SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

Public comment draft report
Marine Stewardship Council Initial Assessment
Fishery: Dutch rod and line fishery for Sea Bass
Client: Vereniging Beroepsmatige Handlijnvissers Nederland
Certification body:
SGS Product & Process
CertificationMalledijk 18
P.O. Box 200
3200 AE Spijkenisse
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)181 693333
Fax: +31 (0)181 693572
Client:
Vereniging Beroepsmatige
Handlijnvissers Nederland (VBHL)
Strandwal 61
4386 HG Vlissingen
Tel: +31 (0) 646088932

MSC reference standards:
MSC Accreditation Manual Issue 5,
MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) Version 6,
MSC Chain of Custody Certification Methodology (CoC CM) Version 7.
MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Version 2,
MSC TAB Directives (all)
Policy Advisories (all)
Assessment Team:
M. Pawson
B.J. Keus
S. Buijs
The client expressed to be thankful to the organisations that made this project possible:
- Dutch Ministry EL&I
- The European Fishery Fund
- Resources Legacy Fund
Page 1 of 151

Glossary of acronyms and terms used in the report
Term Meaning
ACOM ICES Advisory Committee
ACFM Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management – ICES
By catch Non-target species that are caught by fishing operations
CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (UK)
CFP Common Fishery Policy
CGFS Channel Ground Fish Survey
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)
DCR Data Collection Regulation
DFS Demersal Fish Survey
Discard Species that are caught during fishing operations and returned to
the sea including commercial species that are undersized or not
sold due to lack of quota or lack of markets, and non-commercial
species
ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species
HCR Harvest Control Rule
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas.
IFREMER Institut français de recherche pour l‘exploration de la mer
ILVO Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek
IMARES Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies
LNV Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety
MLS Minimum Landing Size
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPA Marine Protected Area
PO Producers Organisation
PSA Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis
RAC Regional Advisory Council
RBF Risk Based Framework
SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis
SSB Spawning stock biomass
SURBA Survey Based Assessment methodology
TAC Total Allowable Catch
UoC Unit of certification. The fishery that will be subject to MSC
certification
VBHL Vereniging Beroepsmatige Handlijnvissers Nederland (Client)
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
WGNEW Working Group on Assessment of New MoU Species (ICES)
Page 2 of 151

CONTENTS
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 THE UNIT OF CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 THE CLIENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 8
1.4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 10
1. THE ASSESSED FISHERY ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE FISHERY .................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 History of the fishery ............................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Fleet and Gear Description ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3 Dutch rod and line fishery ....................................................................................................................... 18
2. TARGET STOCK STATUS AND HARVEST CONTROLS (P1) ............................................................................ 19
3.1 ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 STOCK STATUS ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.3 HARVEST CONTROLS ............................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3.1 Management unit ................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.3 Biological reference points ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.4 Scientific background to management advice for sea bass .................................................................... 24
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (P2) ................................................................................................................. 25
4.1 RETAINED SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................ 25
4.2 DISCARDING .................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND PROTECTED SPECIES (ETP) .................................................................................... 27
4.4 HABITAT ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.5 ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................................ 27
3. FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (P3) .............................................................................................. 27
5.1 LEGISLATION AND REGULATION ............................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................................................... 28
5.4 MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE ........................................................................................................ 29
5.4 COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................................................... 30
5.5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ........................................................................................................................................ 30
7. STANDARD USED ...................................................................................................................................... 32
PRINCIPLE 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 32
PRINCIPLE 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 32
PRINCIPLE 3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
8. BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 35
8.1 EVALUATION TEAM ........................................................................................................................................... 35
8.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 36
8.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................................ 36
8.4 INTERVIEW PROGRAMME ....................................................................................................................................... 37
8.4 OTHER CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS AND HARMONISATION ......................................................................................... 37
9. OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING ................................................................................................................. 38
9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 38
9.2 RISK BASED FRAMEWORK (RBF) ......................................................................................................................... 38
9.2.1 Introduction to RBF ................................................................................................................................. 38
9.2.2 SICA ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Page 3 of 151

9.2.3 PSA .......................................................................................................................................................... 43
9.3 SCORING OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST MSC PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................... 47
10. ASSESSMENT RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 48
10.1 PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 48
10.2 CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 49
13.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 53
11. LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY ................................................................... 54
11.1 TRACEABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 54
11.2 AT-SEA PROCESSING ..................................................................................................................................... 54
11.3 POINTS OF LANDING ..................................................................................................................................... 54
11.4 ELIGIBILITY DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 54
12. PEER REVIEW, PUBLIC COMMENTS, OBJECTIONS...................................................................................... 55
13. MSC LOGO LICENSING RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................. 56
13.1 LOGO USE ......................................................................................................................................................... 56
14. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE ............................................................................................................................ 58
APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW REPORTS ........................................................................................................................... 112
APPENDIX C: CLIENT ACTION PLAN .................................................................................................................. 145
APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ........................................................................................................ 147
APPENDIX E: OBJECTION TO DETERMINATION................................................................................................. 150
Page 4 of 151

SUMMARY
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent, global, non-profit organisation. In a
bid to reverse the continued decline in the world's fisheries, the MSC is seeking to harness
consumer purchasing power to generate change and promote environmentally responsible
stewardship of important renewable food sources.
The MSC has developed an environmental standard for sustainable and well-managed
fisheries. Product labels reward environmentally-responsible fishery management and
practices. Consumers, concerned about overfishing and its environmental and social
consequences, will increasingly be able to choose seafood products that have been
independently assessed and certified against the MSC Standard. This will assure them that
production of the product has not contributed to overfishing or environmental harm.
The MSC‘s environmental standard for sustainable fishing, the Principles and Criteria for
Sustainable Fishing, is based on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The
MSC Standard is constantly reviewed by an independent, international group of fisheries
experts. Any fishery around the world can apply to be independently assessed against this
standard.
This report contains the assessment of the Dutch rod and line fishery for Sea Bass in the
southern North Sea against the MSC‘s Principles and Criteria for sustainable Fishing.
The assessment was carried out by a team of three assessors: Dr. Mike Pawson, Mr Bert Keus
and Mr Sander Buijs (Lead assessor).
The evaluation of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken following
a site visit to the fishery at Burgh Haamstede, Zeeland, in September 2010, when meetings
were also undertaken with relevant stakeholders.
Information gathered during this site visit was used in conjunction with other available literature
to produce a draft report and score the fishery against the MSC Performance Indicators. The
draft report and scores of the fishery were then supplied to the client for review before being
submitted for peer review.
Peer Review was undertaken by Dr Henk Heessen (Netherlands) and Dr David Bennett (UK).
The report was then available on the MSC website for stakeholder comment for a period of 30
days, prior to being published as a final report on the MSC website in July 2011.
The main strengths of the sea bass fishery with rod and line is that is has very few effects on
the natural environment or ecosystem. There is no impact of the gear on bottom habitats. Sea
bass is the main target species that is caught and landed, together with some cod and pollack.
Other than a few undersized fish of these retained species, there are no discards.
The main present weakness of this fishery is the management system, which lacks explicitly
formulated fishery-specific management objectives or a harvest control rule (HCR), and the
decision making process for the sea bass fishery in the North Sea as a whole is not well
developed.
SGS has determined that this fishery should be certified in accordance to the MSC principles
and criteria, subject to four conditions which are summarised as follows:
Page 5 of 151

Condition 1: P1, 1.2.2 Harvest control rule (score 75).
Rationale: Although technical conservation measures are in place (minimum landing size and
mesh size controls) that seek to maximise yield per recruit, the HCRs that are in place do not
ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached (with
respect to maximum sustainable yield, since recruitment is not stock-driven).
Condition: the client should liaise with management and research bodies to determine what
part they can play in the development of a harvest control rule that better ensures that the
exploitation rate on North Sea bass is reduced as limit reference points are approached.
Timescale: By first surveillance audit: written evidence is required of appropriate action by the
client towards management authorities and research institutes, and of their response.
Condition 2: P3, 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives (score 70)
Rationale: There are clearly defined management objectives for Dutch North Sea fisheries in
general, but fishery-specific management objectives are not explicitly formulated for the sea
bass fishery (as a whole, in the North Sea). Condition: The client should liaise with the
relevant management authorities and scientists (IMARES and ICES) and encourage them to
develop specific objectives for this fishery, which would preferably also account for other fishing
metiers targeting sea bass, such as trawling and gill net fishing. The Client should also
formulate management objectives for the sea bass fishery within the VBHL management plan.
Timescale: By first surveillance audit, written evidence is required of appropriate action by
client to encourage the relevant management authorities to formulate management objectives
for the sea bass fishery, and to demonstrate that a management objective for the sea bass
fishery is incorporated within the VBHL management
Condition 3. P3, 3.2.2 Decision making process (score 70)
Rationale: Management systems for Dutch North Sea fisheries are well established and
generally effective, decision-making processes are well developed and fishery representatives
are regularly consulted by the relevant authorities. However, the rod and line fishery for bass is
a relatively small sector and is not represented by the National Fishermen‘s organisations.
Condition 3:The client should encourage the relevant management authorities to include the
UoC in formal decision-making processes,
Timescale: By first surveillance audit, written evidence is required of appropriate action by
client to encourage the relevant management authorities to develop a formal decision making
process for this fishery, and of their response.
By the third surveillance visit, evidence is required of the establishment of a more fisheryspecific
decision making-process.
Condition 4. P3, 3.2.5 Information and monitoring (score 75).
Rationale: Because fishery-specific management objectives are not explicitly formulated for
the rod and line sea bass fishery, there is no provision for evaluation of the fishery‘s
performance against objectives.
Page 6 of 151

Condition: Once fishery-specific objectives are identified and set (Condition 2), the client
should liaise with the relevant management authorities and scientists (IMARES and ICES) to
develop a system of evaluating the performance of the management system against these
objectives.
Timescale: By the third surveillance visit, evidence is required that information is being
collected that can be used to evaluate the performance of the fishery against management
objectives.
1. Introduction
1.1 The unit of certification
Prior to providing a description of the fishery, it is important to be clear about the precise extent
of certification. The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification (UoC) is
“The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing
method/gear and practice (= vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management
framework”.
This definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what is included
and what is not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if additional vessels are
wishing to join the certificate at a later date. The unit of certification for the fishery under
consideration is set out below:
The fishery assessed for MSC certification, the UoC is defined as:
Species: Sea Bass (Zeebaars, Dicentrarchus labrax)
Geographical Area: Southern North Sea (ICES Division IVc)
Stock: North Sea
Harvest method: Rod and line
Management: EU CFP, National measures (Netherlands)
Client Group: Members of the Dutch Organisation of professional rod and line
fishermen (Vereniging van Beroepsmatige Handlijnvissers Nederland,
VBHL). New members will be included in the UoC.
1.2 The client
This fishery assessment covers the rod and line fishery for sea bass with under-10 m fishing
boats in the southern North Sea by members of the Dutch Organisation of Professional Rod
and Line Fishermen (Vereniging van Beroepsmatige Handlijnvissers Nederland, VBHL). This
organization was founded in 2006 and currently has 19 members. The goal of this organization
is to represent the interests of its members in their widest sense.
Page 7 of 151

Current members of VBHL are the following MFVs, with total length in metres and engine
power in Kilowatts:
1 BRU 22 6,98 m 173 KW
2 BRU 88 5,35 m 55 KW
3 KG 11 6,10 m 73 KW
4 KG 16 8,60 m 184 KW
5 KG 18 7,31 m 220 KW
6 KG 20 9,65 m 376 KW
7 KG 21 8,20 m 225 KW
8 KG 4 7,20 m 184 KW
9 KG7 6,30 m 113 KW
10 SL 35 7,20 m 164 KW
11 TH 20 7,37 m 110 KW
12 WSW 10 6,22 m 167 KW
13 WSW 11 5,05 m 37 KW
14 WSW 12 6,20 m 147 KW
15 WSW 2 9,58 m 234 KW
16 WSW 3 6,50 m 117 KW
17 WSW 5 8,20 m 225 KW
18 WSW6 8,00 m 182 KW
19 WSW9 8,60 m 184 KW
1.3 Report structure and assessment process
The aim of the MSC Fishery assessment is to determine the degree of compliance of the
fishery with the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 7.
This report sets out:
The background of the fishery under assessment and the context within which it operates.
The qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment.
The standard used for MSC Fishery Assessment (MSC Principles and Criteria.)
The stakeholder consultation process as carried out. Stakeholders are all those parties with
an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies,
scientists and Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO‘s.)
The methodology used to assess (‗score‘) the fishery against the MSC Standard.
The intention of the first sections of the report is to provide the background information
used to interpret the scoring commentary in the correct context.
A scoring table (Appendix A) with the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team
and Scoring Guidelines, which aid the assessment team to allocate scores to the fishery.
Page 8 of 151

The commentary in this table summarises the performance of the fishery in relation to
these Scoring Indicators.
From the final results of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment
team is presented, together with any conditions that may be attached to certification.
In draft form, this report has been subjected to critical review by independent scientists with
relevant experience (‗peer review‘). The comments of these scientists are appended to this
report, together with the assessment team‘s responses, indicating where amendments are
made to the report on the basis of peer reviewers‘ comments. Following the peer review,
the report is then released for public scrutiny on the MSC website. (www.msc.org)
The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further
stakeholder comments and peer review comments, is then considered by the SGS
Governing Board (which is independent of the assessment team). The SGS Governing
Board makes the final certification determination on behalf of SGS.
It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the
SGS Governing Board, some points of clarification may have been added to the final
report.
Finally, the complete report containing the SGS determination and all amendments is
released for further stakeholder scrutiny.
Page 9 of 151

1.4 References
Castilho, R., and Mcandrew, B.J., 1998. Population structure of sea bass in Portugal: evidence
from allozymes. Journal of Fish Biology, 53: 1038-1049.
Dunn, M., Potten, S., Radford, A., and Whitmarsh, D., 1989. An economic appraisal of the
fishery for bass in England and Wales. Research Report, R14, CEMARE, University of
Portsmouth, UK, 217 pp.
Dunn, M. R., and Potten, S. D., 1994. National survey of bass angling, A report to the Ministry
of Agriculture Fish and Food. University of Portsmouth, 45 pp. plus 7 Appendices.
Fritsch, M. , Morizur, Y., Lambert, E., Bonhomme, F., and Guinand, B. 2006.Assessment of
sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.) stock delimitation in the Bay of Biscay and the English
Channel based on mark-recapture and genetic data. Fisheries Research, 83: 123-132
ICES, 2004. Report of the Study Group on Bass, Lowestoft, England 18-22 August 2003,
ICES CM 2004/ACFM:04, 73 pp.
ICES. 2008. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of New MoU species (WGNEW).
ICES CM 2008/ACOM:25.
ICES, 2010.Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2010.ICES Advice, 2010.
Jennings, S., and Pawson, M. G., 1992. The origin and recruitment of bass, Dicentrarchus
labrax, larvae to nursery areas. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 72: 199–
212.
Kelley, D. F., 1986. Bass nurseries on the west coast of the UK. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association U. K., 66: 439–464.
Kelley, D. F., 1987. Food of bass in U.K. waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association
U. K., 67: 275-286.
Kelley, D. F., 1988.Age determination in bass and assessment of growth and year-class
strength. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K.., 68: 179-214.
Kelley, D., 2002. Abundance, growth and first-winter survival of young bass in nurseries of
south-west England. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 82: 307 – 319.
Kinne, O.,1995. Ecology of the North Sea. Problems, successes, failures, future needs.
Helgolander Meersesunters. 49: 303-312 (1995).
Kroon, J.W., 2007. Kennisdocument zeebaars, Dicentrarchus labrax, (Linnaeus, 1758).
Kennisdocument 21, Sportvisserij Nederland, November 2007
Kupschus, S. 2010. The UK bass fishery, re-run of FAD-only assessment model. Working
Document, Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of New MoU Species (WGNEW).
ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25, 77 pp.
.
Page 10 of 151

Kupschus, S., Smith, M. T., Walmsley, S. A. 2008. An update of the UK bass assessments
2007.Working Document. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of New MoU
Species (WGNEW). By Correspondence, ICES CM 2008/ACOM:25, 77 pp.
Lancaster, J. E., 1991. The feeding ecology of juvenile bass Dicentrarchus labrax (L.).PhD
Thesis. University of Wales Swansea, 281 pp.
Masski, H., 1998. Identification de Frayères et Etude des Structures de Population de Turbot
(Psetta maxima L.) et du Bar (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) en Manche Ouest et dans les Zones
Avoisinantes. Thèse présentée a la Faculte des Sciences de Brest. Universite de Bretagne
Occidentale, 136pp + annexes.
MMO, 2010.The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites
Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1605), viewed at
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/monitoring/rbs.htm. Aug. 2010.
Naciri, M., Lemaire, C., Borsa, P., and Bonhomme, F., 1999.Genetic study of the
Atlantic/Mediterranean transition in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Journal of Heredity, 90:
591-596.
Pawson, M. G. 1992. "Climatic influences on the spawning success, growth and recruitment of
bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in British Waters". I.C.E.S. marine Science Symposium. 195:
388-392.
Pawson M. G., 2008. The contribution of science to management of the North Sea cod (Gadus
morhua) and UK sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fisheries: could we do better? pp. 155- 182,
in Advances in Fisheries Science. 50 years on from Beverton and Holt, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford. xxi + 547 pp.
Pawson, M.G. and Eaton, D.R, 1999. The influence of a power station on the survival of
juvenile sea-bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in an estuarine nursery area. Journal of Fish
Biology, 54: 1143-1160.
Pawson, M. G., and Pickett, G. D., 1996. The annual pattern of condition and maturity in bass
(Dicentrarchus labrax L) in waters around the UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association
U. K., 76: 107–126.
Pawson, M. G., Kupschus, S., and Pickett, G. D. 2007b. The status of sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable catch-at-age model, and
implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 346–356.
Pawson, M. G., Kelley, D. F., and Pickett, G. D. 1987. The distribution and migrations of bass
Dicentrarchus labrax L. in waters around England and Wales as shown by tagging. Journal of
the Marine Biological Association U. K., 67: 183–217.
Pawson, M. G., Pickett, G. D., Lebalour, J, Brown, M., and Fritsch, M. 2007a. Migrations,
fishery interactions, and management units of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), in Northwest
Europe. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 332–345.
Pawson, M. G., Pickett, G. D., and Smith, M. T., 2005.The role of technical measures in the
recovery of the UK sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fishery 1980 - 2002. Fisheries Research,
76: 91 - 105.
Page 11 of 151

Pawson, M.G., G. D. Pickett and P. R. Witthames, 2000. The influence of temperature on the
onset of first maturity in sea-bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L). Journal of Fish Biology, 56: 319 –
327.
Pickett, G.D., 1990. Assessment of the UK bass fishery using a log-book-based catch
recording system. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish.Res. Lowestoft 90, 33 pp.
Pickett, G. D., Pawson, M. G., 1994. Sea Bass, Biology, exploitation and
management.Chapman and Hall, London, Fish and Fisheries Ser. 12: 358 pp.
Pickett, G. D., Brown, M., Harley, B., and Dunn, M. R., 2002.Surveying fish populations in the
Solent and adjacent harbours using the CEFAS bass trawl. CEFAS Science Series Technical
Report, 118:16 pp.
Pickett, G. D., Eaton, D. R., Cunningham, S., Dunn, M. R., Potten, S. D., and Whitmarsh, D.
1995. An appraisal of the UK bass fishery and its management. Laboratory Leaflet MAFF
Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, 75: 47pp.
Pickett, G. D., Kelley D. F. and Pawson, M. G. 2004. The patterns of recruitment of sea bass,
Dicentrarchus labrax L. from nursery areas in England and Wales and implications for fisheries
management. Fisheries Research, 68: 329-342.
Reynolds, W. J., Lancaster, J. E., and Pawson, M. G. 2003. Patterns of spawning and
recruitment of sea bass to Bristol Channel nurseries in relation to the 1996 "Sea Empress" oil
spill. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 83: 1163 - 1170.
Roblin, C. and Bruslé, J., 1984. Le régime alimentaire des alevins et juvéniles de loup
(Dicentrarchus labrax L.) des lagunes littorales du Golfe du Lion (étangs Roussillonnais,
France). Vie et Milieu : 34: 195-207.
Thompson, B. M., Harrop, R. T. 1987. The distribution and abundance of bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) eggs and larvae in the English Channel and Southern North Sea. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association U. K., 67, 263–274.
Walmsley, S.A and Pawson, M. G., 2007. The coastal fisheries of England and Wales, Part V:
A review of their status 2005-6. CEFAS Science Series Tech. Rep. No. 140: 83 pp.
Page 12 of 151

1. THE ASSESSED FISHERY
2.1 Biology of the target species
Distribution
Sea bass are distributed in Northeast Atlantic shelf waters from southern Norway, through the
North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Bay of Biscay and Mediterranean, to Northwest Africa.
Tagging studies around England, Wales and Ireland (Pawson, Kelly and Pickett, 1987; Pawson
et al., 2007a), together with studies on geographical and seasonal patterns of feeding,
condition and gonad development (Pawson and Pickett, 1996), have demonstrated that adult
sea bass migrate between well-defined feeding areas and pre-spawning and spawning areas
which tend to be offshore to the south and west. First-year sea bass are found in estuaries and
harbours, and along the adjacent coastline, where the juveniles may remain for up to 5 years
before recruiting to the adult population.
Figure 1.Sea bass
Stock identity
Tagging and genetic studies indicate considerable mixing throughout the North-west European
bass population (Castilho & McAndrew, 1998; Naciri et al., 1999; Frisch et al., 2006; Pawson et
al, 2007a), and assessments of the dynamics of sea bass populations around the coasts of
England and Wales show common features regarding year-class strength over large parts of
the species‘ range (Pawson et al., 2007b). This suggests that the abundance of sea bass may
be controlled by large-scale environmental patterns. However, the assessment areas proposed
by ICES (2005), within which fishery and biological data could be used in assessments and for
which management advice may be given, are based on a consideration of both the current
patterns of seasonal movements of sea bass in the exploited populations (i.e., fish larger than
the 36 cm minimum landing size – MLS, total length used throughout), as indicated by tag
recaptures, and the characteristics of the fisheries taking them (Figure 2, Pawson et al.,
2007a). The bass population in the North Sea (ICES Divisions IVa,b,c) is considered to be a
single management unit, although there is some movement of both juvenile and adult sea bass
between the North Sea and the English Channel (see below). The main area of exploitation of
this ―stock‖ is in ICES Divisions IVc (southern North Sea) and VIId (eastern English Channel).
Page 13 of 151

Figure 2.Main migration routes of adult sea bass and proposed ‗stock‘ areas within which
fishery and biological data could be used in assessments of bass populations and for which
management advice may be given (ICES 2005). The North Sea stock is designated by the
hatched area ―A‖, the distribution of which now extends into Norwegian and Scottish waters.
Spawning
Tagging studies around England and Wales in the late 1970s and early 1980s demonstrated
that adult bass migrated between feeding areas in the North Sea and pre-spawning and
spawning areas which tended to be offshore in western English Channel (Pawson et al., 1987).
Movement between the respective areas appeared to be relatively rapid and took place as the
water cools in October-December. Spawning in the western English Channel started during
March, when the temperature range associated with bass egg distributions was 8.5-11 °C, and
appeared to spread east and into the North Sea in May and June as the surface water
temperature exceeded 9 °C (Thompson and Harrop, 1987). Studies on geographical and
seasonal patterns of feeding, condition and gonad development of bass (Pawson and Pickett,
1996; Masski, 1998), and a repeat tagging exercise in 2000-2004 (Pawson et al., 2007a)
confirmed that the spent fish move north and east onto feeding grounds at the end of spawning
in April/May. The most recent tagging study, however, suggests that proportionately fewer
adult sea bass were leaving the North Sea to spawn in the English Channel than in the 1970s
and 1980s (i.e. more are now spawning in the North Sea), though plankton surveys to confirm
this are lacking.
Page 14 of 151

Recruitment
Bass post-larvae resulting from offshore spawning recruit from June onwards into coastal and
estuarine nursery habitats (Jennings and Pawson, 1992; Reynolds, Lancaster and Pawson,
2003). The survival of sea bass through the first winter is reduced at temperatures below 5–
6°C (Kelley, 2002; Lancaster, 1991), which may well explain the attraction of warm water for 0group
(first year) sea bass, especially in cold winters in the North Sea, where they may
otherwise not survive(Kelley, 1986; Pawson and Eaton, 1999). Incidental catches of juvenile
bass taken during demersal fish surveys (DFS) suggest that the estuaries in the south of the
Netherlands (Easter Scheldt and Wester Scheldt) have become increasingly important as
nursery areas for sea bass (ICES, 2008).
Juvenile bass emigrate from these nursery areas at around 36 cm, aged 3-5 years depending
on growth, which is strongly related to summer temperatures (Reynolds et al., 2003). In
contrast to the regular migrations shown by adult bass, a substantial proportion of pre-adult sea
bass emigrate from their respective ―stock‖ areas and disperse widely, and do not necessarily
recruit to their specific parent spawning stock (Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett, Kelley and
Pawson, 2004). It appears that there is considerable mixing of sea bass at this stage
throughout large parts of the populations' range, and pre-adult fish have been observed to
emigrate from the Thames Estuary (southern North Sea) along the English Channel coast and
even into the eastern Irish Sea. After 4-7 years, or at approximately 35 cm for males and 42 cm
for females, sea bass attain maturity (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).
Feeding
Bass are opportunistic predators throughout life, feeding on the species of crustaceans and
fish which are the most readily available in any particular environment (Pickett and Pawson,
1994). Bass larvae feed on small zooplankton whilst 0-group bass take larger, epibenthic
organisms that are abundant in the near-shore environment, particularly small crustaceans
(Roblin and Brusle, 1984).Whilst small fish such as gobies and juvenile herring and sprat are
found more regularly in the diet as the bass grow, crabs are the most common food of juvenile
bass in UK waters, followed by brown shrimp Crangon crangon. Pickett and Pawson (1994)
found shore crab (Carcinus meanas) and brown shrimp occurring at a similar frequency
(around 40% of stomachs) in the southern North Sea, with relatively few fish, though they did
note a predominance of fish (particularly mackerel Scomber scombrus) in the diet of adult bass
taken 10-30 miles offshore in the western English Channel. Low temperatures inhibit feeding in
juvenile bass (Lancaster, 1991), whilst adults continue to feed throughout the year, except
possibly when spawning (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).
Climate effects on sea bass production in the North Sea
Studies on the migration of sea bass in the late 1970s and early 1980s around the coasts of
England and Wales, and on the species‘ reproductive physiology (Devauchelle, 1984) and the
distribution of bass eggs in relation to water temperature (Thompson and Harrop, 1987), were
used by Pawson et al. (1987) to suggest that the southerly/westerly migrations between
summer feeding areas (in the North Sea and the offshore spawning areas in the English
Channel were related to the necessity for adult female bass to seek out water above
approximately 9 C, both for final gonad maturation and spawning. Pawson, Pickett and
Witthames (2000) showed that ambient water temperatures in winter strongly influence the
onset of maturity in female bass, so that females that stayed in the North Sea are unlikely to
mature until they either adopt the autumn migrations to the south west, or if warmer winters
occur.
Page 15 of 151

This hypothesis was tested in 2000 and 2001 by Pawson et al. (2007a), who tagged over 4000
adult bass inshore around the coasts of England and Wales during summer and autumn and
on the offshore spawning grounds in winter. Whereas all winter recaptures of adult bass
tagged in the North Sea during the late 1970s and early 1980s were reported from the offshore
fishery in the western Channel (Pawson et al., 1987), no ―North Sea‖ fish were reported there
in the more recent study. In addition, the proportion of adult bass tagged inshore reported from
within the UK 3-mile zone between November and April in 2000 – 2005 (30%) was much
higher than in the 1980s (10%), with some fish being recaptured in these areas as late as
February. This suggests that the duration of residence of adult bass in summer feeding areas
may have lengthened, and has allowed bass to spawn much further to the east and north (i.e.
in the North Sea) rather than in the main spawning areas in the English Channel.
The bass is towards the northern limit of its distribution in waters around England and Wales,
and its growth is also affected by temperature. The main growing season is between June and
October, and there is good evidence for a close correlation between the growth of juvenile bass
and temperature (Kelley, 1988; Pawson, 1992). This suggests that growth in summer is faster
in shallow sea areas (e.g. the southern North Sea) than on western, oceanic coasts, and that
warmer winters towards the northwards edge of their distribution range might be expected to
enhance survival of first-year bass (Kelley 1986; Pawson and Eaton 1999, Pawson and Pickett,
1996). This fits well with the hypothesis (Pawson, 2008) that climate warming has resulted in
an expansion of the distribution range of bass stocks around the English and Welsh coasts,
through a combination of a northerly and eastwards shift of spawning areas (where water of
>8-9 C is available through January – April) and enhanced growth and survival of juveniles.
This, in turn, has contributed to an increased in the population‘s abundance since the early
1990s, mediated through temperature influences on the reproductive biology of bass and the
species‘ propensity for a dispersive pre-adult stage and migratory behaviour that capitalises on
favourable environment change. The combined effect would enable self-sustaining bass
populations to become established in areas not previously occupied by the whole of the
species‘ life cycle, in the North Sea, for example, and enhance production generally.
2.2 Overview of the fishery
2.2.1 History of the fishery
In North-west Europe, sea bass have traditionally been caught in a directed fishery between April
and November, from small boats using a variety of fishing methods close to the shore and by
anglers operating from boats and the shore. Since the early 1980s, French mid-water pairtrawlers
and (more recently) British vessels have targeted pre-spawning and spawning
aggregations of adult bass in winter offshore in the western English Channel, eastern Celtic Sea
and Bay of Biscay (Pawson et al., 2007b).
The landings of sea bass by French vessels in North West European waters were around 2000 t
during the period 1986–1995 and have increased to around 4000–5000 tonnes (t) in the most
recent years, due mainly to the increased catch in the southern North Sea (ICES Divisions IVc)
and eastern English Channel (VIId). Commercial landings of bass into the Netherlands from the
North Sea were below 10 t until1997, but they rose rapidly to above 300 t by 2005.
The international commercial landings of sea bass from ICES Divisions IVb,c and VIId are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Nominal landings ( t) of bass by country in ICES Divisions IVb, c, and VIId, and
additional UK catch 1 according to the CEFAS logbook scheme, 1984– 2008 (Source: ICES
Bulletin Statistique).
Page 16 of 151

Year Belgium Denmark France Netherlands Scotland UK (Engl.
& Wales)
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 133
2004 119
21
175
151
85
104 8
1 147 2

also comprised a substantial part of the overall landings in the UK, and estimates for 1986/7
(Dunn et al., 1989) and 1992/3 (Dunn and Potten, 1994) from English and Welsh waters show
similar values (around 415 t). Dutch recreational landings of sea bass from the North Sea in
2006 were estimated at 195 t (Kroon, 2007).
2.2.2 Fleet and Gear Description
Along the western shores of the North Sea, commercial rod and line fishing takes place near
warm water discharges from power stations on the Scottish east coast and in north-east
England, where landings of trawl-caught bass have increased significantly since 2003. Bass
are also taken in set nets and as a by-catch along with cod Gadus morhua and sea trout Salmo
trutta. Along the English coast in Division IVc, from Norfolk southwards, bass are often caught
as part of a mixed fishery in drift nets, fixed nets, trawls, longlines and rod and lines (Walmsley
& Pawson 2007). Bass may be specifically targeted in the local estuaries and around wrecks
and offshore banks. The fishing season in this area normally lasts from April until November.
French and Belgian trawlers may also take bass as a valuable by catch in the southern North
Sea.
Until recently, sea bass was not a target species for professional fishermen along the eastern
coast of the North Sea, and was mainly taken as a by catch in the beam-trawl fishery.
However, with the reduction of quotas for target species like sole and plaice, and increasing
prices for sea bass, the fishery now attracts some directed effort from Dutch beam-trawl, flyseine
and twin-rig trawl fishermen. Landings reported in the official catch statistics increased
from virtually zero in the 1990s to 375t in 2008 (see Table 1.)
2.2.3 Dutch rod and line fishery
The UoC is part of a professional rod and line fishery for sea bass (and cod) in the Netherlands
that has developed from a practice where ―recreational‖ fishermen where selling (part) of their
catches. In 2005, the Dutch government prohibited the selling of fish caught with unregistered
fishing vessels, in response to complaints by professional fishermen and their organizations
that the substantial unofficial landings of cod by ―recreational‖ fishermen was considered as
unfair competition. The measure compelled any fisherman that was earning a living from this
practice to register his boat and to acquire quota for cod, at the same time legitimizing the
practice of selling sea bass.
The UoC fishery is operated by the members of the VBHL and is mainly carried out from the
fishing port of the so called ―working island NeeltjeJans‖, though a few boats are based in other
ports in the Provinces of Zeeland and Zuid-Holland.
Page 18 of 151

Map: Southern North Sea, ‗A‘ = Neeltje Jans
The UoC fishing fleet consists of 19 under-10 m boats propelled by high-powered inboard or
outboard motors (5 vessels have an engine power of more than 200 KW). The fishery takes
place up to 70 miles from the home port, and uses high speed boats that normally make oneday
trips and fish mainly during daytime. The fishery is carried out between March and
December from an anchored boat near shipwrecks and other obstacles on the sea floor that
attract concentrations of bass and cod, and which are located using GPS. The boats normally
carry two or three crew, occasionally four, each using a single rod and line fishing with artificial
bait (lures and pirks), but occasionally with natural baits, such as ragworm (Nereis spp),
lugworm (Arenicola spp) or razor shells (Ensis spp). From VIRIS sales data, the client
estimates that the members of the VBHL have been catching around 60 t of sea bass each
year, as shown below.
2006 2007 2008 2009
Sea bass 33.4 56.4 62.3 56.7
Cod 6.1 8.5 13.6 16.1
2. TARGET STOCK STATUS AND HARVEST CONTROLS (P1)
Page 19 of 151

3.1 Analytical assessments
The first analytical examination of any sea bass fishery was a yield per recruit (Y/R) analysis
carried out using catch-at-age data in three métiers (gear groups, within which the species
composition in the catch is relatively consistent) - trawls, nets and lines (including recreational
rod-and-line) - in the UK sea bass fishery in ICES Division VIId (Pawson et al., 2005). The
results showed that increasing length at first capture above 36 cm (the current EU minimum
landing size, MLS) would produce small gains in Y/R up to about 46 cm, above which potential
yields increase only if the level of fishing mortality (F) is also increased.
In 2003, the ICES Bass Study Group (SGBASS) used the SURBA program with data on UK
and French bass catch-at-age and fishing effort by métier groups (trawls, nets and lines) for
four stock areas (Divisions IVb,c; VIId; VIIe,h; VIIa,f,g) for which sufficient biological sampling
information was available over the period 1985–2002 (ICES, 2004). A separable model was
used to provide independent assessments of the status of each stock, which indicated trends in
spawning-stock biomass (SSB) within stocks, and similar recruitment patterns between stocks.
Estimates of F using SURBA were considered to be less informative, largely because of a lack
of independence between the selectivities estimated for the fishery and the indices of catch per
unit of effort (cpue: actually based on landings, but discards of sea bass are usually negligible)
used. No biological reference points were proposed at this time.
No update on these assessments has been carried out using international data, but Cefas
developed a multi-métier, fully statistical, separable model using UK fishing effort and catch
numbers-at-age data for three métiers (i.e. trawls, nets, and lines) in four areas (ICES Divisions
IVb,c; VIId; VIIe; VIIa,f,g;) over the period 1985-2004 (Pawson et al. 2007b). Although there is
little information on bass discards, they are thought to be either insignificant (in nets) or to
survive on being returned to the water (from lines).
Catch and fishing effort data
Prior to implementation of the Buyers and Sellers regulation in 2005 (MMO, 2010), the official
statistics grossly underestimated the quantities of bass landed in England and Wales (Pawson
et al., 2007b). A considerable proportion of the UK bass catch taken by commercial small-boat
fisheries and by the recreational sector is sold directly to restaurants or small merchants, and
the official statistics may record as little as 20% of actual landings. The best estimates of
annual catch and effort have been obtained by integrating official statistics, derived from
landings declarations and local market sales at the 60-70 major ports, with estimates of total
landings by inshore fishing vessels, including charter and casual angling boats, obtained from
a voluntary logbook scheme administered by CEFAS for the England and Wales

Size and Age data
Analytical assessment methods usually rely on data on the length and/or age distributions of fish
in the landed catch. In the UK, a biological sampling programme for sea bass has been run in
conjunction with the CEFAS logbook scheme, in which length data are collected either from the
whole landing from small vessels, often at fish merchants, or from markets by size category,
against targets set by gear group (i.e. demersal trawls, gillnets, lines, and pelagic trawls). Sea
bass are easily aged using scales (Kelley, 1988), and length-stratified ―all gears‖ scale samples
of at least 150 fish are used to provide corresponding half-yearly age-length keys for each stock
area. Sex ratio, maturity, and length-weight conversion factors are derived from biological
sampling carried out between 1982 and 1990 (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).
Recruitment
A robust time-series of data on year-class strength of pre-recruit bass has been provided by a
trawl survey in the Solent nursery areas (central English Channel), where a standard grid of 35
stations has been fished over a 4-day period at the same part of the tidal cycle (falling Springs)
in May and September each year since 1984 (Pickett et al., 2002). Numbers of each year
class caught at ages 2, 3, and 4 in up to 6 successive surveys are used to derive abundance
indices (Pawson, 1992), which have been shown to correlate well with model-derived
recruitment patterns to the bass fishery in Division VIId (Pawson et al., 2007b).
A similar fishery-independent trawl survey of bass has taken place across a standard grid of 35
stations in the Thames Estuary in November each year since 1995, from which indices of yearclass
strength of the bass population in the southern North Sea are available, Figure 3 (source
CEFAS). This index of recruitment is not used in the stock assessment, but acts as a fisheryindependent
validation. It becomes more robust as each year class is caught at ages 0,1,2,3
and 4, hence the provisional estimates for 2006 onwards. Both these surveys were
discontinued in 2010, due to cost cutting.
Page 21 of 151

Figure 3.Indices of the abundance of juvenile bass year-classes in the Thames Estuary (IVc),
1994-2008 (source CEFAS).
Fishery-independent estimates of relative abundance of juvenile bass year classes are also
available from a trawl survey (actually using a 3-m beam trawl to sample pre-recruit flatfish)
conducted in the Westscheldt Estuary (IVc) by IMARES each year, Figure 4 (source Henk
Heessen, WGNEW). These also show an increasing trend in year class strength since the
early 1990s, though the pattern is not the same as that in the Thames Estuary survey, probably
because different age groups are used in calculating the indices (0-groups especially can suffer
high mortality in cold winters).
N per hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
Figure 4. Indices of the abundance of juvenile bass year classes in the Westscheldt Estuary
from the IMARES DFS (source Henk Heessen, WGNEW).
3.2 Stock status
Sea bass Westerscheldt
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
The results of the fleet-based separable model for the sea bass stock unit (Divisions IVb,c) that
includes the southern North Sea indicate levels of F around 0.2–0.4 between 1995 and 2004
(Pawson et al., 2007b). The gear selectivity patterns derived from the model confirm the results
of Pawson et al. (2005).The abundance of adult bass (SSB) in the North Sea appears to have
remained stable between 1985 and 2004, whilst there has been an increased level of recruitment
from 1989 onwards.
The patterns in F and recruitment derived from this model are consistent with the evidence
provided by the CEFAS logbook scheme and the fishery-independent pre-recruit survey (which
has not been used in the model), but there are inevitable problems with the scaling of F and
estimating biomass. In particular, the absence of data for the recreational rod-and-line fishery,
a substantial contributor to mortality on the younger sea bass, would affect estimates of
recruitment to the commercial fishery. However, these are consistent between areas over the
period 1984–2002, and that for VIId closely matches the fishery-independent abundance
indices for pre-recruit bass provided by the Solent trawl survey that covers the main nursery
areas for sea bass in Division VIId. Thus, whilst the model reflects reasonably the dynamics of
the bass stock (around the UK) both in stock numbers, SSB and in F, it is not possible to
Page 22 of 151

estimate the absolute size of the stock or fishing mortality level. These values are, therefore,
not reproduced here.
Kupschus, Smith and Walmsley (CEFAS) presented an update of the UK assessment of stock
status of bass as a Working Document in the ICES WGNEW 2008 report. Because there is a
belief that the introduction of the ‗Buyers and sellers‘ regulation in 2005 has improved the
reliability of FAD data, Kupschus et al. (2008) aimed to compare assessments using datasets
from the official Defra FAD and the CEFAS logbook scheme, and to examine the implications of
using only the former for providing advice on management of sea bass fisheries. The
assessment used the fleet-based separable model described by Pawson et al. (2007b), with
the addition of data for two more years (2005 & 2006).
The results of the updated assessment were in good agreement with previous assessments for
the period up to 2004. Landings of bass by UK vessels from the North Sea remained relatively
high, whilst bass stock levels were estimated to have remained near the series maximum
between 1997and 2006. Comparison between Cefas logbook and FAD-only based
assessments indicate that F levels remained stable in 2004 - 2006 in the North Sea.
Recruitment was good during the mid to late 1990s and this has resulted in the high landings
and stock levels since 2003. The FAD-only assessment indicates relatively higher recent year
class strengths in the North Sea, and is in line with the Thames pre-recruit index which
suggests the 2002 and 2003 year classes were particularly strong (see Figure 4).
The most recent update of the sea bass assessment carried out for WGNEW 2010 used the
FAD-only model and added data for 2007-2009. Although the more recent information seems
to have become more variable, and Kupschus (2010) warns that the assessments are
increasingly uncertain, SSB in the North Sea and eastern channel appears to have continued
to increase.
3.3 Harvest controls
3.3.1 Management unit
The assessment areas (Figure 2) used by ICES (2009) are based on a consideration of both
the current patterns of seasonal movements of bass in the exploited populations (i.e. >36 cm),
as indicated by tag recaptures, and the characteristics of the seasonal fisheries taking them
(Pawson et al., 2007a). The bass population in the North Sea (ICES Divisions IVa,b,c) is
considered to be a single management unit, although there is some movement of both juvenile
and adult sea bass between the North Sea and the English Channel. The main area of
exploitation of this ―stock‖ is in ICES Divisions IVc (southern North Sea) and VIId (eastern
English Channel).
3.3.2 Management advice
From a management viewpoint, assessment results (Pawson et al., 2007b; Kupschus et al.
2008; Kupschus, 2010) suggest that sea bass in ICES Divisions IVb,c are being exploited
sustainably, at a moderate level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum
yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the early
1990s.
Kupschus et al. (2008) and Kupschus (2010) point out that, since it is difficult to quantify the
process errors in the current models used for sea bass, these assessments are unsuitable for
Page 23 of 151

short-term forecasts and setting TACs. However, the output can still be used to give sound
precautionary management advice in relation to stock status and sustainability. For example,
selectivity patterns in the UK fishery have already been used in simulations of increases in the
size at which bass are first exploited (due to a potential increase in MLS) to indicate the relative
magnitude of changes in yield to the various métiers and in the age structure of the underlying
bass population (M. Smith, Cefas, pers. comm.). The results were similar to and updated those
obtained by Pawson et al (2005), indicating that Y/R gains (and losses) with progressive
increases in the MLS (above 36 cm) were gear specific, but were likely to provide most benefit
to rod-and-line fisheries and least to trawl and net metiers.
3.3.3 Biological reference points
The common patterns in the recruitment time-series for sea bass ―stocks‖ in the North Sea,
English Channel, and along the west coast of England and Wales indicate that sea bass
populations around England and Wales are linked biologically (see Pickett et al., 2004) and/or
that recruitment is controlled by large-scale environmental patterns. It is known that warm or
cold summers and winters can have a considerable influence on the survival of 0-group bass
through their first year (Kelley, 1986), and that strong year classes are associated with higher
temperatures (Pawson, 1992; Pawson, 2008) rather than SSB. There is, therefore, no stockrecruit
relationship for bass that could be modelled, either to explain past or to predict future
recruitment patterns (Pawson et al., 2007b). The relative size of the spawning stock bears no
relationship to past recruitment over the period for which data are available (1984 – 2008),
which means that it has not been possible to set absolute or even relative reference points
based on stock-recruit considerations. There is, however, no sign of recruitment-overfishing,
and management decisions have been taken based on considerations of Y/R and MSY in
relation to exploitation patterns (essentially F-at-age, based on a good knowledge of biological
parameters and local fishing patterns).
3.3.4 Scientific background to management advice for sea bass
Research on the sea bass and its fisheries started in the 1970s, when recreational anglers in
particular began to be concerned for the future of the bass stocks around the coasts of
England, Wales and Ireland. What little was known of its biology was, nevertheless, sufficient
to indicate that protection of juveniles was bound to assist conservation of bass (Holden and
Williams, 1974). Though ICES established a study group in 2001 to respond to the European
Commission‘s request for information on sea bass fisheries, stock identity, assessment data
and conservation requirements in European waters (ICES, 2002), there was no assessment of
the size of the bass population - even in relative terms - and of its productivity and mortality
rates until 2003, and thus any restraint on exploitation (if this was necessary) could not be
justified on the basis of an analytical assessment.
In the UK, however, a scientific recommendation to increase the sea bass MLS above the then
current 26 cm (Holden and Williams, 1974) resulted in a dedicated research programme
initiated by Cefas in 1981, the publication of a summary of the results of which (Pawson and
Pickett, 1987) served as an aide memoir for forthcoming discussions and consultations on
management measures. This included a Y/R analyses that showed strong evidence of growthoverfishing
in many areas around English and Welsh coasts, owing to local fisheries targeting
3-5 year-old sea bass in and around harbours and estuaries. It was concluded that an MLS of
36 cm would satisfy the management objective of reducing growth-overfishing, whilst allowing
some important small-boat fisheries to remain viable.
Page 24 of 151

Bearing in mind the vulnerability to capture of juvenile sea bass, additional measures were
needed to support a higher MLS. Conventionally, a minimum mesh size that effectively
complements the MLS would help fishermen minimise the number of undersized fish they had
to discard from their catch. Catch data from gill nets showed that they are highly selective for
sea bass (Reis and Pawson, 1992), and it was proposed that a minimum mesh size of 90 mm
(stretched mesh, measured knot to opposite knot) be introduced for all enmeshing gears,
chiefly because of the difficulty in identifying a bass gill net fishery. Because fisheries for the
small pelagic species - sprat, Sprattus sprattus, herring, Clupea harengus, mackerel and
pilchard Sardina pilchardus -would not be viable with a 90 mm minimum mesh size, a banned
range of mesh sizes (65 - 90 mm) was proposed for enmeshing nets used in England and
Wales, which would allow these fisheries for continue.
The most radical part of the bass management measures proposed for the UK was a restriction
on fishing activities that were likely to take sea bass in areas where most fish in the local
population were below 36 cm. These came to be known as the bass "nursery areas", in which
juvenile fish of 3-5 years old are found in sheltered or enclosed inshore areas (i.e. estuaries,
inlets and harbours) for most of the year, and where tagging had shown exploitation rates as
high as 50% (Pawson et al., 1987). Prior to the period of ―climate warming‖ in the winters of
1988 - 1990 (Pawson, 1992), the susceptibility of 0-group sea bass to low temperatures in
winter (Lancaster, 1991) meant that potential nursery habitats on the North Sea coast were
unlikely to contain sufficient small sea bass in most years to merit protective measures in
addition to MLS and mesh size controls. The main exceptions are where small sea bass are
attracted to warm water discharged from coastal power stations, such as at Kingsnorth in the
Medway Estuary and Bradwell in the Blackwater Estuary, Essex (Turnpenny, 1988).
A package of technical measures was introduced in England and Wales in 1990, which made it
illegal to land bass

The landings of cod by the UoC are counted against the cod quota that has been established
in the framework of the cod recovery plan, although in 2009 they represent less than 0.1 % of
the total cod TAC for ICES Area IV (33,600 t). ICES evaluated the EU long-term cod recovery
plan in 2009 and concluded that it is in accordance with the precautionary approach if
implemented and enforced adequately (ICES, 2010). The rules of the cod recovery plan have
been applied to the 2010 cod TAC.
According to the client, cod that are smaller than the EU minimum landing size (35 cm) and are
discarded represent less than 5 % of the cod catch. On this basis, it is clearly highly unlikely
that the levels of cod landed or discarded by the UoC will have a significantly negative impact
on the objective of rebuilding the North Sea cod spawning stock biomass.
Table 2. Landings (kg) of sea bass, cod and pollack by the members of the VBHL in the period
2006-2009, and by catch percentage (source VIRIS).
2006 2007 2008 2009
sea bass 33,446 56,431 62,322 56,716
cod 6,076 8,478 13,641 16,101
% cod 18.2 15.0 21.9 28.4
pollack 37 123 525 150
% pollack 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.3
Picture 4. By catch: Pollack
Pollack is caught in limited numbers and retained. The highest catches were in 2008, when 525
kg were landed, less than 1 % of the total landings of sea bass. Therefore, pollack is not
considered as a main retained species in this fishery. There is no TAC for pollack in ICES area
IV (North Sea).
Ling (Molva molva) and gurnard (Triglidae) are also caught occasionally, but the quantity of
these catches and their effect on the species‘ stocks are negligible.
Page 26 of 151

4.2 Discarding
The client fishery is a very clean fishery, and all there is no discarding of species other than
those that might be retained and landed.
4.3 Endangered, threatened and protected species (ETP)
Very occasionally a shark is caught in this fishery. The official VIRIS data show that one shark
was landed in 2008. Sometimes a sea bird (gull) gets itself entangled in the fishing line, but
these birds are released unharmed.
4.4 Habitat
The only potential impact from this fishery on North Sea habitat is due to anchoring on the sea
floor. The anchors used in this fishery are relatively lightweight since the boats are relatively
small. The seafloor and habitat structures in the southern North Sea are not considered
sensitive to the impact of anchoring.
4.5 Ecosystem impacts
The only impact of this fishery on the ecosystem is the removal of predatory fish (sea bass, cod
and pollack) from the ecosystem. It is considered highly unlikely that the quantities involved will
affect ecosystem structure, trophic relationships or biodiversity to a point where there would be
a serious or irreversible harm.
The artificial baits used in this fishery usually contain lead, which is known to be toxic when it is
accumulated in animal tissue in high concentrations. Sometimes a bait will get stuck on
structures on the seafloor like rocks or wrecks and consequently lost. Although this can be
considered a minor issue, the VBHL is currently looking into possibilities to replace the lead in
the baits with another metal (steel).
3. FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (P3)
5.1 Legislation and regulation
The Netherlands are a Member State of the European Union (EU), and its fishery is subject to
the principles and practices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The fishery is managed
through the CFP in accordance with the basic Fisheries Regulation (2371/2002). In force since
1983, the CFP aims to reconcile resource conservation with the preservation of income and
jobs in coastal zones that offer few alternatives in terms of production or employment. It
therefore covers not just resources but also markets and structures. The CFP was reviewed
thoroughly in 2002.
The basic Fisheries Regulation is a ‗chapeau‘ regulation, setting out the strategic aims of the
CFP and enabling the Council of Ministers or, in certain cases, the European Commission
(EC), to make more detailed regulations. These include ones dealing with control requirements,
fleet structure, technical conservation, marketing and annual total allowable catches (TAC) etc.
Implementation of the CFP at a national level is carried out through the individual Member
States, whose fisheries enforcement authorities co-operate in policing the fishery (e.g. satellite
Page 27 of 151

monitoring, landing recording, etc.). National fisheries administrations are responsible for a
range of management and regulatory duties, including management of fleet activity and of
national quota, monitoring and control of all fisheries occurring within national jurisdiction,
collection, collation and transmitting of key fishery data, and undertaking at least a base range
of scientific monitoring and development work.
The general legislative instrument of fisheries management in the Netherlands is the Fisheries
Act (Visserijwet 1963). The Fisheries Act establishes powers and responsibilities to regulate
the Dutch fishery. The Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation is empowered
by the Royal Act (KoninklijkBesluit) ―Reglement Zee- en Kustvisserij‖ to regulate the fishery by
establishing closed areas, closed times, quota, minimum landing sizes etc. Important
regulations include the ―Beschikkingvisserij, visserijzone, zeegebied en kustwateren‖ and the
―Regelingvangstbeperking‖, in which the fishing areas and fishing gears are legally defined.
Sea bass catches are not regulated by the EU through TACs, and there are no other direct
controls on either the catch or fishing effort in sea bass fisheries.
The EU set a minimum landing size of 36 cm for sea bass in 1990 in Regions 2 and 3 of
Community waters. Council Regulation 850/1998 prohibits the use of fixed gill nets with a mesh
size between 70 and 90 mm (to protect juvenile sea bass). Though mesh size controls for
towed gear fisheries in which bass is a target species are included in this regulation, most bass
are taken as a by catch in towed gears for which mesh size controls depend on other target
species.
In the Republic of Ireland, sea bass has been designated as a sport fishing species since
1990. Commercial fishing is effectively banned by a bag limit of 2 sea bass per fisher in a 24
hour period, and there is a closed season from May 15 to June 15 and a minimum size of 40
cm.
In France, a national regulation limiting bass landings by French pelagic trawlers fishing in the
English Channel was set up in 1996, and sea bass landings by all French trawlers have been
limited to 5t/boat /week from 1 January to 30 April since 1998.
There are no bass-related local regulations in Scotland, but the weekly landing limit of 5 t per
vessel adopted for French trawlers in 1998 was adopted by the UK (largely for Scottish vessels
working in VIIe) in 2000 to prevent excessive landings in the winter offshore fishery.
There are no species-specific regulations protecting sea bass in the Netherlands other than the
EU minimum landing size and fixed-net mesh size controls.
5.2 Roles & Responsibilities
There are several relevant organisations and bodies that take an active role in the fishery
under assessment.
Netherlands Industry Representation
The most important tier of industry representation in the Netherlands is provided by the
National Fishermen Organisations. For the cutter fleet, these are the NederlandseVissersbond
and the Federatie van Visserijverenigingen, both of which are closely linked with one or more
Producers Organisations. A few members of the VBHL are members of the
NederlandseVissersbond.
Regional Advisory Councils
Page 28 of 151

The creation of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) was one of the pillars of the 2002 reform of
the CFP, in response to the EU and stakeholders‘ desire to increase the latter‘s participation in
the CFP process. The RACs are made up of representatives of the fisheries sector and other
stakeholder groups affected by the CFP, while scientists are invited to participate in the
meetings of the RACs as experts. The Commission and regional and national representatives
of Member States may be present at the meetings as observers. The North Sea Demersal
RAC has greatly improved effective communication links between industry, NGO‘s, managers
and scientists. The sea bass fishery does not appear to have been discussed within the North
Sea RAC.
Scientific Advice
The scientific basis for the management of the sea bass fishery is the advice provided by the
ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM), which draws on the work of international scientists from
relevant research laboratories and institutions on fish stock biology and marine science.
The results of scientific research and assessments are co-ordinated, compiled and reported by
ICES Working Groups, in this case WGNEW, which ICES established in 2005 to provide the
EC with advice on stock status and management of so called MoU (Memorandum of
Understanding) species (including sea bass). Prior to this, sea bass had been covered by the
ICES Bass Study Group (2001– 2004). The reports are reviewed and evaluated by the ICES
Advisory Committee (ACOM), which then provides advice on the status of target and nontarget
stocks to the European Commission. ICES advice, via Commission proposals, informs
the annual EU Council of Ministers regulation establishing management measures, in particular
TACs and quotas.
Stock assessment and data gathering methodologies are regularly reviewed - at ICES level
and at the level of the contributing laboratories and research institutions. Within ICES, a
methods working group keeps methods for fish stock assessment under regular review, and
there are specific working groups dealing with various issues relevant to the fishery.
In The Netherlands and the UK, IMARES and CEFAS are the main institutes working in the
area of fisheries science and, specifically, sea bass. Their scientists are closely involved in the
stock assessment work of ICES, and contribute to WGNEW.
National Management Bodies
The Fisheries Directorate (DirectieVisserij) of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs,
Agriculture and Innovation (Ministerie van EconomischeZaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (EL&I)
is the main fisheries management body in The Netherlands.
5.4 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
EU and national legislation is monitored and enforced in The Netherlands by the General
Inspection Service (AlgemeneInspectiedienst, AID) of the Ministry of EL&I. The AID is
responsible for enforcing fishery regulations and collecting information on fishing activity and
catches in ports and at sea within the nation state‘s fishery limits, and also monitors
compliance by the fishing industry. The AID also applies the EC satellite Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS) to track vessels over 15 m overall length. Fishing effort (days at sea) is also
monitored by the flag state through the VMS. Inspections at sea are carried out by the flag
state or the state with national jurisdiction over the area. At sea, gear (mesh size), logbooks
and content of fish holds are checked. National authorities are also responsible for aggregating
national fleet catches to a national total and policing other EC control requirements applicable
on landing and as the fish moves through the distribution chain. Given its small vessel size
Page 29 of 151

and use only of rod-and-line, with little threat to national quotas, the UoC operates on the
periphery of this system.
All registered fishing vessels are required to keep logbooks in accordance with EC Regulation
No. 2807/83 (and subsequent amendments). Fishing vessels under 10 m overall length are
obliged to record all quantities of all species kept on board on daily log sheets. At least half an
hour before entering a port, and immediately before landing the fish, a rod-and-line fishing
vessel has to notify the local authorities (AID). After entering a port, fishing vessels have to
deliver a log sheet with all landed quantities and species to the AID (in a special post box).
5.4 Compliance
Non-compliance is dealt with by the relevant Dutch authorities through their criminal justice
systems, and using agreed and tested procedures. Dutch fishery officials (LNV) report no
compliance issues specific to the UoC vessels. Communication within the group is good and
they act as one to ensure overall compliance.
The client considers that there is insufficient control effort directed at vessels under 10 m. They
have mentioned that there are several unregistered vessels using rod and line that land sea
bass and cod with the intention of sale, which is prohibited under the official regulations.
5.5 Dispute resolution
Disputes that arise are initially dealt with by individual fishermen and inside the VBHL. In the
latter case, the Klapwijkfirm located in Burgh Haamstede plays an important role. The level of
social control is relatively high since the majority of the members depend on a group marketing
system. The fish landed by most members are collected at the Klapwijk firm facility, labelled
there and transported to the IJmuiden auction.
Just two of the members of the VBHL are a member of a national fishermen‘s organisation.
The Dutch national organisations are also linked to a Producers Organisation (PO). The
membership of a PO could be advantageous in resolving disputes.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation and national representatives
(Embassies) will be involved when serious international disputes arise that cannot be solved at
a lower level.
All EU member states have signed up to CFP, and are bound by European legislation.
Disputes between Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of
Ministers. Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through
relevant primary and secondary legislation. Formal procedures apply for the resolution of
disputes through the national court systems.
6. Other fisheries in the area affecting the target stock
In the North Sea, the main commercial catch of sea bass taken in directed fisheries is by drifted
and fixed gillnets and by rod and line operating along the English and Dutch coasts (Dutch
landings were around 30 t in 2009). The main fishing season normally lasts from April until
November.
French and Belgian trawlers also take substantial quantities of sea bass in the southern North
Sea, chiefly as a by catch in demersal fisheries (see Table 1).
Page 30 of 151

Sea bass is taken as a by catch in several Dutch fisheries. Landings of fly-shooters were nearly
60 t in 2009 and landings of twin riggers about 30 t, whilst nearly 175 t of sea bass were landed
by the Dutch beam trawl fleet (the largest Dutch fleet segment) in 2009. According to
information provided by the client, these landings include catches by several Dutch beam
trawlers from bass shoals that are aggregated near the wrecks were the rod and line fishery
takes place Occasionally, this practice results in several tonnes of sea bass taken in one haul.
The total landings of sea bass by Dutch fisheries in 2009 was 341 t (375 t in 2008, Table 1), of
which the members of VBHL landed nearly 57 t.
Catches of sea bass taken by recreational anglers may also comprised a substantial part of the
overall landings of sea bass from the North Sea. Dutch recreational landings in 2006 were
estimated at 195 t (Kroon, 2007).
Page 31 of 151

7. STANDARD USED
The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the
fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles.
Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level.
Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists.
Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1
and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations.
The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.
Principle 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion
of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery
must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are
maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus,
exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their
productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their
capacities for yields over the long term.
Criteria:
1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity
of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential
productivity.
2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that
recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the
precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields
within a specified time frame.
3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex
composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.
Principle 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity,
function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent
and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.
The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem
perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the
ecosystem.
The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their
significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a
fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and
Page 32 of 151

evised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional
consultations.
Criteria:
1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among
species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.
2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the
genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to
endangered, threatened or protected species.
3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery
and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent
with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce longterm
potential yields.
Principle 3
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national
and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational
frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.
The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework
for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.
A. Management System Criteria:
The management system shall:
1. Ensure that the fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to
an international agreement.
2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and
contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected
parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of
fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods,
including, but not confined to subsistence, artisan, and fishing-dependent communities shall be
addressed as part of this process.
3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific
objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a
process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.
4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on
fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.
5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the
system5.
6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not
operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.
7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a
precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.
8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that
addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of
research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery
have been and are periodically conducted.
10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the
resource, including, but not limited to:
Page 33 of 151

a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community‘s high
productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size,
age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target
species;
b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially
in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas;
c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels
within specified time frames;
d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached;
e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate.
11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance
and
enforcement which ensures that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and
specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.
B. Operational Criteria
Fishing operations shall:
1. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species
(and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch
where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive
2. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat,
especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.
3. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;
4. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch
etc.
5. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and
administrative requirements.
6. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and
other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.
Page 34 of 151

8.1 Evaluation team
8. BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
Leader assessor: Mr. Sander Buijs
Sander Buijs trained as a food technologist and has worked as a quality manager in the
seafood business for ten years before joining SGS as programme manager for the MSC
project.
P1 expert Dr Mike Pawson
Mike Pawson is an independent consultant, having worked as senior fisheries advisor at Cefas,
Lowestoft, during 39 years carrying out biological research and providing scientific advice to
Defra, the EC and other national and international organisations on fish stock abundance,
technical conservation measures and fisheries management regulations, and on related
monitoring, sampling, survey and research programmes. Between 1980 and 1990, he
designed and managed MAFF's coastal fisheries programme, and implemented biological
sampling, trawl surveys, a fishermen‘s logbook scheme and socio-economic evaluation in
relation to sea bass fisheries. Between 1990 and 2002 Mike led the Cefas Western demersal
team, providing analytical assessments and management advice for 13 finfish stocks (including
sea bass) and, since 2002, directed and managed the assessment of salmon and eel stocks in
England and Wales and provided scientific advice on their conservation.
During this time Mike was co-ordinator of the Anglo-French English Channel Fisheries Study
Group (1989-1997), chairman of the ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment
Working Group (1996-98), Sea bass Study Group (2000-04) and Elasmobranch Study Group
(2001-02), and initiated and managed EU-funded multi-national projects on methods for eggproduction
stock biomass estimation, bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish stocks,
bio-economic modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for
elasmobranchs, marine recreational fishing, etc. He has been involved with 6 MSC
assessments, two of which involved sea bass.
P2 and P3 expert: Mr Bert Keus
Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the Netherlands. He holds degrees in
biology and law, and has previously held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of
the Dutch Fisheries Board (Productschap Vis), and research fellow with the fisheries division of
the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Holland (LEI-DLO).
Over the years 2003 and 2004 he managed fishing and processing companies in the Gambia
handling fish from industrial and artisan fisheries. Bert maintains contacts with the Gambian
seafood industry. In addition, he has a long association with the shellfish fisheries in the
Netherlands, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea
brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative. Through
this work and several other MSC pre-assessments and certifications he has become
particularly familiar with the MSC certification process, Between the years 1998 and 2003 he
was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG), Fisheries Working
Group of IUCN.
Page 35 of 151

8.2 Public consultation
Public announcements of the progression of the assessment were made as per MSC
requirements.
8.3 Stakeholder consultation
Extent of available information
At the time this assessment was undertaken, one other MSC full assessment of a sea bass
fishery in the North Sea had been completed (NESFC sea bass fishery), the findings of which
are presented in a published assessment report on the MSC web site.
A number of stakeholder organisations and individuals having relevant interest in the fishery
assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment. The interest of others not
appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website, and by
advertising in the Dutch Visserijnieuws.
Initial approaches were made by email and followed up by phone conversations. Issues raised
during correspondence were investigated during research and information gathering activities,
and during interviews.
Most stakeholders contacted during this exercise either indicated that they had no direct
interest in this fishery assessment, or that they had no particular cause for concern with regard
to its assessment to the MSC standard.
Stakeholder issues
Written and verbal representations were provided to the assessment team expressing a range
of views, opinions and concerns, illustrated by the written responses received from Jan Willem
Wijnstroom (Sportvisserij Nederland, Royal Dutch Angling Association) and Ruud Vergouwen,
(fisherman KG 5), see Appendix 5. The main points raised are summarised below.
Bass is a prime target species for recreational anglers, and the increase in bass abundance in
the North Sea provides the Dutch recreational angling sector with new opportunities, with an
estimated annual socio economic value of 15,8 million Euro.
More than 50 % of Dutch sport anglers advocate improved bass stock management, and there
is common interest with commercial anglers (VBHL) who fish for bass in a management
system that benefits bass and other marine resources. Sportvisserij Nederland wants to be
involved in a regular dialogue with VBHL as a starting point to set up a bass management plan
for both fisheries.
There are very little scientific research data available on eastern North Sea bass populations.
General perception amongst recreational anglers is that mature and bigger bass are getting
scarcer.
Because reference points have not yet been defined for the bass stocks in ICES Sub-area IV, a
main assessment using the default assessment tree would very likely result in a score below
the unconditional level, but above the minimal level. If so, it will attract a condition that requires
the client to liaise with Research Bodies (IMARES, CEFAS) and have a part in the further
development of reference points for the North Sea stock that would support a sustainable
Page 36 of 151

fishery. The formulation of specific management objectives for the Dutch sea bass fishery
should also be a condition of certification.
Sportvisserij Nederland advocates an increase in the MLS for bass to 42 cm, to give bass the
opportunity to grow and to spawn.
Sportvisserij Nederland strongly advocates to fill the gaps in scientific research regarding nonquota
species such as bass that are subject to growing fishing pressure. There is currently a
legal requirement of the Data Collection Framework to provide estimates of the amount of bass
landed by recreational fishermen in western waters, but not in the North Sea. The aggregated
and raised information provided by recreational anglers‘ questionnaires is not adequate.
The current status of the stocks needs to be better investigated to achieve a firm basis for a
future management plan for recreational and commercial fisheries, and Sportvisserij Nederland
endorses the need for a system of monitoring and evaluation of management measures.
During April, May and June schools of bass collect in spawning areas where they are most
vulnerable and large quantities are caught and landed. Assuming that the MSC certificate is
obtained by the VBHL, will sea bass caught in this vulnerable period have the MSC label, or
could this be avoided so that the spawning fish are not targeted?
Although the quantity of fish removed from a stock each year can reasonably be determined
from landings data, no one knows the abundance of sea bass in the Southern North Sea. In
which case, how can one determine whether a fishery is sustainable?
The team considers that the issues raised have been adequately debated and addressed as a
part of the assessment of this fishery, and that none of these issues require separate attention
beyond that represented in this report.
8.4 Interview programme
A number of meetings with key stakeholders were scheduled by the team to fill in information
gaps and to explore and discuss areas of concern. Meetings were held as follows:
Date Name Organisation
31.08.2010 Petra Klapwijk VBHL
31.08.2010 Fred Klapwijk VBHL
31.08.2010 Imre Schep VBHL
31.08.2010 Jan de Jonge VBHL
31.08.2010 Jan Willem Wijnstroom Sportvisserij Nederland
8.4 Other certification evaluations and harmonisation
There has been one previous MSC assessment for sea bass in the North Sea. This
assessment was for the NESFC sea bass fishery in North-East England. The fishery was
Page 37 of 151

certified as sustainable on 3 rd December 2007 and essentially catches sea bass from the same
stock unit exploited by the VBHL fleet. It has been subject to three annual surveillance reports.
Another sea bass fishery, utilizing trawls in the Bristol Channel, has also been subject to MSC
assessment (the draft report is available at http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/inassessment/north-east-atlantic/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads),
but
certification has not been recommended. In that case, the RBF was used and gave low scores
that reflected concerns about the effect of fishing on the target species‘ population structure
and its stock status (local depletion was clearly illustrated by data provided by stakeholders),
and also the lack of positive management measures to minimise discards of both bass and by
catch species.
The quality of information on these fisheries and the scientific basis for assessment of sea bass
stock status are similar, and therefore of relevance.
9. OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING
9.1 Introduction to scoring methodology
The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of a certified fishery. These
Principles and Criteria have been developed into a standard (Fishery Assessment
Methodology) assessment tree - Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts - by the
MSC, which is used in this assessment.
The Performance Indicators (PIs) are presented on the MSC website. In order to make the
assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, each PI has three associated
Scoring Guideposts (SG) which identify the level of performance necessary to achieve scores
100, 80, or 60 for each Performance Indicator: 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of
performance; 80 a pass; and 60 a measurable shortfall.
For each Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‗score‘. In
order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall weighted average score of 80 is
necessary for each of the three Principles, and no Indicator should score less than 60. It is not
considered possible to allocate precise scores, and a scoring interval of five is used in
evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude level of scoring, average scores for each
Principle are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Weights and scores for the UoC are presented in the scoring table (Appendix A).
9.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF)
9.2.1 Introduction to RBF
The MSC assessment process is evidence based, in that it seeks to use published (i.e. peer
reviewed) scientific information on stock status of target and by catch species and
environmental impacts of the fishery wherever possible. Where scientific information is lacking,
the MSC have introduced an alternative mechanism by which fisheries can be certified: the
Risk-Based Framework (RBF). This scoring method allows stakeholder knowledge and expert
opinion to be taken into account in data-deficient situations, particularly for the ―outcome‖
performance indicators (PIs) associated with Principles 1 and 2.
Page 38 of 151

The RBF includes a set of methods for assessing the risk to each of these ecological
components from activities associated with the fishery in assessment. The RBF is carried out in
a series of stages that are described in the FAM v2, depending on the outcome of the previous
stage (Figure 6). The next stage is a ‗Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis‖ (SICA), which is
based around a structured discussion with stakeholders. If the outcome of the SICA suggests a
level of risk to the stock that is moderate or above, a ‗Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis‘ (PSA)
is then carried out.
During the scoring meeting for this fishery, the assessment team concluded that there was not
enough scientific information to score Performance Indicator 1.1.1 (Stock status) and that the
RBF should be used to score this indicator.
Figure 6. MSC decision tree to select standard methodology (Fisheries Assessment
Methodology „FAM‟) or RBF.
Page 39 of 151

9.2.2 SICA
A SICA proceeds in several steps. These steps and the results of the consequent stages are
described here.
Scoping for risk-causing activities:
As a first step, the stakeholder group must decide on a list of activities that may have an impact
on the target species population, other species, habitat or ecosystem. Based on the expert
judgment of the assessment team members and stakeholders present at the meeting, the
activities that may cause a risk to the different components were identified and evaluated
qualitatively. The results of this first step are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Identification table of risk causing effects (** = risk causing effect, * = little effect, - =
no effect, Na = not applicable)
Activity Stock By catch Discard ETP Habitat Ecosystem
Direct
Capture
** * - - - -
Gear loss * * Na Na - *
Unobserved
mortality
* * Na Na Na -
Discarding
Other:
* * Na Na Na Na
Bait collection - - - - * -
Steaming - - - * - -
Anchoring - - - - * -
Littering - - - - * -
From this rather subjective analysis it was concluded that the ‗worst plausible case‘ is the
impact of the fishery (direct capture) on the sea bass stock (sub-component) in the North Sea.
Scale and intensity of fishery. In the second step of the SICA, the stakeholder group is asked
to consider the spatial scale, the temporal scale and the intensity of each activity, in this case
the direct capture of sea bass (Table 4). These scores do not feed directly into the final score
for the SICA, but help to start off the discussion and ease participants into the idea of allocating
scores.
Spatial scale
The spatial scale score depends on the overlap of the activity with the geographical distribution
of the stock. A spatial scale score of 4 was given because the UoC fishes for sea bass over a
wide area of the southern North Sea, but less than 50% of the stock‘s geographical range.
Temporal scale
Though the UoC takes place during about 60-90 days in a year, a temporal scale score of 4
was given because there are other seasonal fisheries for bass in coastal areas of the North
Sea and in the eastern English Channel Therefore it has been assumed that the fishery for
bass takes place during 100-200 days a year.
Page 40 of 151

Intensity
An intensity score of 3 was given because, based on the temporal and spatial scale of the
fishery and expert knowledge, it was judged that the direct impact of the sea bass fishery is
moderate (fishing mortality values of 0.2-0.4 estimated for sea bass in North Sea 1995-2005,
Pawson et al., 2007).
Page 41 of 151

Table 4.SICA tables from the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology.
Consequence scoring: The third step is to score the potential risk posed by each activity to
the sea bass population. This is done by considering four ‗components‘ of population
dynamics: population size, reproductive capacity and/or recruitment, age/size/sex ratio and
geographic range. The likely impact of each activity on each component is scored separately.
Fishing activities are then ranked according to their likely impact on the population dynamics,
identifying the highest risk activities along with the element of the population on which they act.
Given the lack of quantitative knowledge about the current level of exploitation on bass in the
North Sea (in particular, the mortality due to non-commercial fishermen, including recreational
anglers) and its impact on the population, the assessment team were undecided whether a
consequence score of 2 or 3 was most appropriate. It was concluded that there may be
detectable changes in age/size/sex structure resulting from the bass fishery, but that the stock
dynamics are mainly driven by environmental factors in the sense that the stock of bass in the
North Sea has increased due to warming.
Page 42 of 151

Table 5. SICA table for PI 1.1.1
The team therefore decided to give a SICA consequence score of 3 (which is converted to an
MSC equivalent score of 60, but not used further in the assessment, Table 5), thus triggering
further evaluation of Principle 1 using Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). This
represents a relatively precautionary measure of the risk to the sea bass stock in the North Sea
from fishing activities.
9.2.3 PSA
There are four steps for the MSC PSA.
1. Score productivity attributes
2. Score susceptibility attributes
3. Calculate risk scores and plot individual species onto a PSA plot.
4. Convert PSA scores into MSC scores and feed back into default assessment tree.
The calculations of the scores under steps 3 and 4 have been carried out using the Excel
workbook entitled PSA for MSC.xls which accompanies the FAM v2. This Excel workbook
automatically generates PSA scores and the PSA plot when attribute scores are completed for
the species.
The PSA productivity and susceptibility attributes can be found in Table B4.2 and B4.3 of the
FAM.
PSA step 1. Score productivity attributes.
Each productivity attribute was scored on the three point risk scale as presented in Table 6
(from Table B4.2 of the FAM).The results of this scoring and the rational are given in Table 7
Page 43 of 151

Table 6. PSA Productivity attributes and scores.
Table 7. PSA productivity scores for the North Sea bass stock.
Score Rationale
Average age at maturity 2 5-6 years
Average maximum age 2 10-25 years
Fecundity 1 > 100,000 eggs per year
Average maximum size 1

the spots where they are most abundant, which is where the trawl and gill net fisheries are also
most likely to encounter bass. Consequently, a score of 2 was given.
Whilst the selectivity for the hook and line fishery could have been scored using Table B 4.4 of
the FAM, strict application of the attributes in this table would result in a high risk score (bait
used is attractive to bass and the fish can not break the line), which does not seem appropriate
for this metier since the hook and line fishery is highly selective in catching larger fish as it
targets fishing locations (wrecks) were larger fish aggregate. Undersized fish are rarely caught
and always released alive. The team therefore awarded a medium risk score of 2.
The selectivity of the gill net fishery was scored using Table B4.3 of the FAM. The team
considered that the minimum mesh size of gill nets was based on gear trials and has been set
to minimise the by catch of undersized fish. Therefore, the gill net fishery is considered
selective and a medium risk score of 2 was attributed.
The selectivity of trawl nets was given a high risk score of 3. . The assessment team and the
stakeholders considered that many smaller bass would be retained with the mesh size used in
the trawl fishery and the chances that the fish survive discarding was considered low.
Post capture mortality was scored at the high risk score of 3 for all three fishing metiers. In the
gill net and hook and line fishery most fish are retained when captured. In the trawl fishery
discarded bass have a rather low chance to survive.
The scores derived above for productivity and susceptibility have been fed into the PSA for
MSC.xls workbook. The spreadsheet calculated PSA risk scores of 2.22 for both the rod and
line and gill net fisheries for bass, and a score of 2.45 for the trawl fishery.
To calculate an overall risk score for the whole fishery taking sea bass in the North Sea, the
team weighted the selectivity values for each of the hook and line, gill net and trawl fisheries
(2,2,3) by the proportional landings taken by the 3 metiers in the North Sea (in Table 9). This
score (2.7) was fed into the work book and resulted in a PSA Risk Score of 2.38.
Using the formula in paragraph 4.4.2 of the FAM a MSC score of 87 was calculated for
Performance Indicator 1.1.1.
The PSA graph for the North Sea bass fishery (Figure 7 below) shows that all three metiers
(trawl, gill net and rod and line) fall into the low susceptibility zone and warrant a score of 80 or
more.
Page 45 of 151

Table 9. FAM Workbook Table with scores.
COMMON
NAME
Average age at maturity
Average max age
Fecundity
Sea bass,
ROD/LINE 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1,57
Sea bass,
TRAWL 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1,57
Sea bass,
GILL NETS 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1,57
()
3,00
2,500
2,00
1,500
1,00
Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3]
Average max size
2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1,57
PSA Graph
1,00 1,500 2,00 2,500 3,00
Average size at Maturity
()
Reproductive strategy
Trophic level (fishbase)
Total Productivity (average)
Availability
Encounterability
Selectivity
Post-capture mortality
Weight
relative
Weighted selectivity
Total (multiplicative)
Colour on PSA plot
PSA
Score
2 2 2 3 200 0,143 0,286 1,58 2,22
2 2 3 3 1000 0,714 2,143 1,88 2,45
2 2 2 3 200 0,143 0,286 1,58 2,22
2 2 2,7 3 2,714 1,79 2,38
Figure 7. PSA Graph for North Sea bass fishery (red = trawl fishery, light blue = gill net,
dark blue = hook and line fishery).
Page 46 of 151

9.3 Scoring of performance against MSC Principles
The assessment team convened a scoring meeting on 1 and 2 September 2010, the outcome
from which is shown in the scoring tables forming Appendix A to this report and in paragraph
9.2 above. The scores allocated to the assessment tree at sub-criterion, Criterion and Principle
levels are shown in Table 10. Full details of the justification for these scores are provided in the
assessment tree (Appendix A).
Further details are provided below on those areas where current practices (or stock status) are
considered to be below good industry practice. In all cases, these are not sufficiently below
best practice to warrant an automatic failure (i.e. none score less than 60).
For Principle 1, there was one performance indicator that scored below 80 and therefore
triggered a condition. This condition relates to the harvest control rule.
No performance indicators for Principle 2 fell below the 80 pass mark and, whilst there are
therefore no conditions related to Principle 2, there are some recommendations applicable.
For Principle 3, there were three performance indicators that scored below the 80 pass mark
and therefore attract a condition. These three performance indicators are closely connected
and relate to the fishery-specific management system for the sea bass fishery in the
Netherlands.
Further explanation of the attached conditions is provided in section 10.2.
Page 47 of 151

10.1 Performance
10. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Table 10.Performance indicators and scores attributed.
Principle Wt
(L1)
Component Wt
(L2)
PI
No.
Performance Indicator
(PI)
One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 87
Score
1.1.2 Reference points 80
1.1.3 Stock rebuilding
Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80
1.2.2 Harvest control rules &
tools
75
1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80
1.2.4 Assessment of stock
status
80
Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 80
species
2.1.2 Management 80
2.1.3 Information 80
By catch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 100
species
2.2.2 Management 100
2.2.3 Information 80
ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 100
2.3.2 Management 80
2.3.3 Information 80
Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 95
2.4.2 Management 80
2.4.3 Information 80
Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 Outcome 90
2.5.2 Management 80
2.5.3 Information 90
Three 1 Governance
and policy
Fishery
specific
management
system
0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary
framework
85
3.1.2 Consultation, roles &
responsibilities
85
3.1.3 Long term objectives 90
3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable
fishing
80
0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific
objectives
70
3.2.2 Decision making
processes
70
3.2.3 Compliance &
enforcement
80
3.2.4 Research plan 80
3.2.5 Management
performance evaluation
75
Page 48 of 151

The Performance of the Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 are summarised
below:
MSC Principle Fishery Performance
Principle 1: Sustainability of exploited stock Overall: 81,1 points PASS
Principle 2: Maintenance of ecosystem Overall: 86,3 points PASS
Principle 3: Effective management system Overall: 80,0 points PASS
10.2 Conditions
The fishery attained a score of below 80 against four Performance Indicators. The assessment
team has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the Vereniging Beroepsmatige
Handlijnvissers Nederland (VBHL), as the client for certification, is required to address. The
conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the
certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.
As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan‘ for meeting the
conditions for continued certification, to be approved by SGS.
The conditions, associated timescales and relevant Performance Indicators are set out below
(note that PIs for SGs 60 and 80 are assumed for SG 100).
Condition 1
Harvest Strategy 1.2.2 Harvest control rule
PI There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
SG 60 Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are
consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the
exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached.
There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest
control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling
exploitation.
SG 80 Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent
with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is
reduced as limit reference points are approached.
The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the
main uncertainties.
Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate
and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the
harvest control rules
SG 100 The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide
range of uncertainties.
Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in
achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control
rules.
Scoring 75
Rationale Technical conservation measures are in place (MLS and mesh size
Page 49 of 151

controls) that seek to maximise Y/R, but the HCRs that are in place
do not ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit
reference points are approached (with respect to MSY, since
recruitment is not stock-driven).
Condition Condition 1. Client should liaise with management and research
bodies to determine what part they can play in the development of
a harvest control rule that better ensures that the exploitation rate
by fishing metiers taking sea bass in the North Sea, including
trawling and gill netting, is reduced as limit reference points are
approached.
Client Action
Plan
Condition 2
Fishery specific
management
system
Timescale: By first surveillance audit: written evidence is required
of appropriate action by the client towards management authorities
and research institutes, and of their response.
Liaise with fisheries management and research bodies to develop
appropriate harvest control rules (related to MSY) within the
fisheries for North Sea bass
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
P3 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the
outcomes expressed by MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2.
SG 60 Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the
outcomes expressed by MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit
within the fishery‘s management system.
SG 80 Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed by MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit
within the fishery‘s management
system.
SG 100 Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which
are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the
fishery‘s management
system.
Scoring 70
Rationale Although there are clearly defined management objectives for
Dutch North Sea fisheries in general, fishery-specific management
objectives are not explicitly formulated for the rod and line sea
bass fishery. Specific management objectives for the sea bass
fishery (as a whole, preferably) should be developed within the
context of regulations as set out by the management authorities.
This would preferably be done by the management authorities and
with input from scientists.
Condition Condition 2. The client should liaise with the relevant authorities
and scientists (IMARES and ICES) and encourage them to develop
specific management objectives for this fishery, which would
Page 50 of 151

Client Action
Plan
Condition 3
Fishery specific
management
system
preferably also account for other fishing metiers targeting sea
bass, such as trawling and gill net fishing.
The Client should also formulate management objectives for the
sea bass fishery within the VBHL management plan.
Timescale: By first surveillance audit, written evidence is required
of appropriate action by the client to encourage the relevant
management authorities to formulate management objectives for
this fishery, and to demonstrate that a management objective for
the sea bass fishery is incorporated within the VBHL management
plan.
Liaise with authorities and scientists to develop specific fishery
objectives and implement these objectives within the VBHL
management plan
3.2.2 Decision making process
P3 The fishery-specific management system includes effective
decision making processes that result in measures and strategies
to achieve the objectives.
SG 60 There are informal decision-making processes that result in
measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in
relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of
the wider implications of decisions.
SG 80 There are established decision-making processes that result in
measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important
issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and
consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and
take account of the wider implications of decisions.
Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and
are based on best available information.
Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action
associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging
from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
SG 100 Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in
relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the
wider implications of decisions.
Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the
Page 51 of 151

management system responded to findings and relevant
recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation
and review activity.
Scoring 70
Rationale Management systems for Dutch North Sea fisheries are well
established and generally effective. The decision-making
processes are well developed and fishery representatives are
regularly consulted by the relevant authorities. However, the rod
and line fishery for bass is a relatively small sector and most rod
and line fishermen are not represented by the National
Fishermen‘s organisations.
Condition Condition 3: The client should encourage the relevant
management authorities to include this fishery in the formal
decision-making processes.
Client Action
Plan
Condition 4
Fishery specific
management
system
Timescale: By first surveillance visit: written evidence is required
of actions by the client to encourage the relevant management
authorities to develop a formal decision making process for the sea
bass fishery, and of their response.
By the third surveillance visit, evidence is required that the sea
bass fishery is included in the decision-making process.
Encourage authorities to include this fishery within national
decision-making processes.
3.2.5 Information and monitoring
P3 There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of
the fishery-specific management system against its objectives.
There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific
management system.
SG 60 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the
management system and is subject to occasional internal review.
SG 80 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the
management system and is subject to regular internal and
occasional external review.
SG 100 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the
management system and is subject to regular internal and external
review.
Scoring 75
Rationale Because fishery-specific management objectives are not explicitly
formulated for the rod and line sea bass fishery, there is no
provision for evaluation of the fishery‘s performance against these
objectives.
Condition Condition 4.
Once fishery-specific objectives are identified and set (Condition
2), the client should liaise with the relevant management
Page 52 of 151

Client Action
Plan
13.3 Recommendations
authorities and scientists (IMARES and ICES) to develop a system
of collecting information that can be used to evaluate the
performance of the fishery against these management objectives,
and which includes independent review.
Timescale: By the third surveillance visit, evidence is required of
that information is being collected and used to evaluate the
performance of the fishery against management objectives.
Ensure that proper (scientific) monitoring and evaluation
management options takes place within the fishery management
system.
In addition to the four Conditions outlined above, the assessment team consider that
improvements on the performance of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria are
required in some areas that relate to Performance Indicators where the client vessels scored
80 or better.
The assessment team has made a number of recommendations. These are not required to
maintain certification and the action taken and timescales are at the discretion of the client.
Recommendations are made in respect of:
Recommendation 1 –Research plan (Performance Indicator 3.2.4)
The Client should encourage IMARES to extend the collection of biological information on sea
bass in the Netherlands, and to be involved in any relevant research
Recommendation 2 – Retained species and Species specific management
system (Performance Indicators 2.1.2 and 3.2.3)
Though there are sanctions to deal with non-compliance, and compliance by the UoC is
probably high, the actual control of small-scale landings is considered rather poor. This could
result in underreporting of quota species (e.g. cod), because cod landings under 50 kg of wet
weight are not counted against individual quotas. The Client should address this issue in its
fisheries management plan, and implement appropriate controls to prevent under-reporting of
cod catches.
Recommendation 3 – Ecosystem Management strategy (Performance
Indicators 2.5.2)
The Client‘s management plan should require that litter is taken to shore and disposed of in a
responsible way, and that VBHL continue to look into the possibilities to replace the lead in the
baits with another metal (steel).
Page 53 of 151

Recommendation 4 – Governance and policy (Performance Indicators, 3.1.2,
Consultation, roles and responsibility.)
The VBHL is recommended to seek a more professional representation, possibly through a
national fishery organisation.
11.1 Traceability
11. LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY
Directly after the fish are caught and killed, the fish receive a gill tag which is only available to
VHBL members. The gill tag is non-removable and non-reusable without damaging the fish,
because of which it is unlikely that fraud with gill tags used by non-member fishermen will take
place.
Client group members land the fish each day into the harbour of ‗NeeltjeJans‘, and no multi day
trips take place. Some members carry their fish to local traders, but most members transport
the fish to the nearby facility of ‗Fred Klapwijk‘ where the fish is weighed, iced, labelled and
prepare for transportation to the fish auction in Ijmuiden.
Fred Klapwijk as well as the Fish auction at Ijmuiden hold their own MSC CoC certificate, thus
ensuring traceability
11.2 At-sea processing
There is no at-sea processing in this fishery except for icing and applying the gill tag.
No gutting takes place at sea or on shore.
11.3 Points of landing
The members of the UoC land fish in the port of NeeltjeJans. The fish is transported to the Fred
Klapwijk facility by the fishermen‘s private cars. Until the point of reception by Fred Klapwijk,
the fishermen remain responsible for the fishes‘ traceability.
11.4 Eligibility data
The products originating from this fishery are eligible to carry the MSC logo or ‗Marine
Stewardship Council‘ phrase from the date of certification.
Page 54 of 151

12. OBJECTIONS
This being not the final report, no objections can be included (yet)
Page 55 of 151

13.1 Logo use
13. MSC LOGO LICENSING RESPONSIBILITIES
The client group members can use the MSC logo (after prior approval from MSCI) free of
charge for promotional use only. If the client group wishes to use the logo on the FBHL gill
tags, this should be approved by MSC and a logo use fee could be charged.
Logo use by the Fred Klapwijk facility is beyond the scope of this certification: this is dealt with
in the MSC CoC certification of Fred Klapwijk.
Page 56 of 151

14. CONCLUSION
Page 57 of 151

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations
and, for those
populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.1 Management
outcome
1.1.1 Stock status: The
stock is at a level
which maintains high
productivity and has a
low probability of
recruitment
overfishing
(1-60) It is likely that the stock is
above the point where recruitment
would be impaired.
(1-80) It is highly likely that the
stock is above the point where
recruitment would be impaired.
(2-80) The stock is at or
fluctuating around its target
reference point.
(1-100) There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock is above
the point where recruitment
would be impaired.
(2-100) There is a high degree of
certainty that the stock has been
fluctuating around its target
reference point, or has been
above its target reference point,
over recent years.
Scoring comments
The status of the bass stock relative to an unfished population cannot be estimated. The most recent peer-reviewed assessment for the North
Sea ―stock‖ ran to 2004 and was updated for UK fisheries to 2006 and then to 2009, though these updates are considered to be increasingly
uncertain in relation to bass stock dynamics in the North Sea. The assessment team concluded that the Risk Based Framework should be used
to assess the stock status.
The assessment results presented by ICES suggest that bass stock in ICES Divisions IVb,c and VIId were being exploited sustainably in 2006,
at a moderate level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in
exploitable biomass since the early 1990s to levels considered to be at, or close to, series maxima. Recruitment was above-average during the
mid to late 1990s, and this has resulted in high landings and stock levels. The most recent assessment (to 2009) suggests that these trends
have continued.

The results of the RBF assessment of stock status is a PSA score of 87 for the fishery (see Chapter 9). The score reflects the assessment‘s
team observation that there has been an expansion of the sea bass population into the North Sea since the early 1990s, yields there have been
maintained since 2003, see Table 1, and there has been an increasing trend in recruitment since the late 1990s.
Score:
RBF score 87
Audit trace references
ICES, 2004; Pawson et al., 2007a; Kupschus et al., 2007; Kupschus 2010 (in ICES 2010).
Page 59 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.1.2 Reference Points:
Limit
and target reference
points
are appropriate for the
stock.
(1-60) Generic limit and target
reference points are based on
justifiable and reasonable
practice appropriate for the
species category.
(1-80) Reference points are
appropriate for the stock and can
be estimated.
(2-80) The limit reference point
is set above the level at which
there is an appreciable risk of
impairing reproductive capacity.
(3-80) The target reference point
is such that the stock is
maintained at a level consistent
with BMSY or some measure or
surrogate with similar intent or
outcome.
(4-80) For low trophic level
species, the target reference
point takes into account the
ecological role of the stock.
(1-100) Reference points are
appropriate for the stock and can
be estimated.
(2-100) The limit reference point
is set above the level at which
there is an appreciable risk of
impairing reproductive capacity
following consideration of
relevant precautionary issues.
(3-100) The target reference
point is such that the stock is
maintained at a level consistent
with BMSY or some measure or
surrogate with similar intent or
outcome, or a higher level, and
takes into account relevant
precautionary issues such as the
ecological role of the stock with
a high degree of certainty.
Scoring comments
The assessment team notes that there are no reference points in terms of SSB or F agreed for this or any other European sea bass stock, and
explicit (formal) reference points have not yet been defined for the bass stock in ICES Sub-area IV. Spawning success and juvenile survival for
sea bass are heavily dependent on climatic conditions, especially temperature, and there appears to be no relationship between stock and
Page 60 of 151

subsequent recruitment. Though it has not been possible to set absolute or relative F reference points on this basis, the harvest strategy
clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, being designed to achieve management objectives in terms of yield per recruit and MSY.
These metrics are more appropriate to a species like sea bass where a wide variability in recruitment is related to environmental factors rather
than SSB.
A score of 80 is awarded here because the RBF has been used for Performance Indicator 1.1.1.
Score:
80 (default score)
Audit trace references
Page 61 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding:
Where the stock is
depleted, there is
evidence of stock
rebuilding.
(1-60) Where stocks are
depleted rebuilding strategies
which have a reasonable
expectation of success are in
place.
(2-60) Monitoring is in place to
determine whether they are
effective in rebuilding the stock
within a specified timeframe.
(1-80) Where stocks are
depleted rebuilding strategies
are in place.
(2-80) There is evidence that
they are rebuilding stocks, or it is
highly likely based on simulation
modelling or previous
performance that they will be
able to rebuild the stock within a
specified timeframe.
(1-100) Where stocks are
depleted, strategies are
demonstrated to be rebuilding
stocks continuously and there is
strong evidence that rebuilding
will be complete within the
shortest practicable timeframe.
Scoring comments
There is no evidence of depletion of the North Sea bass stock. Although the available assessments do not allow the abundance of sea bass to
be determined in absolute quantitative terms, stock abundance indicators suggest that the sea bass population in the North Sea has become
more productive since 1990, with increased levels of recruitment, a higher SSB and an extension of its geographical range to the north.
Score:
N/A
Audit trace references
ICES, 2004, 2008; Pawson et al, 2007; Kupschus, 2007; Kupschus 2010
Page 62 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.2 Harvest Strategy (management)
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy:
There is a robust and
precautionary harvest
strategy in place
Scoring comments
(1-60) The harvest strategy is
expected to achieve stock
management objectives
reflected in the target and limit
reference points.
(2-60) The harvest strategy is
likely to work based on prior
experience or plausible
argument.
(3-60) Monitoring is in place that
is expected to determine
whether the harvest strategy is
working.
(1-80) The harvest strategy is
responsive to the state of the
stock and the elements of the
harvest strategy work together
towards achieving management
objectives reflected in the target
and limit reference points.
(2-80) The harvest strategy may
not have been fully tested but
monitoring is in place and
evidence exists that it is
achieving its objectives.
(1-100) The harvest strategy is
responsive to the state of the
stock and is designed to achieve
stock management objectives
reflected in the target and limit
reference points.
(2-100) 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.
(3-100) The harvest strategy is
periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary.
The harvest strategy for the sea bass fishery is designed to avoid growth overfishing and maximise recruitment to the adult stock by protecting
bass smaller than 36 cm (see report section 3.1). There is a robust and precautionary strategy that has been in place and monitored for 20
years, which has been demonstrated to have achieved its stock management objectives in UK waters in terms of yield per recruit and MSY.
The performance of the harvest strategy has been periodically reviewed and evaluated, which has demonstrated that the growth overfishing that
took place in the 1980‘s has ameliorated and there are no signs of recruitment overfishing.
There are no target or limit reference points in terms of SSB and F for this stock, but the assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the
absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for
reference points. Instead, the harvest strategy is designed to achieve management objectives in terms of yield per recruit and MSY. These
Page 63 of 151

metrics are more appropriate to a species like sea bass where a wide variability in recruitment is related to environmental factors rather than
SSB. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.
The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience (for the UK fishery), but this has not been demonstrated in other bass fisheries
in the North Sea (though plausible argument suggests that it is likely), and monitoring is in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is
working for the stock as a whole. Moreover, though ICES advised (ACOM, 2004) that effort should not be increased for sea bass in any area, it
is apparent that trawl fisheries in particular have been increasingly directed at sea bass as catch quotas on other species have been reduced.
Nevertheless, decommissioning, fleet restructuring and effort controls (e.g. days-at-sea) have clearly led to a reduction in F in all North Sea
towed-gear fisheries (ICES 2010), with a consequent constraint on effort that might take bass.
Score: All elements of SG60 and SG 80 are satisfied, and a score of 80 awarded.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
(ICES, 2004; Pawson et al., 2005; ICES, 2008).
Page 64 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.2.2 Harvest control rules
and tools: There are
well defined and
effective harvest
control rules in place
Scoring comments
(1-60) Generally understood
harvest control rules are in place
that are consistent with the
harvest strategy and which act to
reduce the exploitation rate as
limit reference points are
approached.
(2-60) There is some evidence
that tools used to implement
harvest control rules are
appropriate and effective in
controlling exploitation.
(1-80) Well defined harvest
control rules are in place that are
consistent with the harvest
strategy and ensure that the
exploitation rate is reduced as
limit reference points are
approached.
(2-80) The selection of the
harvest control rules takes into
account the main uncertainties.
(3-80) Available evidence
indicates that the tools in use are
appropriate and effective in
achieving the exploitation levels
required under the harvest
control rules
(1-100) Well defined harvest
control rules are in place that are
consistent with the harvest
strategy and ensure that the
exploitation rate is reduced as
limit reference points are
approached.
(2-100) The design of the
harvest control rules take into
account a wide range of
uncertainties.
(3-100) Evidence clearly shows
that the tools in use are effective
in achieving the exploitation
levels required under the harvest
control rules.
The harvest strategy developed for the UK sea bass fishery and adopted by the EC is designed to modify exploitation patterns so that
exploitation rates are sustainable. It has achieved this by using well defined and understood tools in the form of a minimum legal landing size,
gill-mesh size controls, and (in the UK) nursery area closures to protect juvenile bass. Both the harvest strategy and the harvest control rules
and tools have been selected and designed to take account of the main uncertainties in this fishery, which are recruitment variability and the
inshore small-boat nature of the much of the fishery. A lesser uncertainty is the outcome in response to management in terms of exploitation
levels, which are not controlled directly.
The available evidence indicates that the package of measures introduced by the UK in 1990 has been effective in achieving appropriate
exploitation patterns and levels as required by the harvest strategy, except in the case of trawl fisheries where gear selectivity is not well
matched to the MLS of the target species and effort directed at bass is uncontrolled. There are no explicit decision rules for the sea bass fishery
in the North Sea. As stated under 1.2.1, technical harvest control measures are in place and could be extended when considered necessary.
Page 65 of 151

This is regarded as an implicit harvest control rule.
The assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since
the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points.
All of the SGP 60 requirements and the second and third SG80 requirements are met, but the HCRs that are in place do not ensure that the
exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached (with respect to MSY, since recruitment is not stock-driven). A score of 75
is therefore awarded.
Condition: the client will be asked to liaise with management and research bodies and to determine what part they can play in the development
of an appropriate harvest control rule.
Score:
75
Audit trace references
Page 66 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.2.3 Information /
monitoring: Relevant
information is
collected to support
the harvest strategy
Scoring comments
(1-60) Some relevant information
related to stock structure, stock
productivity and fleet
composition is available to
support the harvest strategy.
(2-60) 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.
(1-80) Sufficient relevant
information related to stock
structure, stock productivity, fleet
composition and other data is
available to support the harvest
strategy.
(2-80) 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.
(3-80) There is good information
on all other fishery removals
from the stock.
(1-100) 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.
(2-100) 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 management to
this uncertainty.
Good information is available on fleet structure and commercial fishery removals of sea bass, indicators of stock abundance and stock
productivity are available, and there is a good understanding of the uncertainties in this information. Netherlands and UK surveys have provided
valuable fishery-independent data on year class strength. Monitoring of length, weight and age is carried out on a structural basis (in the UK and
France: biological sampling of sea bass in the Netherlands is very limited) and is consistent with the harvest control rule.
While there is no comprehensive information about the recreational angling catch of sea bass, the consequences of these and other fishery
Page 67 of 151

emovals are apparent in the range of information available for the stock. The assessment team considers that, though there are some inherent
uncertainties such as the absolute stock size or the scale of all removals from the stock, the comprehensive range of information on the biology
of sea bass and its response to environmental influences is sufficient to support the current harvest strategy.
Recommendation: Encouragement of the extension of the collection of biological information on sea bass landed in the Netherlands.
All SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are satisfied. A score of 80 is therefore awarded.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 68 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
1.2.4 Assessment of stock
status: There is an
adequate assessment
of the stock status
(1-60) The assessment
estimates stock status relative to
reference points.
(2-60) The major sources of
uncertainty are identified.
(1-80) The assessment is
appropriate for the stock and for
the harvest control rule, and is
evaluating stock status relative
to reference points.
(2-80) The assessment takes
uncertainty into account.
(3-80) The stock assessment is
subject to peer review.
(1-100) The assessment is
appropriate for the stock and for
the harvest control rule and
takes into account the major
features relevant to the biology
of the species and the nature of
the fishery.
(2-100) The assessment takes
into account uncertainty and is
evaluating stock status relative
to reference points in a
probabilistic way.
(3-100) The assessment has
been tested and shown to be
robust. Alternative hypotheses
and assessment approaches
have been rigorously explored.
(4-100) The assessment has
been internally and externally
peer reviewed.
Scoring comments
There is an assessment methodology for evaluating sea bass stock status relative to the reference points defined in the harvest strategy (yield
per recruit and MSY), which takes account of all of the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The
assessments take uncertainty into account, and have been subject to peer review (Kupschus,et al., 2007 and Kupschus, 2010, by ICES), and
published (Pawson et al., 2005; Pawson et al., 2007b). These models are considered appropriate for the stock by ICES SGBASS and WGNEW
The assessment team notes, however that the most recent assessments of this stock (Kupschus et al., 2007, Kupschus 2010) are thought to be
increasingly uncertain, other than in terms of trends in SSB. Consequently, the stock status at present is uncertain.
Score:
80 (default score RBF on 1.1.1)
Page 69 of 151

Audit trace references
Insert refs quoted under scoring comments
.
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the
ecosystem
(including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.1 Retained non-target species
2.1.1 Status: The fishery
does not pose a risk of
serious or irreversible
harm to the retained
species and does not
hinder recovery of
depleted retained
species.
Scoring comments
(1-60) Main retained species are
likely to be within biologically
based limits or if 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.
(2-60) 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.
(1-80) Main retained species are
highly likely to be within
biologically based limits, or if
outside the limits there is a
partial strategy of demonstrably
effective management measures
in place such that the fishery
does not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
(1-100) There is a high degree of
certainty that retained species
are within biologically based
limits.
(2-100) Target reference points
are defined and retained species
are at or fluctuating around their
target reference points.
Page 70 of 151

The main retained species besides sea bass is cod. Cod in the North Sea is currently outside safe biological limits and a recovery plan is in
place. The members of the VBHL generally have sufficient cod quota to cover the total catch of cod that the UoC landed in the years 2006 –
2009 (below 30 t p a), which is considered too low to significantly hinder the recovery of the cod stock. A recovery plan for cod is in place, with
the aim to achieve a target fishing mortality of 0.4 to which the UoC is a negligible contributor.
Cod is the only species that is considered a main retained species in this fishery. The catches of other species are (pollack, ling, gurnards) are
so low that they need not be considered here.
The main retained species other than sea bass is cod, which ICES (ICES 2010) considers to be suffering reduced reproductive capacity and is
in danger of being harvested unsustainably. However, there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such
that the UoC fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of North Sea cod.
All SG 80 requirements are satisfied.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
ICES, 2010
Page 71 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.1.2 Management
strategy: There is a
strategy in place for
managing retained
species that is
designed to ensure
the fishery does not
pose a risk of serious
or irreversible harm to
retained species.
(1-60) There are measures in
place, if necessary, that are
expected to maintain the main
retained species at levels which
are highly likely to be within
biologically based limits, or to
ensure the fishery does not
hinder their recovery and
rebuilding.
(2-60) The measures are
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.,
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
(1-80) There is a partial strategy
in place, if necessary that is
expected to maintain the main
retained species at levels which
are highly likely to be within
biologically based limits, or to
ensure the fishery does not
hinder their recovery and
rebuilding.
(2-80) There is some objective
basis for confidence that the
partial strategy will work, based
on some information directly
about the fishery and/or species
involved.
(3-80) There is some evidence
that the partial strategy is being
implemented successfully.
(1-100) There is a strategy in
place for managing retained
species.
(2-100) The strategy is mainly
based on information directly
about the fishery and/or species
involved, and testing supports
high confidence that the strategy
will work.
(3-100) There is clear evidence
that the strategy is being
implemented successfully, and
intended changes are occurring.
(4-100) There is some evidence
that the strategy is achieving its
overall objective.
Scoring comments
There is an EU Norway recovery plan for cod that was updated in 2008, when a long-term management plan for this stock was adopted (Council
Regulation (EC) 1342/2008). Thus, there is a partial strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoC fishery does not hinder the recovery
and rebuilding of North Sea cod. The rules in the long-term management plan have been implemented through the TACs set by the European
Commission, and there is evidence that the fishing mortality has been reduced
ICES evaluated both plans in 2009 and concluded they are in accordance with the precautionary approach if implemented and enforced
adequately. Therefore, there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the
fishery and/or species involved.
Page 72 of 151

The vessels within the UoC have been able to obtain enough quota to cover their cod landings, which are small and are counted against the cod
quota that has been established in the framework of the cod recovery plan.
Whilst cod landings under 50 kg of wet weight have to be reported at landing and are counted against the national cod quota, they are not
counted against individual quotas. This rule could be an incentive for underreporting or high grading with the aim of staying below 50 kg limit.
The overall landings of the client fishery are considered to be too low to have any significant impact on cod stock recovery in the North Sea.
Recommendation: Develop measures in the fisheries management plan to prevent high grading or underreporting.
All SG 80 requirements are satisfied.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting
those stocks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2004; ICES 2010.
Page 73 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.1.3 Information /
monitoring:
Information on the
nature and extent of
retained species is
adequate to determine
the risk posed by the
fishery and the
effectiveness of the
strategy to manage
retained species.
(1-60) Qualitative information is
available on the amount of main
retained species taken by the
fishery.
(2-60) Information is adequate to
qualitatively assess outcome
status with respect to biologically
based limits.
(3-60) Information is adequate to
support measures to manage
main retained species.
(1-80) Qualitative information and
some quantitative information are
available on the amount of main
retained species taken by the
fishery.
(2-80) Information is sufficient to
estimate outcome status with
respect to biologically based
limits.
(3-80) Information is adequate to
support a partial strategy to
manage main retained species.
(4-80) Sufficient data continue to
be collected to detect any
increase in risk level (e.g. due to
changes in the outcome indicator
scores or the operation of the
fishery or the effectiveness of the
strategy).
(1-100) Accurate and verifiable
information is available on the
catch of all retained species and
the consequences for the status
of affected populations.
(2-100) Information is sufficient to
quantitatively estimate outcome
status with a high degree of
certainty.
(3-100) Information is adequate
to support a comprehensive
strategy to manage retained
species, and evaluate with a high
degree of certainty whether the
strategy is achieving its objective.
(4-100) Monitoring of retained
species is conducted in sufficient
detail to assess ongoing
mortalities to all retained species.
Scoring comments
Quantitative information about the amount of cod landed by the fishery is available through the logbook system. The data are stored in the VIRIS
system of the AID (1-80). The information is sufficient to conclude that the amount of cod taken in this fishery will not significantly affect the
outcome status with respect to biologically based limits (2-80). The information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained
species (cod) (3-80).
Since all cod landings are recorded and discarding of cod is very limited, sufficient data continue to be collected from the UoC to detect any
increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).
Page 74 of 151

All SG 80 requirements are satisfies and a score of 80 awarded.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Landing statistics in the VIRIS system
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.2 Discarded species (also known as “by catch” or
“discards”)
2.2.1 Status: The fishery
does not pose a risk of
serious or irreversible
harm to the by catch
species or species
groups and does not
hinder recovery of
depleted by catch
species or species
groups.
(1-60) Main by catch species are
likely to be within biologically
based limits, or if outside such
limits there are mitigation
measures in place that are
expected to ensure that the
fishery does not hinder recovery
and rebuilding.
(2-60) If the status is poorly
known there are measures or
practices in place that are
expected result in the fishery not
causing the by catch species to
be biologically based limits or
hindering
recovery.
(1-80) Main by catch species are
highly likely to be within
biologically based limits or if
outside such limits there is a
partial strategy of demonstrably
effective mitigation measures in
place such that the fishery does
not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
(1-100) There is a high degree of
certainty that by catch species
are within biologically based
limits.
Scoring comments
The client fishery is a very clean fishery. All species caught in this fishery are retained species, and there is no discarding of species that are not
retained or otherwise considered to be ETP species. Therefore, the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to any by catch
species and does not hinder recovery of depleted by catch species
Page 75 of 151

FAMv2 7.1.10 states ―If it can be shown that a fishery has no impact on a particular Component, it would receive a score of 100 under the
Outcome PI‖‖
Therefore a score of 100 is awarded.
Score:
100
Audit trace references
Page 76 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.2.2 Management
strategy: There is a
strategy in place for
managing by catch
that is designed to
ensure the fishery
does not pose a risk of
serious or irreversible
harm to by catch
populations.
Scoring comments
(1-60) There are measures in
place, if necessary, which are
expected to maintain main by
catch species at levels which are
highly likely to be within
biologically based limits or to
ensure that the fishery does not
hinder their recovery.
(2-60) The measures are
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
(1-80) There is a partial strategy
in place, if necessary, for
managing by catch that is
expected to maintain main by
catch species at levels which are
highly likely to be within
biologically based limits or to
ensure that the fishery does not
hinder their recovery.
(2-80) There is some objective
basis for confidence that the
partial strategy will work, based
on some information directly
about the fishery and/or the
species involved.
(3-80) There is some evidence
that the partial strategy is being
implemented successfully.
(1-100) There is a strategy in
place for managing and
minimising by catch.
(2-100) The strategy is mainly
based on information directly
about the fishery and/or species
involved, and testing supports
high confidence that the strategy
will work.
(3-100) There is clear evidence
that the strategy is being
implemented successfully, and
intended changes are occurring.
There is some evidence that the
strategy is achieving its
objective.
The fishing practice is to target only sea bass and cod with lures, and it is expected that it will continue to have no impact on by catch species.
This means that the fishery will continue to have no impact on this component and from monitoring by VBHL of its member catches any change
would be detected. (Therefore the requirement at SG100 is met*.)
*(FAM v2 7.1.26 states: If it has been shown that a fishery has no impact on a particular Component and has therefore scored 100 under the
Outcome PI, it shall still be scored under the Management Strategy PI. But to meet the requirement at SG100 this may simply comprise a
Page 77 of 151

statement of intent about continuing to have no impact and ongoing monitoring to ensure that no impact occurs.)
Score:
100
Audit trace references
Page 78 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.2.3 Information /
monitoring:Information
on the nature and
amount of by catch is
adequate to determine
the risk posed by the
fishery and the
effectiveness of the
strategy to manage by
catch.
Scoring comments
(1-60) Qualitative information is
available on the amount of main
by catch species affected by the
fishery.
(2-60) Information is adequate to
broadly understand outcome
status with respect to biologically
based limits.
(3-60) Information is adequate to
support measures to manage by
catch.
(1-80) Qualitative information
and some quantitative
information are available on the
amount of main by catch species
affected by the fishery.
(2-80) Information is sufficient to
estimate outcome status with
respect to biologically based
limits.
(3-80) Information is adequate to
support a partial strategy to
manage main by catch species.
(4-80) Sufficient data continue to
be collected to detect any
increase in risk to main by catch
species (e.g. due to changes in
the outcome indicator scores or
the operation of the fishery or
the effectiveness of the
strategy).
(1-100) Accurate and verifiable
information is available on the
amount of all by catch and the
consequences for the status of
affected populations.
(2-100) information is sufficient
to quantitatively estimate
outcome status with respect to
biologically based limits with a
high degree of certainty.
(3-100) Information is adequate
to support a comprehensive
strategy to manage by catch,
and evaluate with a high degree
of certainty whether a strategy is
achieving its objective.
(4-100) Monitoring of by catch
data is conducted in sufficient
detail to assess ongoing
mortalities to all by catch
species.
Page 79 of 151

Expert knowledge and the information available on landings form a sound basis for the conclusion that there are no by catch species in this
fishery and that all species caught are retained (when above the minimum landing size). The information is appropriate with the scale and the
intensity of the fishery (1-80) and sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits (2-80).
Information about the catches in this fishery and the fishing techniques of the VBHL members is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage
main by catch species.
The fishing operations of the client members are monitored by the VBHL. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to
main by catch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) (4-
80).
Recommendation: that monitoring of by catch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess any mortality of potential by catch species.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 80 of 151

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.3.1 Status: The fishery
meets
national and
international
requirements for
protection
of ETP species.
The fishery does not
pose a risk of serious
or
irreversible harm to
ETP
species and does not
hinder recovery of
ETP
species.
(1-60) Known effects of the
fishery are likely to be within
limits of national and
international requirements for
protection of ETP species.
(2-60) Known direct effects are
unlikely to create unacceptable
impacts to ETP species.
(1-80) The effects of the fishery
are known and are highly likely
to be within limits of national and
international requirements for
protection of ETP species.
(2-80) Direct effects are highly
unlikely to create unacceptable
impacts to ETP species.
(3-80) Indirect effects have been
considered and are thought to
be unlikely to create
unacceptable impacts.
(1-100) There is a high degree of
certainty that the effects of the
fishery are within limits of
national and international
requirements for protection of
ETP species.
(2-100) There is a high degree of
confidence that there are no
significant detrimental effects
(direct and indirect) of the fishery
on ETP species.
Scoring comments
Because the UoC fishes with rod and line, it is considered impossible that marine mammals are caught. There is a high degree of certainty that
the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.
Very occasionally a bird might accidentally get tangled up in a fishing line. When this happens the bird will immediately be released and most
probably will survive the incident. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.
Page 81 of 151

Rare fish like skates or sturgeons are very unlikely to be caught due to the fishing method. Fishermen state that they have never been caught.
Very occasionally a shark is caught by one of the vessels. These sharks have been described by the client as being spurdog (spiny dogfish).
The retention of spurdog in the North Sea is prohibited as the species is IUCN-red-listed as Near Threatened and the stock is considered over
exploited. There is a high degree of confidence that the occasionally incidental catch of spurdog and its return to the water has no significant
detrimental effects on this species.
All SG 100 requirements are satisfied and a score of 100 awarded.
Score:
100
Audit trace references
Page 82 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.3.2 Management
strategy:
The fishery has in
place
precautionary
management
strategies designed to:
- meet national and
international
requirements;
- ensure the fishery
does
not pose a risk of
serious
or irreversible harm to
ETP species;
- ensure the fishery
does
not hinder recovery of
ETP
species; and
- minimise mortality of
ETP species.
(1-60) There are measures in
place that minimise mortality,
and are expected to be highly
likely to achieve national and
international requirements for
the protection of ETP species.
(2-60) The measures are
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
(1-80) There is a strategy in
place for managing the fishery‘s
impact on ETP species,
including measures to minimise
mortality that is designed to be
highly likely to achieve national
and international requirements
for the protection of ETP
species.
(2-80) There is an objective
basis for confidence that the
strategy will work, based on
some information directly about
the fishery and/or the species
involved.
(3-80) There is evidence that the
strategy is being implemented
successfully.
(1-100) There is a
comprehensive strategy in place
for managing the fishery‘s
impact on ETP species,
including measures to minimise
mortality that is designed to
achieve above national and
international requirements for
the protection of ETP species.
(2-100) The strategy is mainly
based on information directly
about the fishery and/or species
involved, and a quantitative
analysis supports
high confidence that the strategy
will work.
(3-100) There is clear evidence
that the strategy is being
implemented successfully, and
intended
changes are occurring. There is
evidence that the strategy is
achieving its objective.
Scoring comments
The fact that the client fishes with rod and line and specifically and very selectively targets sea bass and cod can be considered an effective
strategy to prevent the catch or mortality of ETP species (1-80).
There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved
(2-80) and there is anecdotal evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully (3-80).
All SG 80 requirements are satisfied and a score of 80 awarded.
Page 83 of 151

Score:
80
Audit trace references
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.3.3 Information /
monitoring
Relevant information
is
collected to support
the
management of
fishery
impacts on ETP
species,
including:
- information for the
development of the
management strategy;
- information to assess
the
effectiveness of the
management strategy;
and
- information to
determine
the outcome status of
ETP
species.
(1-60) Information is adequate to
broadly understand the impact of
the fishery on ETP species.
(2-60) Information is adequate to
support measures to manage
the impacts on ETP species
(3-60) Information is sufficient to
qualitatively
estimate the fishery related
mortality of ETP species.
(1-80) Information is sufficient to
determine whether the fishery
may be a threat to protection
and recovery of the ETP
species, and if so, to measure
trends and support a full strategy
to manage impacts.
(2-80) Sufficient data are
available to allow fishery related
mortality and the impact of
fishing to be quantitatively
estimated for ETP species.
(1-100) Information is sufficient
to quantitatively
estimate outcome status with a
high degree of certainty.
(2-100) Information is adequate
to support a
comprehensive strategy to
manage impacts, minimize
mortality and injury of ETP
species, and evaluate with a
high degree of certainty whether
a strategy is achieving its
objectives.
(3-100) Accurate and verifiable
information is
available on the magnitude of all
impacts, mortalities and injuries
and the consequences for the
status of ETP species
Scoring comments
Expert knowledge augmented by information provided by the client allows for the conclusion that information is sufficient to determine that the
fishery is no threat to protection and recovery of ETP species (1-80)
Page 84 of 151

All landings by the client fishery are entered in the logbook. If ETP fish species were caught and retained (which has not been the case in
recent years), these data would allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated. Although there is no
independent verifiable information on possible discards of ETP species, the client has only reported very low levels of spurdog catches and
discards. It is clear that marine mammals are not caught by rod and line, and it can be concluded that mortality caused by this fishery is zero
(2-80)
SG 80 requirements are satisfied and a score of 80 awarded.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 85 of 151

2.4 Habitat
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.4.1 Status: The fishery
does not cause
serious or
irreversible harm to
habitat
structure, considered
on a
regional or bioregional
basis, and function.
(1-60) The fishery is unlikely to
reduce habitat structure and
function to a point where there
would be serious or irreversible
harm.
(1-80) The fishery is highly
unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point
where there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
(1-100) There is evidence that
the fishery is highly unlikely to
reduce habitat structure and
function to a point where there
would be serious or irreversible
harm.
Scoring comments
The seafloor and habitat structures in the southern North Sea are not considered sensitive to the only impact likely to be due to the UoC‘s
fishery: namely anchoring with the relatively lightweight anchors. There is some evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Score:
95
Audit trace references
Page 86 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.4.2 Management
strategy:
There is a strategy in
place
that is designed to
ensure
the fishery does not
pose a
risk of serious or
irreversible harm to
habitat
types.
(1-60) There are measures in
place, if necessary, that are
expected to achieve the Habitat
Outcome 80 level of
performance.
(2-60) The measures are
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/habitats).
(1-80) There is a partial strategy
in place, if necessary, that is
expected to achieve the Habitat
Outcome 80 level of
performance or above.
(2-80) There is some objective
basis for confidence that the
partial strategy will work, based
on some information directly
about the fishery
and/or habitats involved.
(3-80) There is some evidence
that the partial strategy is being
implemented successfully.
(1-100) There is a strategy in
place for managing the impact of
the fishery on habitat types.
(2-100) The strategy is mainly
based on information directly
about the fishery and/or habitats
involved, and testing supports
high confidence that the strategy
will work.
(3-100) There is clear evidence
that the strategy is being
implemented successfully, and
intended changes are occurring.
There is some evidence
that the strategy is achieving its
objective.
Scoring comments
The fishing method used can be considered as a partial strategy that is expected to effectively minimise impacts of the fishery on the sea
bottom so as to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance (1-80).
From expert judgment and the plausible argument that fishing with rod and line in the way client operates does not pose a risk of serious or
irreversible harm to habitat types, it is concluded that this partial strategy is likely to work (2-80) and that there is some evidence that the partial
strategy is being implemented successfully.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 87 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.4.3 Information /
monitoring:
Information is
adequate to determine
the risk posed to
habitat types by the
fishery
and the effectiveness
of the strategy to
manage impacts on
habitat types.
(1-60) There is a basic
understanding of the types and
distribution of main habitats in
the area of the fishery.
(2-60) Information is adequate to
broadly understand the main
impacts of gear use on the main
habitats, including spatial extent
of interaction.
(1-80) The nature, distribution
and vulnerability of all main
habitat types in the fishery area
are known at a level of detail
relevant to the scale and
intensity of the fishery.
(2-80) Sufficient data are
available to allow the nature of
the impacts of the fishery on
habitat types to be identified and
there is reliable information on
the spatial extent, timing and
location of use of the fishing
gear.
(3-80) Sufficient data continue to
be collected to detect any
increase in risk to habitat (e.g.
due to changes in the outcome
indicator scores or the operation
of the fishery or the
effectiveness of the measures).
(1-100) The distribution of
habitat types is known over their
range, with particular attention to
the occurrence of vulnerable
habitat types.
(2-100) Changes in habitat
distributions over time are
measured.
(3-100) The physical impacts of
the gear on the habitat types
have been quantified fully.
Scoring comments
The North Sea is the most intensively investigated sea area in the world. Generations of zoologists, botanists and hydrographers — and more
recently microbiologists, meteorologists, climatologists, chemists, pathologists and toxicologists — have produced an impressive body of
knowledge (Kinne, 1995).
The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and
intensity of the fishery (1-80).
The distribution of North Sea bottom habitat types and their sensitivity for bottom impacts such as trawling has been investigated in detail.
Sufficient knowledge is available to allow the nature of the impacts of a rod and line fishery on different types of sea bottom (sand, gravel or
Page 88 of 151

mud) to be identified and from data provided by the client there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the
fishing gear. (2-80).
The VHBL members only fish with rod and line and no other practices are permitted. The VBHL monitors the activities of its members and this
monitoring ensures that any increase in risk to habitat would be detected in an early stage. (3-80).
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 89 of 151

2.5 Ecosystem
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.5.1 Status: The fishery
does not cause
serious or irreversible
harm to the key
elements of
ecosystem structure
and function.
(1-60) The fishery is unlikely to
disrupt the key elements
underlying ecosystem structure
and function to a point where
there would be a serious or
irreversible harm.
(1-80) The fishery is highly
unlikely to disrupt the key
elements underlying ecosystem
structure and function to a point
where there would be a serious
or irreversible harm.
(1-100) There is evidence that
the fishery is highly unlikely to
disrupt the key elements
underlying ecosystem structure
and function to a point where
there would be a serious or
irreversible harm.
Scoring comments
The only impact of this fishery on the ecosystem is the removal of a limited amount of predatory fish (sea bass, cod and pollack) from the
ecosystem. It is highly unlikely that this will affect ecosystem structure, trophic relationships or biodiversity to a point where there would be a
serious or irreversible harm.
Score:
90
Audit trace references
Page 90 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.5.2
Management
strategy:
There are measures in
place to ensure the
fishery does not pose
a risk of serious or
irreversible harm to
ecosystem structure
and function.
(1-60) There are measures in
place, if necessary, that take into
account potential impacts of the
fishery on key elements of the
ecosystem.
(2-60) The measures are
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.,
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/ ecosystems).
(1-80) There is a partial strategy
in place, if necessary, that takes
into account available
information and is expected to
restrain impacts of the fishery on
the ecosystem so as to achieve
the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level
of performance.
(2-80) The partial strategy is
considered likely to work, based
on plausible argument (e.g.,
general experience, theory or
comparison with similar
fisheries/ ecosystems).
(3-80) There is some evidence
that the measures comprising
the partial strategy are being
implemented successfully.
(1-100) There is a strategy that
consists of a plan, containing
measures to address all main
impacts of the fishery on the
ecosystem, and at least some of
these measures are in place.
The plan and measures are
based on well understood
functional relationships between
the fishery and the Components
and elements of the ecosystem.
(2-100) This plan provides for
development of a full strategy
that restrains impacts on the
ecosystem to ensure the fishery
does not cause serious or
irreversible harm.
(3-100) The measures are
considered likely to work based
on prior experience, plausible
argument or information directly
from the fishery/ecosystems
involved.
(4-100) There is evidence that
the measures are being
implemented successfully.
Scoring comments
The fishing method used can be considered as a partial strategy that is expected to effectively restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance (1-80).
From expert judgment and the plausible argument that fishing with rod and line in the way client operates does not pose a risk of serious or
Page 91 of 151

irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function, it is concluded that this partial strategy is likely to work (2-80) and that there is some
evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully (3-80).
Recommendation: It is recommended by the assessment team that the client‘s (draft) management plan includes a requirement that litter is
taken to shore and disposed of in a responsible way, and that a replacement is found for the use of lead in lures.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
2.5.3 Information /
monitoring:
There is adequate
knowledge of the
impacts
of the fishery on the
ecosystem.
(1-60) Information is adequate to
identify the key elements of the
ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure
and function, community
composition, productivity pattern
and biodiversity).
(2-60) Main impacts of the
fishery on these key ecosystem
elements can be inferred from
existing information, but have
not been investigated in detail.
(1-80) Information is adequate to
broadly understand the functions
of the key elements of the
ecosystem.
(2-80) Main impacts of the
fishery on these key ecosystem
elements can be inferred from
existing information, but may not
have been investigated in detail.
(3-80) The main functions of the
Components (i.e. target, By
catch, Retained and ETP
species and Habitats) in the
ecosystem are known.
(1-100) Information is adequate
to broadly understand the key
elements of the ecosystem.
(2-100) Main interactions
between the fishery and these
ecosystem elements can be
inferred from existing
information, and have been
investigated.
(3-100) The impacts of the
fishery on target, By catch,
Retained and ETP species and
Habitats are identified and the
main functions of these
components in the ecosystem
are understood.
Page 92 of 151

Scoring comments
(4-80) Sufficient information is
available on the impacts of the
fishery on these Components to
allow some of the main
consequences for the ecosystem
to be inferred.
(5-80) Sufficient data continue to
be collected to detect any
increase in risk level (e.g. due to
changes in the outcome
indicator scores or the operation
of the fishery or the
effectiveness of the measures).
(4-100) Sufficient information is
available on the impacts of the
fishery on the components and
elements to allow the main
consequences for the ecosystem
to be inferred.
(5-100) Information is sufficient
to support the development of
strategies to manage ecosystem
impacts.
There is extensive research carried out on North Sea fisheries and the North Seas ecosystem The existing Information on the North Sea
ecosystem is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem (1-100).
Although the main impacts of the UoC have not all been studied in detail, the main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can
be inferred from expert knowledge (2-80).
The North Sea is the most intensively investigated sea area in the world, which has generated sufficient knowledge such that the main functions
of the Components (i.e. Target, By catch, Retained and ETP species, and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known,(3-80).
Expert knowledge augmented by information provided by the client allows for the conclusion that there is no significant impact from this fishery
on the ecosystem. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main
consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred,(4-80).
The extensive body of knowledge on the North Sea ecosystem and Information about the fishery is sufficient to support the development of
strategies to manage ecosystem impacts, if necessary (5-100).
Score:
90
Audit trace references
Page 93 of 151

Page 94 of 151

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and
standards and
incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and
sustainable
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.1 Governance and
Policy
3.1.1 Legal and/or
customary
framework:
The management
system
exists within an
appropriate and
effective
legal and/or
customary
framework which
ensures
that it:
- Is capable of
delivering
sustainable fisheries
in
accordance with MSC
Principles 1 and 2;
- Observes the legal
rights
created explicitly or
established by custom
of
people dependent on
fishing for food or
(1-60) The management system
is generally consistent with
local, national or international
laws or standards that are
aimed at achieving sustainable
fisheries in accordance with
MSC Principles 1 and 2.
(2-60) The management system
incorporates or is subject by law
to a mechanism for the
resolution of legal disputes
arising within the system.
(3-60) Although the
management authority or fishery
may be subject to continuing
court challenges, it is not
indicating a disrespect or
defiance of the law by
repeatedly violating the same
law or
(1-80) The management
system incorporates or is
subject by law to a transparent
mechanism for the resolution of
legal disputes which is
considered to be effective in
dealing with most issues and
that is appropriate to the
context of the fishery.
(2-80) The management
system or fishery is
attempting to comply in a
timely fashion with binding
judicial decisions arising from
any legal challenges.
(1-100) The management
system incorporates or is
subject by law to a transparent
mechanism for the resolution
of legal disputes that is
appropriate to the context of
the fishery and has been
tested and proven to be
effective.
(2-100) The management
system or fishery acts
proactively to avoid legal
disputes or rapidly implements
binding judicial decisions
arising from legal challenges.
Page 95 of 151

livelihood; and
- Incorporates an
appropriate dispute
resolution framework.
regulation necessary for the
sustainability for the fishery.
(4-60) The management system
has a mechanism to generally
respect the legal rights created
explicitly or established by
custom of people dependent on
fishing for food or livelihood in a
manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC Principles 1
and 2.
(3-80) The management
system has a mechanism to
observe the legal rights created
explicitly or established by
custom of people dependent
on fishing for food or livelihood
in a manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
(3-100) The management
system has a mechanism to
formally commit to the legal
rights created explicitly or
established by custom on
people dependent on fishing
for food and livelihood in a
manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC Principles 1
and 2.
Scoring comments
At EU level, fisheries are managed through the CFP in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation (EC. 2371/2002).
Article 2.2 of this regulation states, ―The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance:
(a) clear definition of responsibilities at the Community, national and local levels;
(b) a decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results;
(c) broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the policy from conception to implementation;
(d) consistent with other Community policies, in particular with environmental, social, regional, development, health and consumer protection
policies.
At National Level, the Dutch Government‘s Fisheries Act (Visserijwet, 1963) forms the basis for the implementation of the reformed EU
CFP. (2371/2002). The act established an institutional framework, licensing procedures and control and enforcement responsibilities. The
management system – both at EU and national level – is consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at
achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2 (1-60).
A clear legal framework also exists for judicial decisions to be appealed against both at national, and if necessary EU level. The Dutch legal
system is known to be effective and has transparent mechanisms (court actions, appeal) for the resolution of legal disputes. The Dutch
fisheries management system is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the
Page 96 of 151

context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective.(1-100)
Dutch fisheries are conducted on the basis of fishing licences. The Dutch legal system and the fisheries management system has a
mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a
manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 (3-80).
The system of consultation and industry representation through a local fishing organization enables the authorities to work in a proactive
manner. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal
challenges(2-80).
Score:
85
Audit trace references
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy
Page 97 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.1.2 Consultation, roles
and
responsibilities:
The management
system
has effective
consultation
processes that are
open to
interested and
affected
parties. The roles and
responsibilities of
organisations and
individuals who are
involved in the
management process
are clear and
understood by all
relevant parties.
(1-60) Organisations and
individuals involved in the
management process have
been identified. Functions, roles
and responsibilities are
generally understood.
(2-60) The management system
includes consultation processes
that obtain relevant information
from the main affected parties,
including local knowledge, to
inform the management system.
(1-80) Organisations and
individuals involved in the
management process have
been identified. Functions,
roles and responsibilities are
explicitly defined and well
understood for key areas of
responsibility and interaction.
(2-80) The management
system includes consultation
processes that regularly seek
and accept relevant
information, including local
knowledge. The management
system demonstrates
consideration of the information
obtained.
(3-80) The consultation
process provides opportunity
for all interested and affected
parties to be involved.
(1-100) Organisations and
individuals involved in the
management process have
been identified. Functions,
roles and responsibilities are
explicitly defined and well
understood for all areas of
responsibility and interaction.
(2-100) The management
system includes consultation
processes that regularly seek
and accept relevant
information, including local
knowledge. The management
system demonstrates
consideration of the
information
and explains how it is used or
not used.
(3-100) The consultation
process provides opportunity
and encouragement for all
interested and affected parties
to be involved, and facilitates
their effective engagement.
Scoring comments
There is clear and evident division of responsibility between EU and national institutions and authorities. At the national level, national
fisheries administrations and industry bodies (Ministerie van EconomischeZaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (EL&I), AlgemeneInspectiedienst,
IMARES) are responsible for a range of management and regulatory duties, including management of fleet activity, management of national
quota, monitoring and control of all fisheries occurring within national jurisdiction, collection, collation and transmitting of key fishery data,
and undertaking at least a base range of scientific monitoring and development work. Organizations and individuals involved in the
Page 98 of 151

management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of
responsibility and interaction (1-100).
Representatives of the Dutch fishing industry are represented at the North Sea Demersal RAC, which has contributed to improved industry /
management / science communication and consultation since the 2002 revision of the CFP. The Fisheries Directorate regularly invites
industry representatives to discuss new policy measures and other management issues (2-80).
Through regular consultation of stakeholders and formalised and regular consultations with the fishing industry the relevant authorities
regularly seek input from industry representatives. The consultation processes provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to
be involved (3-80).
However for the UoC fishery, the industry representation through the VBHL is not particularly strong.
Recommendation: the VBHL seeks a more professional representation possibly through a national fishery organisation.
Score:
85
Audit trace references
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy
Page 99 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.1.3 Long term
objectives:
The management
policy has clear longterm
objectives to
guide decision-making
that are consistent with
MSC Principles and
Criteria, and
incorporates the
precautionary
approach.
(1-60) Long-term objectives to
guide decision-making,
consistent with MSC Principles
and Criteria and the
precautionary approach, are
implicit within management
policy.
(1-80) Clear long-term
objectives that guide decisionmaking,
consistent with MSC
Principles and Criteria and the
precautionary approach, are
explicit within management
policy.
(1-100) Clear long-term
objectives that guide decisionmaking,
consistent with MSC
Principles and Criteria and the
precautionary approach, are
explicit within and required by
management
policy.
Scoring comments
At the EU level, the reformed CFP has clearly defined long-term objectives aimed at improving the basis of the decision-making process
through sound and transparent scientific advice and increased participation of stakeholders. The CFP is designed to ensure sustainable
exploitation through the application of a precautionary approach, to protect and conserve living aquatic resources and to minimise the impact
of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. One current aim is a progressive implementation of an eco-system-based approach to fisheries
management. It also aims to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture
industry, provide fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and take into account the interests of consumers.
The long-term objectives of the fisheries policy of the Minister of LNV were published in the 1992 Policy Document on Sea and Coastal
Fisheries (Structuurnota Zee– en Kustvisserij), which is aimed at an integration of fishing activities and conserving natural values where
possible and a separation of these two activities where necessary.
In recent years the objectives of the national fisheries policy of the Netherlands have been regularly noted in letters from the Minister of LNV to
the Parliament.
Clear long-term objectives that guide decision making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are
explicit within management policy (1-80).There are some requirements within the management system that long-term objectives are pursued
(1-100 partly met)..
Score:
90
Page 100 of 151

Audit trace references
Page 101 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.1.4 Incentives for
sustainable
fishing:
The management
system
provides economic
and
social incentives for
sustainable fishing
and
does not operate with
subsidies that
contribute to
unsustainable fishing.
(1-60) The management system
provides for incentives that are
consistent with achieving the
outcomes expressed by MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
(1-80) The management
system provides for incentives
that are consistent with
achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC Principles 1
and 2, and seeks to ensure
that negative incentives do not
arise.
(1-100) The management
system provides for incentives
that are consistent with
achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC Principles 1
and 2, and explicitly considers
incentives in a regular review
of management policy or
procedures to ensure that they
do not contribute to
unsustainable fishing practices.
Scoring comments
The system has no direct subsidies or incentives that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation by the UoC. Subsidies
for innovations in the fishery are available through the European Fisheries Fund (EuropeesVisserijFonds, EVF), which work as incentives to
develop more environmentally friendly fishing techniques.
The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and
seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise (1-80). Occasional reviews of management policy or procedures ensure that they do
not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices.
Every vessel that fishes on a commercial basis needs to be registered in the register of fishing vessels and has to have sufficient HP and
GRT and sufficient quota for quota species caught.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 102 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.2 Fishery- specific management system
3.2.1 Fishery- specific
objectives:
The fishery has clear,
specific objectives
designed to achieve
the outcomes
expressed by MSC‘s
Principles 1 and 2.
(1-60) Objectives, which are
broadly consistent with
achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC‘s Principles
1 and 2, are implicit within the
fishery‘s management system.
(1-80) Short and long term
objectives, which are
consistent with achieving the
outcomes expressed by MSC‘s
Principles 1 and 2, are explicit
within the fishery‘s
management
system.
(1-100) Well defined and
measurable short and long
term objectives, which are
demonstrably consistent with
achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC‘s Principles
1 and 2, are explicit within the
fishery‘s management
system.
Scoring comments
Management objectives for the Dutch fishing industry are formulated at national level by the Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality. Each year, the Director of Fisheries sends a letter with objectives and strategies to all stakeholders involved. The objective for the
North Sea fish stocks is clearly defined as the sustainable harvest and the reduction of impacts on the ecosystem. These apply to fisheries
targeting sea bass as to any other fishery, but are not explicit in this sense.
As sea bass are not a quota species, and there are no biological reference points, no specific objectives relating to stock management have
been formulated. However, the total fishing effort is controlled by regulations limiting the access to the fishery (vessels need to be registered
and have HP and GRT allocations) and by control regulations. Objectives that are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2 are, therefore, implicit within the fishery‘s management system (1-60,1-80 partly met).
CONDITION: The establishment of a more formal decision-making process for the UoC, including research evaluation, consultation and
evaluation against management objectives, has been formulated as a condition.
Score:
70
Audit trace references
Page 103 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.2.2 Decision-making
processes:
The fishery-specific
management system
includes effective
decision-making
processes that result
in measures and
strategies to achieve
the objectives.
Scoring comments
(1-60) There are informal
decision-making processes that
result in measures and
strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives.
(2-60) Decision-making
processes respond to serious
issues identified in relevant
research, monitoring, evaluation
and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and adaptive
manner and take some account
of the wider implications of
decisions.
(1-80) There are established
decision-making processes
that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives.
(2-80) Decision-making
processes respond to serious
and other important issues
identified in relevant research,
monitoring, evaluation and
consultation, in a transparent,
timely and adaptive manner
and take account of the wider
implications of decisions.
(3-80) Decision-making
processes use the
precautionary approach and
are based on best available
information.
(4-80) Explanations are
provided for any actions or lack
of action associated with
findings and relevant
recommendations emerging
from research, monitoring,
evaluation and review activity.
(1-100) There are established
decision-making processes
that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives.
(2-100) Decision-making
processes respond to all
issues identified in relevant
research, monitoring,
evaluation and consultation, in
a transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take
account of the wider
implications of decisions.
(3-100) Decision-making
processes use the
precautionary approach and
are based on best available
information.
(4-100) Formal reporting to all
interested stakeholders
describes how the
management system
responded to findings and
relevant recommendations
emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation and
review activity.
Page 104 of 151

Although few measures and strategies are specifically developed for the sea bass fishery at the national level, the decision-making process
is quite capable of producing such measures and strategies when deemed necessary. There are established decision-making processes
that result in measures and strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives(1-80).
Consultation processes exist between the national authorities, the fishing industry and NGO‘s. Decision making processes respond to serious
and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive
manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions (2-80).
A specific policy for the UoC has not been developed. Since the landings of this fishery are relatively low compared to other fishing sectors in
the Netherlands, the fishery has not attracted much attention from fishery managers or NGO‘s.
CONDITION: The establishment of a more formal decision making process for the sea bass fishery, including research and consultation and
evaluation against management objectives, has been formulated as a condition.
Score:
70
Audit trace references
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.2.3 Compliance and
enforcement:
Monitoring, control
and surveillance
mechanisms ensure
the fishery‘s
management
measures are
enforced and
complied with.
(1-60) Monitoring, control and
surveillance mechanisms exist,
are implemented in the fishery
under assessment and there is
a reasonable expectation that
they are effective.
(1-80) A monitoring, control
and surveillance system has
been implemented in the
fishery under assessment and
has demonstrated an ability to
enforce relevant management
measures, strategies and/or
rules.
(1-100) A comprehensive
monitoring, control and
surveillance system has been
implemented in the fishery
under assessment and has
demonstrated a consistent
ability to enforce relevant
management measures,
strategies
and/or rules.
Page 105 of 151

(2-60) Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist and there
is some evidence that they are
applied.
(3-60) Fishers are generally
thought to comply with the
management system for the
fishery under assessment,
including, when required,
providing information of
importance to the effective
management of the fishery.
(2-80) Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist, are
consistently applied and
thought to provide effective
deterrence.
(3-80) Some evidence exists to
demonstrate fishers comply
with the management system
under assessment, including,
when required, providing
information of importance to
the effective management of
the fishery.
(4-80) There is no evidence of
systematic noncompliance.
(2-100) Sanctions to deal with
non-compliance exist, are
consistently applied and
demonstrably provide effective
deterrence.
(3-100) There is a high degree
of confidence that fishers
comply with the management
system under assessment,
including, providing information
of importance to the effective
management of the fishery.
(4-100) There is no evidence of
systematic noncompliance.
Scoring comments
National Authorities enforce EU Fisheries Regulation and report on their activities to the European Commission.
There is a full system of monitoring, control and surveillance that covers this fishery, with log books and at sea and on land inspections. Both
administrative and criminal sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance with regulations. Licenses can be revoked administratively in case of
severe violations, which result in high monetary penalties (1-80).
Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist. Sanctions are high and are consistently applied when violations are noticed and thought to
provide effective deterrence (2-80).
The reports of the national enforcement agency (AID) demonstrate that inspections are carried out and that the fishers generally comply with
the management measures under assessment. The AID reports provide information of importance to the effective management of the
fishery (3-80). And show that there is no evidence of systematic noncompliance (4-80).
However, the level of actual control of landings by the UoC is considered quite low.
Recommendation: Develop measures in the fisheries management plan to prevent high grading or underreporting.
Page 106 of 151

Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 107 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.2.4
Research plan:
The fishery has a
research
plan that addresses
the
information needs of
management.
(1-60) Research is undertaken,
as required, to achieve the
objectives consistent with
MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2.
(2-60) Research results are
available to interested parties.
(1-80) A research plan
provides the management
system with a strategic
approach to research and
reliable and timely information
sufficient to achieve the
objectives consistent with
MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2.
(2-80) Research results are
disseminated to all interested
parties in a timely fashion.
(1-100) A comprehensive
research plan provides the
management system with a
coherent and strategic
approach to research across
P1, P2 and P3, and reliable
and timely information
sufficient to achieve the
objectives consistent with
MSC‘s Principles 1 and 2.
(2-100) Research plan and
results are disseminated to all
interested parties in a timely
fashion and are widely and
publicly available.
Scoring comments
ICES establishes terms of references for Working Groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including
through industry representations, and by the EC, and has established a Working Group (WGNEW) on (largely non-quota) species for which
scientific advice may be sought under a MoU between the EC and ICES. These new MOU species include sea bass. There is some informal
research planning coordination via the North Sea Demersal RAC, though this has not included sea bass.
The EU research is coordinated by the EC and through the ERA nets and framework projects.
Under the Marine Strategy Framework, Member States are required to develop strategies for their marine waters. The marine strategies
must contain a detailed assessment of the state of the environment, a definition of "good environmental status" at regional level and the
establishment of clear environmental targets and monitoring programmes.
At national level, the Dutch government fund national (fisheries) research institutes to conduct projects that automatically involve planning
and selecting research areas that require further information (1-80).
Fundamental research, for example on environmental influences on stock dynamics or ecosystem impact studies, seems to be left to
individual scientists and the priorities and financial constraints of their parent organisations. Such work is undertaken on sea bass by British,
Dutch and French institutes and universities.
Page 108 of 151

Research conducted on sea bass in the Netherlands includes a tagging experiment in which IMARES is currently involved. Data on
recreational catches have been collected by the national organisation of recreational fishermen. The results of this research are
disseminated (through publication and ICES reports) and available to all parties (2-80).
Recommendation: Client should encourage IMARES to develop a research plan for sea bass in Dutch waters and to invite the client to be
involved in this work.
Score:
80
Audit trace references
Page 109 of 151

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100
3.2.5 Monitoring and
management
performance
evaluation: There is a
system for monitoring
and evaluating the
performance of the
fishery-specific
management system
against its objectives.
There is effective and
timely review of the
fishery-specific
management system.
(1-60) The fishery has in place
mechanisms to evaluate some
parts of the management
system and is subject to
occasional internal review.
(1-80) The fishery has in place
mechanisms to evaluate key
parts of the management
system and is subject to
regular internal and occasional
external review.
(1-100) The fishery has in
place mechanisms to evaluate
all parts of the management
system and is subject to
regular internal and external
review.
Scoring comments
The CFP was reviewed thoroughly prior to its reform in 2002. An obligation to review the basic regulation for the CFP before the end of 2012
is built into the regulation. Resulting policies, operational plans and practices are subject to wide consultation before ratification, and
prescribed monitoring and evaluation processes after ratification. Since 2004, RACs have been established that allow stakeholders to have
an input in the CFP management process. This includes the possibility to critically comment on the CFP management system.
Consideration of the recommendations of reviews is demonstrated.
Each member state must report to the EC annually on control matters. EC fishery inspectors monitor national enforcement activity. EC data
collection requirements, carried out by member states, are reviewed each year.
Within ICES, a Methods Working Group keeps methods for fish stock assessment under regular review.
Management measures (regulations) for the sea bass fishery will be evaluated by the Fisheries Directorate and are subject to internal
review. The management system as operated within the VBHL will be evaluated by the client organization. The VBHL will also review the
national management measures for the Dutch sea bass fishery and its effectiveness and can communicate its findings to the Fisheries
Directorate and control agencies (1-80 partly met). There is no independent review.
CONDITION: The establishment of a more formal decision making process for this fishery including research evaluation and consultation
and evaluation against management objectives with external review has been formulated as a condition.
Page 110 of 151

Score:
75
Audit trace references
Page 111 of 151

APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW REPORTS
Peer reviewer 1
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an
appropriate conclusion based on the evidence
presented in the assessment report?
Justification:
Not a lot of information is available on sea bass in the
North Sea, but, all information that is available has been
used in the assessment.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are
appropriately written to achieve the SG80
outcome within the specified timeframe?
Justification:
The conditions are described quite precise. It should be
clear what needs to be done and when this should be
achieved.
Yes Certification Body Response
This reviewer is chair of ICES WGNEW
and, therefore, understands what is
known about sea bass.
Yes Certification Body Response
No comment
Do you think the client action plan is sufficient
to close the conditions raised?
Yes Certification Body Response
Justification:
Point noted, and the client will be asked
Yes but: The action described for Condition 1 (1.2.2) “to to amended its action plan to
set out a MSY for North Sea bass” goes much further than correspond to the amended conditions
the Condition mentioned in the Scoring comments: “to (following comments from the other peer
determine what part can be played in the development of
an appropriate harvest control rule”. The action as
phrased in the Action Plan it might be difficult to achieve.
reviewer).
If included:

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
1. In the North Sea two species of the genus Pollachius occur: Pollachius virens or saithe and Pollachius pollachius or pollack. In the
southern North Sea only adult specimens of pollack occur. The species shown in Figure 4 is a clear example of a pollack. Saithe in the
North Sea has a much more northerly distribution. All references throughout the report to saithe should be changed in pollack. Agreed, text
etc amended as required.
Also there is no quota for pollack in the North Sea (ICES area IV) and the text below figure 4 on TAC and management should therefore be
deleted. Done
2. Our knowledge of sea bass, life history, stocks, and also fishery, is largely based on what is known for English waters. About the
situation in the Netherlands not a lot is known, but what is known has been used in the report.
3. A number of times the remark is made that there are no discards in this fishery. But at the same time it is said that small cod, below the
legal minimum size, are thrown back into the sea (paragraph 4.1 on page 28). So there are discards, and survival of these discards is
probably quite high, and no threat to the recovery of the North Sea cod stock. Remarks that there are no discards should be rephrased. The
text has been amended to clarify that the only discards are of species that are retained and landed, and that there is no non-retained by
catch (a difficulty with the MSC definitions).
4. Page 48, line 5 under Table 8: it is not clear to me where the score of 2.7 comers from.
In the footer of the same page it is said that weightings are given in Table 10 above: there is no table 10. The text above Table 8 explains
how the selectivity values for each of the hook and line, gill net and trawl fisheries were scored, but the aggregate score (2.7) was obtained
by weighting these scores (2,2,3) by the proportional landings taken by the 3 metiers in the North Sea (Table 10 is immediately below). The
foot note has now been incorporated in the text for clarification.
5. Under Recommendation 1 (page 56) it is said that the Client should encourage IMARES to extend the collection of biological information
on sea bass landed in the Netherlands. As long as this is not a ―legal task‖, or as long as this data-collection is not specifically paid for it is
highly unlikely that this will be done by IMARES. Point noted
6. In the scoring comments for 2.3.1 (page 84) spurdog (Squalus acanthias) is being mentioned as incidentally being caught. It does not
seem very likely to catch spurdog in this area. More likely the ―shark‖ that is being caught are smooth hound (Mustelus sp.). We have to
take information from the client who, incidentally, fish widely across the southern North Sea where spurdog do occur.
Page 113 of 151

Performance Indicator Review
Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body‘s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performanc
e Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available
been used to
score this
Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 yes yes NA RBF assessment used
1.1.2 yes yes NA RBF default score
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
1.1.3 yes yes NA Sea bass in the North Sea is not depleted. No
score has been given.
1.2.1 yes yes NA Based on experience in UK fisheries the harvest
strategy is likely to work
1.2.2 yes yes yes As it is phrased here the condition is likely to
improve the performance of the fishery
1.2.3 yes yes NA Monitoring is well organised on the EU
scale
1.2.4 yes yes NA RBF default score
Certification Body Response

Performanc
e Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available
been used to
score this
Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
2.1.1 yes yes NA Cod is the main bycatch, but the amount is
negligible. There is a recovery plan for this
species.
2.1.2 yes yes NA There is an EU recovery plan for cod. There are
quota for the cod catches.
2.1.3 yes yes NA The amount of cod landed is monitored in
logbooks, but is marginal.
2.2.1 yes no NA There is discarding, although amounts will be
small and survival is likely to be high
2.2.2 yes yes NA Impact on cod will remain marginal
2.2.3 yes yes NA The main bycatch species is cod, and cod catches
are monitored through logbooks
2.3.1 yes yes NA Mention is made of spurdog, this should probably
be smoothhound (Mustelus sp.) a species that is
not endangered.
Certification Body Response
Note that all discarding is claimed to be
undersized individuals of otherwise retained
species, not of ―by catch‖ species (MSC
definition).
See comments above.
Page 115 of 151

Performanc
e Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available
been used to
score this
Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
2.3.2 yes yes NA Fishing with rod and line in this area is a good
strategy to avoid catching of ETP species
2.3.3 yes yes NA Catches of ETP fish species are unlikely, and of
ETP marine mamals non-existent.
2.4.1 yes yes NA Light anchors will have no influence whatsoever
on habitat structure in the area
2.4.2 yes yes NA Fishing with rod and line is THE strategy to avoid
irreversible harm tot the habitat
2.4.3 yes yes NA VHBL monitors the activities of its members,
moreover the fishing techniques used is unlikely
to influence the habitat
2.5.1 yes yes NA The fishery removes a small amount of predatory
fish, but irreversible harm to the ecosystem is very
unlikely
2.5.2 yes yes NA Fishing with rod and line is a strategy to avoid
irreversible ecosystem impact
Certification Body Response
Page 116 of 151

Performanc
e Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available
been used to
score this
Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
2.5.3 yes yes NA There is adequate knowledge to know that the
impact of this fishery on the ecosystem will be
insignificant
3.1.1 yes yes NA A legal framework exists at a national and at the
EU level
3.1.2 yes yes NA Consultation processes, roles and responsibilities
are clear. The recommendation to VHBL to seek
better professional representation would further
improve their involvement.
3.1.3 yes yes NA The CFP has clear long term objectives. Dutch
policy supports the EU objectives.
3.1.4 yes yes NA There are incentives to support environmental
friendly fisheries.
3.2.1 yes yes yes National management objectives are in place. The
condition as formulated will make the decision
making process explicit.
3.2.2 yes yes yes The condition will help to use the available
information in the decision making processes
Certification Body Response
Page 117 of 151

Performanc
e Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available
been used to
score this
Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score
this Indicator
support the
given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance
to the SG80
level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
3.2.3 yes yes NA A monitoring system is in place, sanctions are
applied when necessary, for non-compliance
there is no evidence
3.2.4 yes yes NA Research needs are formulated by the relevant
ICES WG. Results of research are dissiminated
through ICES and publications.
3.2.5 yes yes yes The sea bass fishery is evaluated through ICES
and the EC. The condition will make the
evaluation of the monitoring and management
performance more formal.
Any Other Comments
Comments Certification Body Response
Certification Body Response
Page 118 of 151

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:
Performance
Indicator
1.1.1
2.1.1
2.2.1
2.4.1
2.5.1
Does the report
clearly explain
how the process
used to
determine risk
using the RBF
led to the stated
outcome?
Yes/No
Are the RBF risk
scores wellreferenced?
Yes/No
Justification:
Please support your answers by referring to specific
scoring issues and any relevant documentation where
possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary.
yes no The PSA score is 2.38 (see page 48). This is fed in
form in 4.4.2 of the FAM. But the score of 2.7 from
which the PSA score resulted can not be traced.
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise
from enhancement activities?
Justification:
Yes/No Certification Body Response:
Certification Body Response:
The aggregate score (2.7) was obtained by
weighting the individual scores of the hook
and line, gill net and trawl fisheries (2,2,3) by
the proportional landings of sea bass taken
by these 3 metiers in the North Sea (in Table
10).
Page 119 of 151

Page 120 of 151

Peer Reviewer 2
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an
appropriate conclusion based on the
evidence presented in the assessment
report?
Justification: I have serious concerns about the scoring
of P1. There are issues with the definition of unit stock,
the assessment of stock status, the impact of trawling on
the stock in terms of the level of exploitation and the
probable undesirable exploitation pattern, and the
application and outcome of the RBF approach. The rod
and line fishery is clearly selective, has a relatively small
impact on the bass stock, and minimal environmental
impact. However, MSC guidelines determine that all
fisheries exploiting the stock have to be taken account
of, and the report fails to convince that the trawl
fisheries, in particular, are not adversely exploiting bass.
Relying upon the assumption that favourable
environmental conditions will prevail and continue to
allow bass to extend their range and increase
abundance is a high risk strategy.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are
appropriately written to achieve the SG80
outcome within the specified timeframe?
Justification: I have made a suggestion for improvement
to Condition 1, and a minor change to Condition 4.
Condition 1 does not place sufficient emphasis on the
need to address the fisheries having the major impact on
No Certification Body Response
This reviewer‘s concerns are chiefly
about the evidence on the status of
the sea bass stock in the North Sea
and whether our scoring is too high.
The relevant issues are dealt with in
the overall comments, and those
against the scoring table, and will be
dealt with there. Note that the other
reviewer, being chair of ICES
WGNEW, understands what is
known about sea bass and does not
have a problem with our scoring
under Principle 1.
No Certification Body Response
The team has concluded that the P1
scores should stand (supported by
additional and clarifying text in the
report, thanks to this reviewer), and
Page 121 of 151

ass. If the scores I have questioned are revised
downwards, and the P1 score declines to

This is, in the main, a competent and comprehensive assessment of the Dutch rod and line fishery for Sea Bass against the MSC Principles and Criteria
for Sustainable Fisheries. The Report provides an authoritative overview of the fishery and the issues that relate to the three MSC Principles. I concur
with the majority of comments and scoring in the Report, though I have serious concerns about the overall score for Principle 1 and the use of the Risk
Based Framework (RBF).
Inevitably the majority of my comments relate to P1. This is not a reflection on the competence of the P1 assessor, but a consequence of dealing on
the one hand with a relatively data-poor fishery, and on the other hand, one which has very little environmental impact and takes place within a welldeveloped
fishery management regime.
The client rod and line fishery is relatively small scale and has a desirable exploitation pattern. It is the type of fishery that should be encouraged and
would be expected to meet the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. However, this assessment has to look at the total exploitation on
bass within the unit of certification. It is clear that there are extensive landings from other commercial fisheries (French mid-water trawling (not in the
North Sea), and Dutch beam-trawl, fly-seine and twin-rig trawl gears) and from the large Dutch recreational fishery. There appear to be warning signs of
declining landings and mean size (these are anecdotal and from recreational anglers, who have a well declared vested interest in sea bass fisheries)
that raise serious concerns about the impact of trawling with its undesirable exploitation pattern. In my view this assessment has failed to evaluate the
impact of these other fisheries at a level sufficient to convince that the southern North Sea bass stock is being exploited in a medium-term sustainable
manner. On that basis, unfortunately, I have concluded that this fishery should not be certified at this time. The assessment team has amended the
report to better substantiate the case for certification, see below.
2.1 Biology of the target species. There is a need to be a bit more definite about the current biological stock identity in the certification area. Do
we have a ―biologically distinct unit‖? Are there links with the English Channel? If yes, then has the exploitation in the Channel been taken into account
when assessing the state of the ―stock‖ in the southern North Sea?
What is known about the sea bass population in the North Sea and its connections with other areas is clearly spelt out in the report (and is the subject of
more refereed publications than for most other species‘ ―stocks‖ in NW European waters), and exploitation of the North Sea-English Channel stock unit
outside the area fished by the UoC is implicitly taken into account in the assessments.
2.2.1 History of the fishery. Can the landings data by country in Table 1 be split into IVc and VIId? No, and exploitation in VIId is relevant to stock
dynamics in the North Sea, see above. The French and Dutch exploitation by trawl in IVc has potentially serious implications for the southern North Sea
―stock‖. Are the landings excluding or including recreational fishing? Quote ―Dutch recreational landings of sea bass in 2006 were estimated at 195 t
(Kroon, 2007).‖ Are these included in Table 1? Table 1 presents commercial landings only. It is acknowledged that recreational catches of sea bass
must have some impact on exploitation levels, but overall mortality is reflected in the catch-at-age data series that have been used in assessments.
Page 123 of 151

3. Target Stock Status and Harvest Controls (P1). Should there be a heading here ―Stakeholder perceptions of the current state of the stock‖? This
could then refer to the quote ―General perception amongst recreational anglers as well as members of VBHL is that mature and bigger bass are getting
scarcer. There is a steady decline in the stamp [as quoted] of bass available to recreational anglers and other metiers like commercial rod and line
fishermen.‖ made by Jan Willem Wijnstroom, Sportvisserij Nederland in Appendix D. Are there any data to back up this assertion? Commercial catch at
age data do not indicate any population decline, though any inferences would be confounded by the year class strength pattern (e.g. the very abundant
1989 year class supported a strong fishery for larger fish in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but has now all but departed). All assessments have
indicated a continued increase in abundance of bass in the North Sea since the early 1990s, which has been accompanied by an extension in the
species‘ distribution range into the northern North Sea, as far as Norway. This has been accompanied by increased spawning success and recruitment
in the North Sea (Thames and Westscheldt estuary surveys show this), which has resulted in the average size of fish declining (previously mainly adult
bass in North Sea, few in winter).
I have not seen any reference to the suggestion by Jan Willem Wijnstroom, Sportvisserij Nederland in Appendix D for an increase in MLS in the Dutch
fishery. Quote: ―The mls for sea bass (36 cm) is considered to be too low. Sportvisserij Nederland advocates an mls increase to 42 cm , to give bass the
opportunity to grow and to spawn. Although occasionally mature bass are found at 36 cm, we advocate that the whole fishery is subject to measures
that protect undersized bass. VBHL fishermen apply a bigger mls which is the right step in the direction.‖ This issue was discussed in section 3.1 in
relation to UK fisheries, but not the Dutch fishery. It is only a suggestion, which has also come from UK sport anglers and was investigated by
management authorities in the mid 2000s (and rejected). The analyses and simulations behind the UK outcome apply equally to bass in any fishery
(since growth rates, behaviour and year class patterns are similar).
3.1 Analytical assessments.
Catch and fishing effort data. Were the clients not able to provide landings, discards, and effort information? Only annual landings – few discards. To
show their conservation credentials I would have expected to see more Dutch information. There is a strong bias towards the presentation of English
data. See comment (below) at 5.4 Monitoring, control and surveillance regarding AID records. Unfortunately, only the UK has carried out stock
―assessments‖, but ICES WGNEW has accepted that these provide a proxy for sea bass generally in the North Sea.
Size and Age data. Were there any size/age data for the North Sea? Specifically, were there any Dutch or French data, and if not, why not? None
collected, as far as we know (ICES and IMARES were approached). Bass were not included in DCR until recently.
Recruitment. Has the Solent recruitment survey continued, and was there any correlation between the Solent and Thames surveys? Is there any
correlation between the Westscheldt survey data (Figure 4) and the Thames or Solent surveys (Figure 3)? Both surveys were discontinued in 2010 (see
report). The survey-derived year class strength patterns are not strongly correlated (the Westscheldt survey and Thames/Solent surveys are quite
different, though strong and weak year classes show clearly everywhere). See also 3.3.3 Biological reference points. Quote ―The common patterns
in the recruitment time-series for sea bass ―stocks‖ in the North Sea, English Channel……‖. If this is correct then justify it in the recruitment section
Page 124 of 151

where the data are presented. These results came from the analytical assessment using commercial catch-at-age data over the period 1985 - 2004, not
the surveys.
Figure 4. There is a need for a map showing the main geographical areas mentioned in the report. For example, how does the area in Figure 4 relate
geographically to the certification area and the client fishery and the ports from which the clients operate? Agreed, and now provided.
3.2 Stock status. The most extensive bass studies have been carried out by CEFAS in the UK. Consequently the assessment results presented have
a bias towards work done in England and covering the English Channel, and are not as up-to-date as I would have liked to see for current stock status.
There are several references to results that mention dates as ―since 1995‖, ―1989 onwards‖, ―stable since 2004‖, ―since 2004‖, and give the possible
false impression that such trends or status are applicable now. The text also mentions increasing trends, and yet the landings (Table 1) show a peak in
2005 and a decline since (2006-2008, with no more recent data). The text clearly states that the most recent assessment update for WGNEW 2010
used the FAD-only model and included data for 2007-2009 which, although more uncertain than previous assessments (to 2004), shows the same
trends in the SSB in the North Sea and eastern Channel, i.e. a continued increase. Text amended to clarify.
Some results are presented for the southern North Sea (IVc), but more emphasis could have been placed on the most recent ICES deliberations briefly
mentioned in the last paragraph of 3.2. There were no ICES deliberations on these results, and no advice was given.
3.3.2 Management advice. Quote ―From a management viewpoint, assessment results (Pawson et al., 2007b; Kupschus et al. 2008; Kupschus, 2010)
suggest that sea bass in ICES Divisions IVb,c are being exploited sustainably, at a moderate level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near
maximum yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the early 1990s.‖ Let us see some of the results justifying
this conclusion (see above comment) and place it in the context of declining landings and stakeholder concerns about decreasing catches of larger
mature bass. OK, now provided.
3.3.3 Biological reference points. See 3.1 Recruitment (above) re common recruitment patterns.
Quote ―There is, therefore, no stock-recruit relationship for bass……‖. Can you say there is no stock-recruit relationship? Surely there could be one,
but it appears to be strongly modulated by temperature related 0-group survival. What is meant here is that there is no S-R relationship that could be
modelled, either to explain past or to predict future recruitment patterns. The relative strength of recruitment bears no relationship to the size of the
spawning stock over the period for which data are available (1984 – 2008), though SSB does reflect strength of recruitment. Text amended to clarify.
3.3.4 Scientific background to management advice for sea bass. This section is all about England again – what about the Netherlands and France?
No scientific advice has been given for management of sea bass fisheries in the North Sea other than from ICES (2004, in response to a request from
the EC) and from UK sources. Text amended to clarify.
Page 125 of 151

4.2 Discarding. Quote ―The client fishery is a very clean fishery, and all species caught are retained species. There is no discarding of non-retained
species.‖ This is a rather emphatic statement. Are there no undersized bass, cod or saithe caught and discarded (these are retained species, by the
MSC definition)? Are all gurnards retained? 1)We will ask the client, but seem to remember that that was their answer. 2) Which was confirmed by the
client, any numbers will be very limited anyhow.
See comment against 2.2 in the scoring table which draws attention to several inconsistencies regarding discarding.
Scoring comment (below) 2.2.3 implies that there is discarding of undersized bass, cod, and saithe by the client fleet. Is there any independent
verifiable information on the discarding behaviour of the clients at sea? No? There are no audit trace references given in the Scoring Table.
Jan Willem Wijnstroom, Sportvisserij Nederland in Appendix D states ‖VBHL fishermen apply a bigger mls which is the right step in the direction.‖ This
implies that VBHL fishermen are discarding bass which do not meet their self-imposed higher MLS. Actually, it implies that they are fishing in areas
where small bass (which are valuable if >MLS) are infrequent. If this is so then the whole question of discarding target species needs to be revised
throughout the report and scoring table. The report has been amended in response to a similar comment by the other referee. Discarding of the target
species is only important if it results in mortality that is significant in terms of sustainability. Clearly, this is not the case in this fishery and is covered by
the RBF under PSA Susceptibility attributes and scores.
5.1 Legislation and regulation. Quote ―In France, a national regulation limiting bass landings by French pelagic trawlers fishing in the English Channel
was set up in 1996, and sea bass landings by all trawlers have been limited to 5t/boat /week from 1 January to 30 April since 1998.‖ But presumably
this does not apply in the southern North Sea where French landings (Table 1) have increased in recent years. Yes it does.
5.2 Roles & Responsibilities. Quote ―The North Sea Demersal RAC has greatly improved effective communication links between industry, NGO‘s,
managers and scientists.‖ Has bass ever been discussed is the RAC? If yes, what was the outcome? It is doubtful: bass continues to be a target
species only for small boats and a by catch species for larger vessels, and there are no stock, TAC, or quota concerns.
Quote ―The most important working group when considering sea bass is WGNEW, which ICES established in 2005 to provide the EC with advice on
stock status and management of so called MoU (Memory of Understanding) species.‖ Yet there has been little output referred to in this report. Have
they seriously looked at bass? Not since 2004, the last year that the ICES Sea Bass Study Group existed (superseded by WGNEW). If yes, then there
should be more ICES input in this report.
5.4 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. Quote ―After entering a port, fishing vessels have to deliver a logsheet with all landed quantities and
species to the AID (in a special post box).‖ So why are there no data from this source presented here? Only data given was sourced from the clients
(Table 2). AID information is not made public
Page 126 of 151

5.4 (should be 5.5) Compliance. Quote ―The client considers that there is insufficient control effort directed at vessels under 10 m. They have
mentioned that there are several unregistered vessels using rod and line that land sea bass and cod with the intention of sale, which is prohibited under
the official regulations.‖ Is there any estimate of the landings from unregistered vessels? The only figure available is given by Kroon (2007) who
estimated Dutch recreational landings of sea bass in 2006 at 195 t (see below).
What about the landings from the number of bass anglers in the Netherlands estimated in 2006 as 91.000 (TNS NIPO 2006) [Appendix D]? Surely the
impact on the bass stock of 19 VNHL members pales into insignificance compared to the activities of 91,000 recreational fishers. Dutch recreational
landings of sea bass in 2006 were estimated at 195 t (Kroon, 2007), compared with 33 t by VNHL fishers. That is quite true, and a similar situation has
obtained in the UK since the commercial bass fishery started in the 1970s. Recreational anglers‘ catches should now be sampled under Article 47 of
the EC data Collection Regulation, but we have no information on whether the Netherlands has implemented this. Article 47 is not actively enforced in
the Netherlands
6. Other Fisheries in the Area Affecting the Target Stock. Quote ―In the North Sea, sea bass are taken mainly in commercial fisheries operating
along the English coast, where they are targeted by drifted and fixed gillnets, and by rod and line, and as an important by catch nets set for cod and sea
trout and in trawls (Walmsley & Pawson 2007). The fishing season in this area normally lasts from May until October/November. French and Belgian
trawlers also take substantial quantities of sea bass in this area, chiefly as a by catch in demersal fisheries (see Table 1).‖
In the paragraph before Table 1, page 20 quote ―The landings of sea bass by French vessels in North West European waters were around 2000 t during
the period 1986–1995 and have increased to around 4000–5000 t in the most recent years, due mainly to the catch in the southern North Sea (ICES
Divisions IVc) and eastern English Channel (VIId).‖
Is it true to say here ―In the North Sea, sea bass are taken mainly in commercial fisheries operating along the English coast,…..‖? There is no
quantitative and disaggregated information (landings or effort) presented here for the French or Dutch fisheries in the southern North Sea (IVc) - does
any exist? Table 1 presents what information is available. The text has been amended to clarify.
The directed effort from Dutch beam-trawl, fly-seine and twin-rig trawl fisher is a significant fishery, dwarfing that by the rod and line clients, yet there is
little or no reference to the distribution of the fishing effort or to the probable adverse exploitation pattern exerted by these net fisheries. Landings of sea
bass from this fishery (seldom due to fishing directed at sea bass) are included in Table 1, but we do not know where they are taken. The poor
selectivity of these gears is reflected in the scores given by the RBF under PSA Susceptibility attributes.
8.3 Stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder issues. A list of the main points raised would be useful to identify stakeholder‘s concerns. They may be
covered in the scoring process, but are not identifiable as stakeholder‘s concerns. Text amended accordingly.
Page 127 of 151

8.4 Other certification evaluations and harmonization. Quote ―……the fisheries and the scientific basis for assessment of stock status are similar,
and therefore of relevance.‖ Why, therefore, are they not quoted here and comparisons made? The draft report for the Bristol Channel Bass trawl
Fishery (http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/Bristol-Channel-sea-bass/assessment-downloads-1/17.02.2011-
Bass_Assessment_PCDR_140211_FINAL.pdf) has not recommended certification, mainly due to similar factors identified here (unclear stock status,
poor trawl exploitation pattern, and lack of management strategy and harvest control rules). The stock situation and impacts of exploitation are different
in the North Sea and Bristol Channel: the text has been amended to clarify.
9.2.1 Introduction to RBF. This section needs to be expanded to justify more clearly that there is indeed a need to use RBF. The correct (Figure 3
from the FAM Version 2, Release date: 31 July 2009, which covers P1.1.1.) decision tree should be given (Figure 6 is incorrect, correct version added)
and the reader led through the decisions taken to conclude that the RBF should be used. Account should be taken of the ICES work and conclusions. I
have seen far less stock status information, than appears to be available for bass, being used in a standard FAM assessment. Note that the criteria for
using RBF have changed considerably over the last 2 years. The assessment team considers that the correct approach was taken.
9.2.2 SICA. In the text table on page 45, under the ―bycatch‖ column, ―Na‖ has been entered for the rows ―gear loss‖, ―unobserved mortality‖, and
―discarding‖ - would an * (= little effect) be more appropriate? If gear loss, unobserved mortality, and mortality have little effect on bass, then could the
same not be said for cod and saithe? The problem here is the confusion between target, retained and by catch species due to MSC definitions. To
clarify, cod etc are now identified as by catch and the indicators amended accordingly.
Under habitat / bait collection an * (= little effect) has been given. Is there any evidence to support this assessment? Artificial lures are used most of the
time, and there is relatively little gear loss or interaction with habitats.
3. SICA scoring. A consequence score of 3 has been given for age/size/sex structure in Table 5, and in the paragraph below, but a score of 2 is given
in the paragraph above the table and in the rationale text at the bottom of the table. As a SICA MSC score of 60 has been given I assume that the
consequence score was 3. The scores throughout the report, and not just here (see comments against Page 48 last paragraph, Figure 7, and Table 10
below), need to be checked as changes appear to have been made, but not implemented in all parts of the report. At the time of the site visit and
scoring meeting, the assessment team were undecided whether to award a score of 2 or 3 for the SICA consequence, which is reflected in the
inconsistencies noted. This has now been corrected and scores amended accordingly.
9.2.3 PSA. PSA step 2. Score susceptibility attributes; Page 48. Quote ―…since bass fishing predominantly takes place in coastal areas…‖. The
clients fish up to 70 miles offshore. Is that coastal? Are the bass caught by trawls inshore or offshore? Amended to clarify.
Quote ―The team and the stakeholders agreed that there are large parts of the North Sea where no fishing for bass takes place, since bass fishing
predominantly takes place in coastal areas and sea bass is mainly a by-catch in trawl fishery.‖ What about the spatial distribution of French targeted
mid-water trawling (not in North Sea) and Dutch by catch trawling and netting which catch the majority of the bass (85% of the Dutch bass landings)? If
the distribution of bass is understood by fishers, hence they target certain areas, then the fact that ―large parts of the North Sea where no fishing for
Page 128 of 151

ass‖ is irrelevant - there are probably no bass there. Within the known distribution of bass surely the availability is high risk = 3 (not 2 as in Table 8),
which equates to the FAM guidance of >30% overlap. Although the commercial bass fishery around England and Wales and in French waters has
developed over the last 30 years to exploit the population over most of its seasonal distribution, the development of bass fishing in the North Sea has
lagged behind the stock‘s production and range extension. Many gears used for commercial fishing there are unsuited to catch bass (other than as an
incidental by catch), and the level of overlap with the species‘ distribution (both across the ground and in the water column) is much less than for
fisheries for e.g. cod, plaice, herring etc.
Quote ―For the rod and line fishery it was considered that the rod and line fishery directly targets the bass on the spots where they are most abundant.
Therefore like for trawl and gill net fishery a score of 2 was given.‖ If they target spots where they are most abundant then surely for encounterability
there is a ―high overlap with fishing gear‖ (FAM, Table B4.3) resulting in ―high susceptibility‖ and justifying an encounterability high risk score of 3, not a
score of 2 (Table 8). Text amended to clarify
Quote for selectivity ―Strict application of the attributes in this table would result in a high risk score (bait used is attractive to bass and the fish cannot
break the line) which does not seem appropriate for this metier since the hook and line fishery is highly selective in catching larger fish. The choice of
fishing spots (wrecks) were larger fish aggregate contributes highly to this high selectivity. Undersized fish are rarely caught and always released alive.
The team therefore awarded medium risk score of 2.‖ Table B4.4 (FAM) states that if there are conflicting answers, then the higher risk score should be
used, i.e. in this case a score of 3. Selectivity attribute scores tend to be contentious (MSC guidelines are not always helpful), but adult bass are known
to be less vulnerable to fishing gears than most other main commercial species. The evidence for this is the relatively low F values in assessments
(consistently around 0.3) and the decline in modelled selectivity-at-age after ages 6-7. Text amended to clarify.
If these suggested changes to the scores are implemented then the overall PSA score will need to be revised. After considering the reviewer‘s
comments, and reviewing the evidence presented (with a number of important amendments to the text for clarification), the assessment team has
concluded that no score needs changing (other than where there are inconsistencies in the report).
Page 48, last paragraph. The scores in the text do not agree with those in Table 9. This leaves the reviewer very uncertain as to what was the correct
overall MSC score (given as 87 for P1.1.1. [text bottom of page 48, and in Table 10]). The scores given in the text have been corrected, and the foot
note has now been incorporated in the text for clarification.
Figure 7. Explain the significance of this plot, assuming the scores plotted are correct. Text amended accordingly.
Table 10. 1.2.2 scores 75 in the Scoring Table, but 70 in Table 10 and Summary. There is a need to check all the scores allocated, especially where
changes have been made, to ensure that they are all consistent, and more importantly, that the final overall scores for P1-3 are correct. I have NOT
checked them all, only ones that my attention was drawn to in evaluating scores and comments. This has been checked and scores amended where
necessary.
Page 129 of 151

Appendix A: Scoring Table.
(Comments additional to those given in the Performance Indicator Review (below).)
1.1.3. Stock rebuilding. Scoring comments. Quote ―There is no evidence of depletion of the North Sea bass stock. Although the available
assessments do not allow the abundance of sea bass to be determined on an absolute basis, stock abundance indicators suggest that the sea bass
population in the North Sea has become more productive since 1990, with increased levels of recruitment, a higher SSB and an extension of its
geographical range to the North.‖ What happens if the stock is depleted through adverse climatic changes (reduced seawater temperatures)? Are we
sure about the current stock status such that it can be emphatically determined that there are no signs of stock depletion? Is there a stock rebuilding
strategy should it be needed? Is one possible? It depends on what is meant by ―stock depletion‖. In most fisheries, the current state of the stock is
compared either with the known history (where population data are available for 20-40 years, say) or with a putative unexploited estimated by modelling.
For sea bass in the North Sea, we know that the stock (even if larger fish are now less abundant than 10 years ago following the demise of the 1989
year class) is much more abundant than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, when bass catches in trawls or gill nets were relatively small (see Table 1).
1.2.1. Harvest Strategy. Scoring comments.
The second paragraph starting ―There are no target or limit reference points…..‖ should, with some editing, be included in the 1.1.2 scoring comments.
Amended accordingly.
Third paragraph starting ―The harvest strategy is….‖. The UK initiated harvest strategy, in particular protected nursery areas, is not applied (I assume,
as there is no mention of any.) on the eastern side (Netherlands, etc.) of the southern North Sea. Thus, they cannot be shown to work despite any
monitoring that may be taking place. The harvest strategy implicitly adopted by the EU is to protect bass below 36 cm, which is achieved by the tactical
combination of MLS, gill net mesh size controls and nursery areas (UK only), and the first two measures are implemented throughout the North Sea.
Third paragraph quote ―Moreover, though ICES advised (ACOM, 2004) that effort should not be increased for sea bass in any area, it is apparent that
trawl fisheries in particular have been increasingly directed at sea bass as catch quotas on other species have been reduced .‖
The potential for (apparently) uncontrolled fishing effort by mid-water and beam trawlers with an undesirable exploitation pattern (relatively small mesh)
is a potential high risk to bass sustainability in the southern North Sea. Not enough emphasis has been placed on this risk in the assessment. Agreed,
but decommissioning, fleet restructuring and effort controls (e.g. days-at-sea) have clearly led to a reduction in F in all North Sea towed-gear fisheries,
with a consequent constraint on effort that might take bass. The relatively poor selectivity of trawls for bass is accounted for in the weighted score for
selectivity in the PSA.
ICES (2008) said ―Predicted selectivity in the IVbc trawl fleet has changed to younger ages compared to previous assessments, suggesting that the
fleet would now be more heavily impacted by the MLS than would have been the case in the past‖. I am not aware of the mesh regulations applicable in
Page 130 of 151

the bass trawl fishery and the possibilities for improving their exploitation pattern as part of the harvest strategy. The only reference I could find to trawl
meshes was in 9.2.3 – the PSA step 2 – susceptibility, where a high risk score of 3 was correctly given. Perhaps the P1 assessor could add any relevant
trawl mesh information to the appropriate section of the report and discuss the implications for bass stock status. Mesh size controls for towed gears in
which bass is a target species are included in Council Regulation 850/1998, but most bass are taken as a by catch in gears for which mesh size
controls depend on other target species. Text amended to clarify.
The current harvest strategy has no mechanism to control fishing effort in the event of a need to reduce fishing effort to combat a fall in stock abundance
resulting from excessive fishing effort or natural climatic changes. It would be wrong to assume that the bass stock will continue to expand its range
and abundance in response to the favourable changes in sea temperature that have taken place in the recent past. Agreed, but the harvest strategy is
designed to achieve management objectives in terms of yield per recruit and MSY, since growth overfishing rather than recruit overfishing has been
identified as the principle cause of loss of production in sea bass stocks (in which a wide variability in recruitment is related to environmental factors
rather than SSB). In this way the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock (protecting year classes for up to 5 years before they recruit to
the fishery and spawning population), and we consider that the SG 80 are met (since analysis and simulations have demonstrated the elements of the
harvest strategy have been work together to achieving the management objectives: see Pawson et al., 2005; Pawson et al, 2007 and ICES 2010).
Based on the above comments SG 1-80 is not met as the harvest strategy does not have explicit mechanisms to respond appropriately to a change in
the state of the stock using effort control and/or mesh size increases. This score should be

2.3.2. Management Strategy. Quote ―The fact that the client fishes with rod and line and specifically and very selectively targets sea bass and cod can
be considered an effective strategy to prevent the catch or mortality of ETP species (1-80).‖ Cod is not a target species - see 2.1.1. - it is a retained
non-target species. Yes, sea bass is the target species in the MSC sense, for this assessment, but the fishery is directed at cod as well as bass.
2.5.2. Management Strategy. Quote from Section 4.5 of the report ―The artificial baits used in this fishery are generally made of lead which is known
to be a toxic metal when it is accumulated in animal tissue in high concentrations. Sometimes a bait will get stuck on structures on the seafloor like rocks
or wrecks and consequently lost. Although this can be considered a minor issue, the VBHL is currently looking into possibilities to replace the lead in the
baits with another metal (steel).‖ Add this point to the recommendation given in 2.5.2 of the Scoring Table. OK, done
3.2.4. Research Plan. Quote ―Research conducted on sea bass in the Netherlands includes a tagging experiment in which IMARES is currently
involved. Data on recreational catches have been collected by the national organisation of recreational fishermen. The results of this research are
disseminated (through publication and ICES reports) and available to all parties (2-80).‖ Have the results been incorporated into the report and scoring
table? The only example I can recollect seeing is the Westscheldt recruit series (Figure 4). All the results that are available and relevant to this
assessment have been included in the report.
Page 132 of 151

Performance Indicator Review
Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body‘s Public
Certification Draft Report.
Performance
Indicator
Example:1.1.
2
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI.
The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a
target reference point that is consistent
with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or
above, however the target reference point
given for this fishery is Bpa, with no
indication of how this is consistent with a
Bmsy level.
Certification Body Response

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
1.1.1 The RBF was
used – see
comments
below.
Probably.
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Yes, while
following the RBF
scoring.
No, when you
take account of
the lack of very
recent
assessments and
the uncertainties
expressed by
ICES.
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
NA with the
current score
1.1.2 Yes No NA with the
current score
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
There is clearly a dearth of information
for bass in IVc. It is not clear if there is
more available data for French & Dutch
fisheries that has not been used.
I still find that the scores from the RBF
appear to be overly optimistic. The most
recent ICES advice for bass (ICES,
2008) was ―Given the fact that no
assessments have been undertaken for
other areas and stock status is unknown,
the WG suggests that again effort should
not be allowed to increase and that
additional data that could be used for
assessments should be collected.‖ This
hardly endorses a MSC PSA score of 87!
Another strange bit of RBF logic. If there
are no reference points then the score
should be 60 or less and generate a
Condition. I find it strange that where a
fishery is deemed not to meet the criteria
for FAM, because biologically-based
limits for sustainability (e.g. reference
points) cannot be estimated, that 1.1.2
then gets a favourable default score of
80. This default score contributes to
raising the overall P1 score to 80.5 – a
pass (just)!
Certification Body Response
The team used the best availabl
information to apply the RBF to t
assessment, and we are confide
the outcome reflects the stock si
in the North Sea. Despite a lack
classical reference points, all ind
are that recruitment has shown a
increasing trend since the early 1
with a consequent increase in SS
that exploitation levels are mode
(though the most recent assessm
presented to ICES are thought to
robust than those carried out pre
.
Conditions have been generated
that the Client should liaise with
management and research bodie
help develop a harvest control ru
explicitly related to limit referenc
and also specific management o
for the sea bass fishery.
Page 134 of 151

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
1.1.3 Yes Yes, but it is
limited and not
up-to-date.
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
NA Do the reduced landings in the French
trawl fishery indicate a recent fall is
abundance? What happens if the stock
is depleted through adverse climatic
changes (reduced seawater
temperatures)? Is there a stock
rebuilding strategy. Is one possible?
Certification Body Response
Stock rebuilding is not required (
1.1.1)
Page 135 of 151

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 Yes No NA with the
current score
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
There is a supposition that the harvest
strategy developed in the UK, and
partially implemented in the EU, is fully
applied in IVc, and particularly in the
Netherlands.
SG 1-80 is not met as the harvest
strategy does not have explicit
mechanisms to respond appropriately to
a change in the state of the stock by
effort control and/or mesh size
increases. This score should be

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
1.2.2 Yes No No ―….effort directed at bass is
uncontrolled.‖ This is the major gap in
the harvest strategy and control rules
and tools. To imply that ―technical
harvest control measures are in place
and could be extended when considered
necessary‖ and to declare that ―…
regarded as an implicit harvest control
rule‖ to address this omission is to place
insufficient attention to the risk of over
exploitation due to un-controlled fishing
effort in the trawl fisheries. On this basis
a score of 75 seems generous.
The development of a harvest control
rule that better ensures that the
exploitation rate on North Sea bass is
reduced as limit reference points are
approached needs to target trawling, and
so the client rod and line fishers are
unlikely to be able to have much
influence on the authorities.
Certification Body Response
As explained above, quantitative
on effort or catch have not been
implemented in the sea bass fish
much of which is of a small-boat
recreational) nature. The strateg
use technical mesasures to ensu
as possible that recruitment is
maximised, both to the fishery an
spawning stock, has been demo
to work.
Other elements of a harvest stra
relevance to the towed gear fish
include decommissioning, fleet
restructuring and effort controls (
days-at-sea), which have clearly
reduction in F in all North Sea to
gear fisheries, with a consequen
constraint on effort that might tak
Nevertherless, we agree that this
strengthening, see Condition 1.
Page 137 of 151

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
1.2.3 Yes No NA The question arises here as to what is
the stock definition appropriate to this
fishery (Figure 2)? In Table 1 the bass
landings are aggregated into ICES
Divisions IVb, c, and VIId (southern
North Sea and eastern Channel), and I
have assumed that the data are not
available in a disaggregated form. The
assessors should question whether the
data collected is at a spatial level
consistent with the stock definition. If it
is not, then the score of 80 needs to be
re-considered as SG 1-80 may not have
been met.
1.2.4 Yes No NA Quote ―The assessment team notes,
however that the most recent
assessments of this stock (Kupschus et
al., 2007, Kupschus 2010) are thought to
be increasingly uncertain, other than in
terms of trends in SSB. Consequently,
the stock status at present is uncertain.‖
On that basis the default score of 80
from the RBF seems inappropriate.
Certification Body Response
The report clearly states that the
bass stock exploited by assesse
occupies the North Sea and part
English Channel (seasonally), w
why landings data are presented
ICES Divisions IVb,c and VIId. I
the bass population has spread
early 1990s into the central and
North Sea and Norwegian coast
waters, where there is now an
enthusiastis recreational angling
but little or no commercial exploi
the species.
The stock status has been score
RBF for this reason. Other indic
suggest that the stock‘s status h
improving (due to improved recru
protected by specific manageme
measures) and a climate-induce
change in distribution (proportion
fewer bass now more south-wes
the North Sea in winter to spawn
Page 138 of 151

Performance
Indicator
P1 as a
whole
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Yes No Where I have
questioned the
scores and
suggested they
should be

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
2.2.1 No Maybe NA Reconsider the 100 score when you
have decided if discarding is zero or
small and insignificant. See 4.2 &
Scoring Table 2.2 in the General
Comments text above.
2.2.2 No Yes NA All the information on discarding within
the report and scorong table needs
clarification.
2.2.3 No Yes NA All the information on discarding within
the report and scorong table needs
clarification.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA
Certification Body Response
There is confusion caused by the
reained species (2.1) and by
catch/discard species 2.2), which
have tried to clarify in the text. 1
remains.
ditto
ditto
Page 140 of 151

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
Certification Body Response
Page 141 of 151

Performance
Indicator
Has all the
relevant
information
available been
used to score
this Indicator?
(Yes/No)
Does the
information
and/or rationale
used to score this
Indicator support
the given score?
(Yes/No)
Will the
condition(s)
raised improve
the fishery‘s
performance to
the SG80 level?
(Yes/No/NA)
Justification
Please support your answers by referring
to specific scoring issues and any
relevant documentation where possible.
Please attach additional pages if
necessary.
3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Objectives are only expressed in very
general terms and not implicitly or
explicitly for bass. This is an example of
trying to make a distinction between the
―fishery‖ (i.e. Dutch rod and line) and the
―stock‖ (?southern North Sea?). Clearly
there are no Dutch fishery-specific
objectives for bass. Are there any
objectives for the stock, which are
applicable here? The score of 70 and
Condition are appropriate. The
Condition also covers other fishing
metiers targeting sea bass, such as
trawling and gill net fishing. This
emphasis is missing from Condition 1
dealing with P1.2.2.
3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA
3.2.4 Yes Yes NA
3.2.5 Yes Yes No External peer review should be part of
the condition.
Any Other Comments
Certification Body Response
Point noted, and text amended t
Added to Condition 3.
Page 142 of 151

Comments Certification Body Response
The section below for RBF is totally inadequate to allow the peer reviewer to
critically assess the RBF procedure. I have completed the 1.1.1 section
above, and also made references to the RBF scoring in my General
Comments section.
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:
Page 143 of 151

Performance
Indicator
1.1.1
2.1.1
2.2.1
2.4.1
2.5.1
Does the report
clearly explain
how the
process used
to determine
risk using the
RBF led to the
stated
outcome?
Yes/No
Are the RBF risk
scores wellreferenced?
Yes/No
Justification:
Please support your answers by referring to
specific scoring issues and any relevant
documentation where possible. Please attach
additional pages if necessary.
Yes
NA
Yes I find the positive PSA MSC score of 87
somewhat surprising, given the problems with
evaluating stock status and the lack of reference
points. See comments above at 1.1.1 which
discuss in more detail the RBF scoring of 1.1.1.
NA
NA
NA
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might
arise from enhancement activities?
Justification:
Yes/No Certification Body Response:
Certification Body Response:
This issue has been dealt with above, se
comments against P1 as a whole.
Page 144 of 151

APPENDIX C: CLIENT ACTION PLAN
Received from the client on 12-04-2011
Vereniging van Beroepsmatige Handlijnvissers Nederland
Client
Action
Plan: Dutch Rod and Line Fishery for Sea bass
MSC: SGS-NL-MSC-F-0405
Condition Principle
Compo
nent
C1 P1 Manage
ment
C2 P3 Fishery
Specific
Manage
ment
System
C3 P3 Fishery
Specific
Manage
ment
System
Performanc
PI e Indicator
No.
1.2.2 Harvest
control rule
(PI) Action Deadline
3.2.1 Fisheries
specific
objectives
3.2.3 Decision
making
process
Liaise with fisheries
management and
research bodies to
explore how BVHN
can assist with the
development of a
harvest control rule
that better ensures
that the exploitation
rate by all fishing
metiers taking sea
bass in the North Sea,
is reduced as limit
reference points are
approached.
Liaise with authorities
to help develop
specific fishery
objectives and secure
these objectives in the
VBHL management
plan
Encourage authorities
to develop a fisheryspecific
management
system, including
appropriate decision
making processes
and evaluations
against management
options that are
subject to external
1st
surveillance
audit
1st
surveillance
audit
1st
surveillance
audit

C4 P3 Fishery
Specific
Manage
ment
System
3.2.5 Information
and
monitoring
review.
Secure evidence that
a more fishery-specific
decision makingprocess
has been
established, which
includes monitoring
and evaluations of
performance against
management
objectives.
3rd
surveillance
audit
Page 146 of 151

APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
(includes all written and verbal communication)
Received from: Jan Willem Wijnstroom, Sportvisserij Nederland, Royal Dutch Angling
Association
May 18 th 2010
Bass is a prime target species for recreational anglers in the Netherlands, UK, Belgium and
France. Bassfishing has gained a lot of popularity during the last 20 years. Due to the decline of
flatfish, cod and eel stocks the range of fishing possibilities also declined: the increase in bass
fishing possibilities provides the Dutch recreational angling sector with new opportunities.
Estimated number of bass anglers in the Netherlands in 2006 was 91.000 (TNS NIPO 2006). More
than 50 % of Dutch bass anglers advocate improved bass stock management. Commercial
fishermen need to take part in this management.
Recreational bass angling in Holland has a calculated socio economic value of 15,8 bilj euro on a
yearly basis.
Recreational bass anglers and commercial anglers (VBHL) fish for the same species and thus
there is common interest in a management system that benefits better management of bass and
other marine resources and in which the interests of both stakeholders are being taken care of.
PI Comment
1.1.1 There are very little scientific research data available on
eastern North sea bass populations. General perception
amongst recreational anglers as well as members of VBHL
is that mature and bigger bass are getting scarcer. There is
a steady decline in the stamp of bass available to
recreational anglers and other metiers like commercial rod
and line fishermen.
1.1.2 Explicit (formal) reference points have not yet been defined
for the bass stocks in ICES Area IV. A main assessment
using the default assessment tree would very likely result in
a score below the unconditional level but above the minimal
level. It is likely that this performance indicator will attract a
condition that requires the client to liaise with Research
Bodies (IMARES, CEFAS) and have a part in the further
development of appropriate reference points for the North
Sea stock.
1.2.2 The mls for sea bass (36 cm) is considered to be too low.
Sportvisserij Nederland advocates an mls increase to 42
cm , to give bass the opportunity to grow and to spawn.
Although occasionally mature bass are found at 36 cm, we
advocate that the whole fishery is subject to measures that
protect undersized bass. VBHL fishermen apply a bigger
mls which is the right step in the direction.
Page 147 of 151

1.2.3 Sportvisserij Nederland strongly advocates to fill the gaps
in scientific research regarding non quota species that are
subject to growing fishing pressure. This is the case with
mullet and bass. There is currently a legal requirement of
the Data Collection Framework to provide quarterly
estimates of the amount of bass landed by recreational
fishermen in western waters but not in the North Sea. The
information provided by recreational anglers questionnaires
is not adequate while it provides us with figures that are
largely aggregated.
The current status of the stocks needs to be better
investigated to achieve a firm basis for a future
managementplan for recreational and commercial fisheries.
1.2.4 There are currently no explicit reference points for the bass
stock. These reference points are a starting point for a
sustainable fishery.
3.1.2 Sportvisserij Nederland wants to be involved in a regular
dialogue with VBHL as a starting point to set up a bass
management plan for both fisheries..
3.2.1 The pre-assessment states that the formulation of specific
management objectives for the Dutch sea bass fishery will
be identified as a condition of certification.
3.2.5 Sportvisserij Nederland endorses the need for a system of
monitoring and evaluation of management measures.
Received from: Ruud Vergouwen, fisherman KG 5.
Geacht heer Buijs,
Mijn naam is Ruud Vergouwen.
Ik ben al ca. 17 jaar actief als lijnenvisser op zeebaars met een kleine snelle boot in de Zuidelijke
Noordzee, waarvan de laatste 5 jaren onder het visserijnummer KG 5.
Vanuit deze beroepsmatige achtergrond en ervaring, worstel ik met een aantal vragen betreffende
het MSC-certificeringstraject voor handlijngevangen zeebaars door de VBHL.
1. Elk voorjaar, zodra de watertemperatuur zo'n 9 graden bereikt, trekken er scholen
zeebaars vanuit Het Kanaal de Zuidelijke Noordzee binnen. Gedurende de maanden april,
mei en juni, verzamelen deze scholen zich op enkele paaiplaatsen om zich voort te
planten. Na deze paaiperiode zwermen de scholen uit over diverse plaatsen, waar zij de
verdere zomer verblijven. Gedurende de maanden half september, oktober, november en
half december vind dan de najaarstrek plaats. Gedurende deze tijd scholen ze weer samen
en verlaten ze (grotendeels) de Zuidelijke Noordzee weer om te overwinteren in warmer
water. Gedurende de eerder genoemde paaiperiode zijn de zeebaarzen het
meest kwetsbaar en worden ze het meest gevangen en dus aangevoerd. Er vanuitgaande
dat het MSC-certificaat behaald wordt door de VBHL, luidt mijn onvermijdelijke vraag dan
ook: Mag de in deze kwetsbare periode (april, mei, juni) gevangen zeebaars straks wel of
Page 148 of 151

niet het MSC-label voeren of mag er straks in de paaitijd helemaal niet gericht op gevist
worden cq. aangevoerd worden?
2. Ik neem aan dat een van de allerbelangrijkste voorwaarden voor MSC-certificering moet
zijn dat er niet meer vis uit een bestand weggenomen wordt dan dat er aanwas is in dat
bestand. Ik ga er ook van uit dat er een wetenschappelijke, biologische vaststelling van die
aanwas moet zijn en dat deze niet gebaseerd wordt op basis van aannames of
aanvoergegevens. Bij mijn weten zijn dergelijke gegevens er niet. Volgens mij is bij
niemand bekend hoe groot de aanwas is van het zeebaarsbestand dat jaarlijks terugkeerd
in de Zuidelijke Noordzee. De hoeveelheden vis die uit dat bestand jaarlijks weggenomen
worden zijn wel redelijk vast te stellen aan de hand van aanvoergegevens. Mijn vraag luidt
dus: Hoe kan je vaststellen of een visserij duurzaam is als je niet weet hoe groot de
aanwas is?
Ik hoop dat u of een van uw medewerkers mijn vragen wil en kan beantwoorden.
M. Vr. Gr.,
R. Vergouwen
My name is Ruud Vergouwen.
I've been around 17 years active as a rod and line bass fisher with a small fast boat in the
Southern North Sea, the last 5 years under the Fisheries KG number 5.
From this background and professional experience, I wrestle with a number of questions
concerning the MSC certification process for hand-line caught sea bass by VBHL.
1. Each spring when the water temperature reaches about 9 degrees, schools of bass migrate
from the English Channel into the southern North Sea. During the months April, May and June,
those schools have to gather at some spawning areas to reproduce. After the spawning period the
schools swarms to various places, where remain over summer. During the months of mid-
September, October, November and December they migrate back During this time schools
together again and they leave (mostly) the Southern North Sea weather to spend the winter in
warmer waters. During the aforementioned spawning bass are the most vulnerable and are
therefore the most caught and landed. Assuming that the MSC certificate will be obtained by the
VBHL my inevitable question therefore is: Can bass which has been caught in this vulnerable
period (April, May, June)be granted the MSC label or will there be a closed season?
2. I suppose one of the most important conditions for MSC certification must be that no more fish
from a stock is removed than there is growth in that file. I also assume that there is a scientific,
biological fixing that growth and that should not be based on assumptions and data flow. To my
knowledge, no such data is in place. I think no one knows how many sea bass returns to
Southern North Sea annually. The annual quantity of fish removed from the stock is reasonably
well known based on landings data. My question is this: How can you determine whether a fishery
is sustainable if you do not know how big the increase is?
I hope you or one of your staff will and can answer my questions.
Page 149 of 151

APPENDIX E: OBJECTION TO DETERMINATION
Page 150 of 151