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