SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2:
Public comment draft report Marine
Page 3 and 4:
Glossary of acronyms and terms used
Page 5 and 6:
9.2.3 PSA .........................
Page 7 and 8:
Condition 1: P1, 1.2.2 Harvest cont
Page 9 and 10:
Current members of VBHL are the fol
Page 11 and 12:
1.4 References Castilho, R., and Mc
Page 13 and 14:
Pawson, M.G., G. D. Pickett and P.
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 2.Main migration routes of a
Page 17 and 18:
This hypothesis was tested in 2000
Page 19 and 20:
also comprised a substantial part o
Page 21 and 22:
3.1 Analytical assessments The firs
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 3.Indices of the abundance o
Page 25 and 26:
short-term forecasts and setting TA
Page 27 and 28:
The landings of cod by the UoC are
Page 29 and 30:
monitoring, landing recording, etc.
Page 31 and 32:
and use only of rod-and-line, with
Page 33 and 34:
7. STANDARD USED The MSC Principles
Page 35 and 36:
a) setting catch levels that will m
Page 37 and 38:
8.2 Public consultation Public anno
Page 39 and 40:
certified as sustainable on 3 rd De
Page 41 and 42:
9.2.2 SICA A SICA proceeds in sever
Page 43 and 44:
Table 4.SICA tables from the MSC Fi
Page 45 and 46:
Table 6. PSA Productivity attribute
Page 47 and 48:
Table 9. FAM Workbook Table with sc
Page 49 and 50:
10.1 Performance 10. ASSESSMENT RES
Page 51 and 52:
controls) that seek to maximise Y/R
Page 53 and 54:
management system responded to find
Page 55 and 56:
Recommendation 4 - Governance and p
Page 57 and 58:
13.1 Logo use 13. MSC LOGO LICENSIN
Page 59 and 60:
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SCORING TABL
Page 61 and 62:
Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
metrics are more appropriate to a s
Page 67 and 68:
This is regarded as an implicit har
Page 69 and 70:
emovals are apparent in the range o
Page 71 and 72:
Audit trace references Insert refs
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
FAMv2 7.1.10 states ―If it can be
Page 79 and 80:
statement of intent about continuin
Page 81 and 82:
Expert knowledge and the informatio
Page 83 and 84: Rare fish like skates or sturgeons
Page 85 and 86: Score: 80 Audit trace references Sc
Page 87 and 88: 2.4 Habitat Scoring criteria Scorin
Page 89 and 90: Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost
Page 91 and 92: 2.5 Ecosystem Scoring criteria Scor
Page 93 and 94: irreversible harm to ecosystem stru
Page 95 and 96: Page 94 of 151
Page 97 and 98: livelihood; and - Incorporates an a
Page 107 and 108: (2-60) Sanctions to deal with non-c
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW REPORTS Pee
Page 115 and 116: Performance Indicator Review Please
Page 117 and 118: Performanc e Indicator Has all the
Page 119 and 120: Performanc e Indicator Has all the
Page 121 and 122: Page 120 of 151
Page 123 and 124: ass. If the scores I have questione
Page 125 and 126: 3. Target Stock Status and Harvest
Page 127 and 128: 4.2 Discarding. Quote ―The client
Page 129 and 130: 8.4 Other certification evaluations
Page 131 and 132: Appendix A: Scoring Table. (Comment
Page 133: 2.3.2. Management Strategy. Quote
Page 137 and 138: Performance Indicator Has all the r
Page 145 and 146: Performance Indicator 1.1.1 2.1.1 2
Page 147 and 148: C4 P3 Fishery Specific Manage ment
Page 149 and 150: 1.2.3 Sportvisserij Nederland stron
Page 151: APPENDIX E: OBJECTION TO DETERMINAT
show all

SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?