SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

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