Supporting the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing · For more detail on this project please...

Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on this consultation. Your contribution strengthens theMSC program by ensuring we develop policy after considering the input from all our stakeholders. Usingour fisheries certification and seafood labelling program, the MSC works with partners to promotesustainable fishing and transform markets.

This survey invites input on developing options for the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing,including mitigation actions for certified fisheries. It should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Weencourage you to download a PDF of this survey in advance. This will allow you to view the questions andshare with your colleagues before providing answers to this survey. You will not be able to save your progress and return later.

If you cannot do this survey for any reason, feel language is a barrier to participation or have any otherquestions please email us at [email protected] and we will do our best to accommodate your request.

Welcome to the MSC Fisheries Standard Review survey on the prevention of gear loss andghost fishing

Supporting the prevention of gear loss andghost fishing

mailto:[email protected]

The specific purpose of this consultation is research. All feedback will be analysed by the MSC Executive and discussed with the MSC Technical AdvisoryBoard and MSC Stakeholder Advisory Council who will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees.The Board will then take a decision on whether to publish any revised requirements in a future iteration ofour program documents. We will also use the profiles of participants to evaluate whether the participants collectively constitute abroadly unbiased and representative sample of key stakeholders for the issue(s) of interest.

Any project reports and case studies using the information in this form may have the names andorganisations of consultation participants redacted, depending on the preference you state below.

Finally, this survey is entirely optional and you may withdraw at any time.

GDPR and Research ethics


1. Given the above would you like to continue?*

I would like to continue and am willing to be named in any public report.

I would like to continue but do not want to be named in any public report.

I do not want to continue (end survey).

Contact information


Full name

Email Address

2. Please provide the following information.

3. In which country are you based?

4. What organisation do you represent, if any? Name one only.

5. Are you part of any industry groups or coalitions? If so, please list them.

Stakeholder categories


6. Please state which stakeholder categories describe your job.

Seafood supply chain - including trading, processing, packing/repacking, storage and transportation of seafoodproducts.

Commercial wild harvest fisheries - Involvement with harvesting wild stocks for profit.

Aquaculture - Involvement with the husbandry of farmed stocks.

Conformity assessment and/or accreditation - Involvement with testing or other activities that determinewhether a process, product, or services complies with the requirements of a specification, technical standard,contract, or regulation, or involved with issuing credentials or certifying third parties against an official standard.

Standard setting - Developing, coordinating, promulgating, revising, amending, reissuing, interpreting, orotherwise producing technical standards.

Non-governmental organisation - An organisation dedicated to effecting change according to their objectives,including but not limited, to environmental NGOs.

Academic/Scientific - An intellectual/theoretical interest in the seafood sector.

Comms/media - Involvement with communications related to the seafood sector.

Consumer - A person who buys and uses a seafood product.

Cultural/recreational/artisanal - A lifestyle interest in the seafood sector.

Governance/management - Leadership and administration for the governance of the seafood sector.

Other (please specify)

Seafood Supply Chain categories


7. Please state which elements of the seafood supply chain you are involved with. Select all thatapply, if any.

Trading - Buying and selling of product, including but not limited to retailers.

Transportation/logistics - Transportation of product.

Storage - Holding of product in storage.

Packing/Repacking - Changing of packaging.

Processing - Any activity that changes the product.

Other (please specify)

MSC stakeholders have raised concerns regarding how ghost gear impacts (when abandoned, lost anddiscarded fishing gear (ALDFG) continues to fish) are considered in the Fisheries Standard (e.g. Principle2 Ecosystem Impacts). It has been argued that the indirect way the issue is handled (e.g. principallyoutlined in Guidance) has led to outcomes that do not demonstrate effective ghost gear strategies.Additionally, there is a growing knowledge base regarding impacts from ghost gear on the marineenvironment. In response, the MSC Executive included a “ghost gear” (GG) project within the FisheryStandard Review (FSR) with the aim of exploring this concern further and developing options for revisionsto the Standard, if necessary.

Please note that the scope of this review is on the impact of ALDFG as it relates primarily to ghost fishing(gear continuing to fish and harm marine life) and marine habitats. Other potential impacts of ALDFG, suchas its contribution to marine litter and plastics pollution, are outside the scope of this review.

For more detail on this project please see the MSC website.

We would greatly appreciate your views on the issue of ghost gear.

Background


https://www.msc.org/standards-and-certification/developing-our-standards/the-fisheries-standard-review/projects/prevention-of-gear-loss-and-ghost-fishing

Context


8. The next few questions relate to how ghost gear is currently managed in fisheries. Answeringthese questions requires involvement with a particular fishery or set of fisheries (for example as amanager, fisher or any other interest or concern).

Would you like to view and answer these questions?

Yes

No


9. Are the potential impacts of ghost gear managed in any of the fisheries you are involved with? Ifyes, please tell us how?

10. Please describe and provide any information (such as data, reports, studies) that is currentlyavailable for any of your fisheries related to gear loss and ghost fishing.

11. If a revised MSC Standard required fisheries to review the need for and implement strategies toavoid gear loss, what (if any) changes will have to be made in any of your fisheries?

Very unprepared Unprepared Neither Prepared Very prepared Don’t know

Please explain your answer, including how this varies between the fisheries you are involved in.

12. How prepared would your fisheries be to implement strategies to avoid gear loss, should theMSC Standard require it in the future?

Considering ghost gear in the MSC Standard


Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree Don't know

Please explain your answer.

13. Do you agree that ghost gear impacts should be explicitly/directly considered in a revised MSCFisheries Standard?

14. What do you see as the main challenges in having requirements on the assessment,management and/or mitigation of the ecological impacts of ghost gear as part of the MSC FisheriesStandard?

Impact of ghost gear


15. How can the ecological impacts of ghost gear by a fishery be determined?

16. What types of evidence would contribute to understanding the ecological impacts of ghost gearby a fishery?

Managing the impact of ghost gear


17. What do you consider as best practice in managing the ecological impacts of ghostgear? Please provide specific examples if known.

18. Are certain types of management measures preferable to others? Please rank as many of thebelow measures as you wish by order of preference (with 1 the most preferred measure).

Spatial and / or temporal measures to reduce risk of gear loss (e.g. due to gear conflict).

Gear design to reduce whole or partial loss of the fishing gear.

Vessel design to reduce gear and other marine litter discarding.

Better marking and identification of fishing gear.

Improved redundant fishing gear disposal facilities.

Education and awareness raising of ghost gear impacts & mitigation measures.

Gear design to reduce the incidence and duration of ghost fishing (e.g. biodegradable gear components).

Lost gear reporting, location and recovery initiatives.

Another option (please explain in the next question)

19. Please explain any other option you included in the ranking above.

20. What types of evidence would contribute to understanding the management (e.g. strategies toreduce gear loss) of ghost gear in a fishery?

Changing the MSC Standard requirements



21. What should be the aim of any new or changed component in the MSC Fisheries Standard?Select as many as appropriate.

To assess the extent and scale of impact from ghost fishing.

To ensure that management is in place and effective e.g. gear loss avoidance and mitigation strategies ormeasures.

To determine if information levels are adequate to consider the issue: e.g. extent of gear loss in the fishery.

22. The next few questions relate to the structure of the MSC Fisheries Standard and how fisheriesare scored against the Standard. Answering these questions requires a high level of familiarity withthe MSC Fisheries Standard.

Would you like to view and answer these questions?

Yes

No

Changing the MSC Standard requirements


23. How should the MSC Fisheries Standard address ghost gear impacts? Please rank as many ofthe below options as you wish by order of preference (with 1 the most preferred option).

No change to the MSC Fisheries Standard

No change to the MSC Fisheries Standard, but training and communication to assessors focused on where they

should consider ghost gear in the existing requirements for consistency of approach.

Additional guidance making explicit reference to how ghost gear is to be considered in the MSC

Fisheries Standard.

Amend current requirements to require explicit assessment of ghost gear in existing Performance Indicators and

update guidance as part of the MSC Fisheries Standard.

A new requirement in the MSC Fisheries Standard focused on ghost gear avoidance and mitigation.



25. If a new ‘ghost gear’ requirement were to be included, where in a revised MSC standard wouldthis best fit? Please rank as many of the below options as you wish by order of preference (with 1the most preferred option).

As a new Performance Indicator within Principle 2.

As a new Performance Indicator within Principle 3.

As a new Scoring Issues related to ghost gear included across all three Principles.

As a new Scoring Issue within 2.3 on endangered, threatened and protected species (ETP)

As a new Scoring Issue within 2.4 Habitats

Coverage across the 2.5 Ecosystem Performance Indicators (outcome, management, information)

As a new Scoring Issue within PI 3.2.2 fisheries-specific management.

As a revision to the Review of Alternative Measures to Minimise Bycatch scoring issues (PI 1.2.1 SI[f]; 2.1.2 SI[e];

2.2.2 SI[e]; 2.3.2 SI[e]; to explicitly consider ghost gear.




27. Is there anything else that should be considered in assessing ghost gear within the MSCFisheries Standard?

To help us improve our consultations in the future, please complete the following questions.

Evaluation of this consultation


28. How did you first hear about this consultation survey?

Strongly disagree DisagreeNeither agree nor

disagree Agree Strongly agree Don't know

29. I found this consultation survey simple and easy to participate in.



30. Participating in this consultation survey was worth my time.



31. I would recommend participating in MSC consultations to my colleagues.



32. This consultation survey was exactly what I needed for me to provide my feedback on thistopic.

33. Please explain your answers, providing suggestions on how we might improve thisconsultation survey (for example, to make it easier to participate). This will help us improve ourconsultation events over time.

Satisfaction with the Fisheries Standard Review


34. Did you participate in the last Fisheries Standard Review (released in October 2014)?

Yes

No

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied Don't know


35. How satisfied are you that the areas currently proposed for review address any major concernswith the current Standard?

Would you like to join one or more of our mailing lists?


36. Would you like to be contacted about future MSC policy development work (this is revisions toone of the MSC's normative documents), including consultation events? Please tick all areas thatapply.

MSC Fisheries Program updates

MSC Supply Chain Program updates

ASC-MSC Seaweed Program updates

All MSC Policy Development updates

None of the above

Thank you for your feedback, which will be given full consideration. Please watch the MSC website forfuture updates and email [email protected] if you have any questions.

End of consultation survey


https://www.msc.org/standards-and-certification/developing-our-standards/the-fisheries-standard-review

mailto:[email protected]

Supporting the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing · For more detail on this project please...

Documents

Transcript of Supporting the prevention of gear loss and ghost fishing · For more detail on this project please...