Fisheries Assessment Methodology provided the detailed interpretation of the fisheries standard, the MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) defined the wider process that fisheries assessments must follow.

MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM): Provided detailed guidance on how the MSC standard should be interpreted during fisheries assessments.

MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM): Set out all the steps that had to be taken to assess a fishery against the MSC standard. This included the requirements for consultation with stakeholders, the submission of draft reports at specific stages, objection procedures, and so on.

Did the FAM change the MSC standard for sustainable fishing?

No. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the FAM raising or lowering the ‘bar’ of MSC requirements. This is not the case.

The MSC standard for sustainable fishing remained untouched as the underlying basis of the FAM. The improved methodology changed the way assessments were carried out and provided necessary supporting guidance as to how the standard was to be applied.

How did the FAM changed with the release of FAM v2?

FAM v2 was released in July 2009 and incorporated the MSC Risk-Based Framework (RBF) into the main methodology. This release also took account of comments provided during a full public consultation on both the FAM and the RBF in February and March 2009.

Apart from the incorporation of the RBF, the changes made were mostly minor. FAM v2 clarifies the intent of MSC in its interpretation of the MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing, but does not change the ‘bar’ set by FAM v1. Changes were made in the following areas:

  • Clarifications in the process to be used for scoring fisheries.
  • The default expectations for target and limit reference points in situations where these are not analytically determined (see new paragraph 6.2.19 in FAM v2).
  • Stock rebuilding (PI 1.1.3): For a stock which experiences an abrupt dip in abundance and for which there is no timeframe specified for recovery, FAM v2 allows that reasonable rebuilding strategies and monitoring are put in place within a maximum of 1 year after the determination of a depleted status.
  • The old Principle 2 ‘Bycatch’ component in FAM v1 is now renamed as the ‘Bycatch species’ component. This new title clarifies the intent that any given species shall only be considered in one component of the assessment.
  • Assignment of species to components: The revised first sentence in paragraph 7.1.5 confirms that certification bodies are expected to determine and document under which Component any Principle 2 species will be assessed, “Prior to scoring the fishery”, rather than “at the beginning of an assessment”.
  • Research plan: FAM v2 confirms that PI 3.2.4 requires at the unconditional 80 scoring level an actual, written document specifying the research plan for the fishery.
  • The term ‘should’ is changed to ‘shall’ in several parts of the document in order to clarify the direction provided to assessment teams.

How has this changed with the new certification requirements?

Part C of the new MSC certification requirements (PDF, 2.4 mb) contains what was in the FCM (the process steps for carrying out an MSC fishery assessment). Annex CB of Part C, contains the default assessment tree and associated requirements which used to be in the FAM (v2.1). The new structure has not altered the content of the requirements themselves.

 

Document Actions