Rebuttal to Froese and Proelss 'Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood'
journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-17, 20:47authored byAgnew, DJ, Gutierrez, NL, Stern-Pirlot, A, Smith, ADM, Zimmerman, C, Sainsbury, K
In arecentpaper,FroeseandProelss [1] contendthat31%ofstockstargetedbyMarineStewardship Council(MSC)certifiedfisheriesareoverfishedandsubjecttoongoingoverfishingandafurther8%are either overfishedorsubjecttooverfishing.Theirresultsarederivedusingadefinitionof‘overfished’ that isnotconsistentwithinternationallyaccepteddefinitionsandinterpretations.Inaddition,the authorsusedunrealisticestimatesofbiomassthatproduceMaximumSustainableYields(BMSY) obtainedthroughmethodsthatareinconsistentwiththeapproachusedbythemanagementagencies and scientificadvisorybodiesresponsibleforthestocksinquestion. AnalysessuchasthatpublishedbyFroeseandProelssareanimportantpartoftheexternal, independentscrutinyoftheprogrammethatMSCwelcomes.Howeverthereareanumberofserious flaws intheiranalysis,dataandresultingconclusionsthatthisresponseseekstocorrect.Usingdatafor 45 stocksexploitedbyMSCcertifiedfisheries(>60% oftotalfisheriesintheprogrammeand >80% of total certifiedcatch),internationallyacceptedmethodsfordeterminingMSYreferencepoints,and internationallyaccepteddefinitionsoftheterms‘overfished’and‘overfishing’,nostocksexploitedby MSC certifiedfisheriescanbedefinedasoverfished(belowtheirlimitreferencepoints).
History
Publication title
Marine Policy
Volume
38
Pagination
551-553
ISSN
0308-597X
Department/School
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies
Publisher
Elsevier Sci Ltd
Place of publication
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, England, Oxon, Ox5 1Gb