The best environmental choice in seafood

1. Disclaimer If any interpretive issues arise in relation to the issues covered in these presentations, the text of the MSC Scheme Documents will prevail in all instances. The MSC is not responsible for any issues arising to any parties as a result of consulting these presentations. If you are unsure of any details on any of the subjects covered, please consult the relevant MSC scheme documents or contact the MSC at standards@msc.org. MSC Executive October 2010 The best environmental choice in seafood

2. Session 21.FAM - Changes to scoring approach MSC CB Training - London, 6 October 2010, Dan Hoggarth

3. Last year… (reminder) • FAM v2 introduced revised requirements for scoring Performance Indicators PIs • ‘Left-to-right’ approach (60-80-100) to score a simple PI or individual element (new Section 4.2.5) • ‘Few-some-most’ approach with mutipliers to score a PI with multiple elements (Sections 4.2.7-9) • Rationale for all scores shall be explicitly documented in the report text... (Section 4.2.10)

4. Scoring of multiple ‘scoring issues’ in the new tree (FAM Section 4) • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 4 scoring issues at SG100 in PI 1.2.4

5. Scoring a simple PI or element (left to right approach) 4.2.5 a) 4.2.5 b) 4.2.5 c)

6. Scoring a simple PI or element (left to right approach) • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 60 70 or 75 80 100 95 85 4 scoring issues at SG100 in PI 1.2.4

7. Scoring a PI with multiple elements – the ‘few-some-most’ approach (Section 4.2.7 rules) 60 70 80 90 100 a 60 All b 65 All Most Few c 70 All Some Some d 75 All Few Most e 80 All f 85 All Most Few g 90 All Some Some h 95 All Few Most i 100 All

8. This year – Policy Advisory 18 • Now a requirement for all fisheries under assessment or re-assessment against the FAM for which no PCDR published by 6 Sept • Two key changes in scoring requirements…. • Aim to increase consistency of CB application of the FAM

9. 1. Clarification of guidance on ‘partial scoring’ • New paragraph d) added to Section 4.2.5: • To contribute to the scoring of a PI, each scoring issue shall be fully and unambiguously met and rationale presented to support the assessment team’s conclusion. • This rationale shall make direct reference to each scoring issue and whether it is or is not fully met. • An exception to this requirement is permitted only for those PIs that include only a single scoring issue at each SG level. [currently PIs 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.5] • For these PI’s only it is permitted to ‘partially score’ issues to obtain intermediate scores. Full rationale shall be provided, clearly explaining which aspects of the scoring issue are met.

10. e.g. 1No partial scoring allowed for PIs with multiple scoring issues • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4        4 scoring issues at SG100 in PI 1.2.4  

11. e.g. 2Partial scoring allowed for PIs with only one scoring issue • Intermediate scores (65, 70, 75, 85, 90, 95) possible for PI 3.1.3 – if rationale can be provided for an intermediate score

12. 2. Removal of repeated scoring issues and adoption of a cumulative scoring approach • FAM v1 and v2 had identical scoring issues are repeated at different SG levels in some PIs (1.1.2, 1.2.2, 3.1.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3)

13. 2. Removal of repeated scoring issues and adoption of a cumulative scoring approach • Text at higher level now deleted (PA 18 section 4.i) • PIs now scored on a cumulative basis (left-to-right approach)

14. Questions?