File(s) under permanent embargo
Rebuttal to Froesea and Proelss 'Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood''
journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-26, 10:05 authored by Agnew, D J, Gutierrez, N L, Stern-Pirlot, A, Smith, ADM, Zimmerman, C, Sainsbury, K JIn 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(460% oftotalfisheriesintheprogrammeand 480% of total certifiedcatch),internationallyacceptedmethodsfordeterminingMSYreferencepoints,and internationallyaccepteddefinitionsoftheterms'overfished'and'overfishing',nostocksexploitedby MSC certifiedfisheriescanbedefinedasoverfished(belowtheirlimitreferencepoints).
History
Publication title
Marine Policy: The International Journal of Ocean AffairsVolume
38Pagination
551-553ISSN
0308-597XPublication status
- Published
Rights statement
Copyright 2012 ElsevierRepository Status
- Restricted
Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedLicence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC