SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>SGS</strong> 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 (<strong>Product</strong>schap 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
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: a) setting catch levels that will m
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 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 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 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
(2-60) Sanctions to deal with non-c
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
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 and 134:
2.3.2. Management Strategy. Quote
Page 135 and 136:
Performance Indicator Has all the r
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?