SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Public comment draft report Marine
Page 3 and 4: Glossary of acronyms and terms used
Page 5: 9.2.3 PSA .........................
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:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?