SGS Product & Process Certification - Marine Stewardship Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 60 Scoring guidepost 80 Scoring guidepost 100 2.3.1 Status: The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. (1-60) Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. (2-60) Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. (1-80) The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. (2-80) Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. (3-80) Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. (1-100) There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. (2-100) There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species. Scoring comments Because the UoC fishes with rod and line, it is considered impossible that marine mammals are caught. There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Very occasionally a bird might accidentally get tangled up in a fishing line. When this happens the bird will immediately be released and most probably will survive the incident. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Page 81 of 151
Rare fish like skates or sturgeons are very unlikely to be caught due to the fishing method. Fishermen state that they have never been caught. Very occasionally a shark is caught by one of the vessels. These sharks have been described by the client as being spurdog (spiny dogfish). The retention of spurdog in the North Sea is prohibited as the species is IUCN-red-listed as Near Threatened and the stock is considered over exploited. There is a high degree of confidence that the occasionally incidental catch of spurdog and its return to the water has no significant detrimental effects on this species. All SG 100 requirements are satisfied and a score of 100 awarded. Score: 100 Audit trace references Page 82 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 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: Expert knowledge and the informatio
Page 85 and 86: Score: 80 Audit trace references Sc
Page 87 and 88: 2.4 Habitat Scoring criteria Scorin
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 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?