24. Januar 2017 .he

SHARKPROJECT und 52 weitere Arten-, Tier- und Umweltschutzorganisationen kritisieren den MSC

Logobild (c) SHARKPROJECT / Logos jeweils (c) der NGOs

52 Organisationen unter der Führung von SHARKPROJECT Germany und dem Animal Welfare Institute kritisieren die Zertifizierungspolitik des MSC in einem offenen Brief.

MSCLETTER_22JAN2017FINALREV (PDF; 1,32 MB)

Ziel des Briefs ist die Forderung, Beifänge in den Zertifizierungsrichtlinien besser zu berücksichtigen – der MSC prüft diese nur sehr marginal und beschränkt die Nachhaltigkeitsprüfung weitgehend auf die Bestände der ‚offiziellen‘ Zielfische der jeweiligen Fischerei.

In dem in englisch verfassten Schreiben heißt es u.a.:

On behalf of the undersigned conservation and animal protection organizations and the millions of citizens which support them worldwide, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification process, especially for those fisheries that involve the bycatch of chondrichthyes (sharks in particular) and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). Many of our organizations have commented on fishery assessments under the MSC process, and over the years we have noted an apparent, and deeply worrying, lack of concern regarding the potential impacts on these species, as well as certain target species.
It is our view that many of the fisheries that have been assessed via the MSC certification process have not been subject to an adequate review of information available on bycatch of non-target species. Often the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) involved in an assessment fails to provide a robust and consistent evidence base for bycaught and Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species. There also appears to be a great deal of subjectivity in interpreting evidence and deciding on the severity of impacts of a given fishery, to the detriment of non-target species affected by that fishery.
For many species of marine mammals and pelagic sharks, there is a lack of available stock assessments, leading to a high level of uncertainty as to their status.1 The scoring guidelines under MSC Principle 2 aim to maintain bycaught secondary and ETP species above a “biological based limit” where the fishery does not hinder recovery. However, given that in-depth stock assessments are not available for such species, it means that biologically based safe limits have not been established, often making MSC guidelines under Principle 2 impossible to apply. It is a scientific principle that an absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of an absence of impacts. This is an essential part of the precautionary approach to fisheries management.
However, even when the CABs involved in the certification process acknowledge this lack of data, as has been noted above, fisheries have still been recommended to receive the MSC stamp of approval.
While there are a large number of MSC client fisheries about which we have serious worries, we identify below certain fisheries that best represent our concerns with the current MSC assessment process, and its failure to adequately address the conservation of target and nontarget species.

53 Organisationen schreiben an den MSC

53 Organisationen schreiben an den MSC

Es folgen konkrete Beispiele und die Forderung an den MSC, jeder Fischerei das Zertifikat zu verweigern, die als Ziel oder nennenswerten Beifang Top-Prädatoren oder Fische haben, die nach der IUCN-Liste als bedroht gelten.

SHARKPROJECT ist bekannt, dass einzelne Fischereien nachhaltige Zielfische als Grundlage eines MSC-Zertifikats machen, um ‚versteckt‘ u. a. Hai zu angeln.

Wir berichten über eine Reaktion.

SPENDEN | HELFEN

Sie möchten uns unterstützen?
Wir freuen uns immer, über jede Art von Hilfe…

 

Länderauswahl