Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Such absolute failsafe thresholds would need to be carefully specified in the stan-
dard, and rigorously enforced in the verification process. Failsafe thresholds could
be easily applied in a hierarchical manner, using a simple sieve approach to verifica-
tion. In such an arrangement, each of the failsafe thresholds would be assessed first,
and any failure would disqualify the venture for compliance with the standard. Thus
verification costs could be contained, and fisheries and aquaculture ventures would
have clear and explicit guidance on the minimum acceptable standard required by
the incentive programme. The New England Aquarium's programme (Chapter 16)
uses such a failsafe threshold as part of its assessment system.
A robust seafood sustainability standard would also include elements relating to
data and information, the design and effective implementation of strategies, assess-
ment of risks, and others as part of the supporting management for a sustainable
fishery or aquaculture venture. The decisions about which of these decision ele-
ments will be used to establish a standard that defines acceptable performance is a
decision of the incentive programme itself. Clearly some of these elements imply
higher sustainability expectations than others, and the way in which each decision
element is blended into a programme of performance indicators, as well as the
benchmark levels of performance that are set within the criteria of each element
will greatly influence the quality of the sustainability standard, and ultimately the
standing and credibility with consumers.
10.4.6 Technical clarity
The technical basis of a standard needs to reflect each of the issues of sustainability
and the specific interpretation that is developed through a standard-setting process.
For example, a standard that is expressed in a precise numeric form for one or
more issues, but in only descriptive terms for other issues, is biased. While it is
tempting to establish a standard that uses best available science only where this
can be applied in a well-developed way, using a detailed process for some aspects
but not for others, this provides for an implicit weighting of the issues. While this
may be the intention of the standard, the construction should make this explicit and
ensure that any inconsistencies are revealed and the processes of verification are
properly established to minimise any implicit weighting being applied.
A common problem for fisheries sustainability assessments is how to equivalently
compare the condition of fish stocks and the impacts of fishing on ecosystems.
Assessing the condition of fish stocks is usually highly science driven and model
dependent (Essington 2001). The sustainability standard for a wild-capture fishery
could therefore require an assessment and verification of the type and quality of
the scientific process used in the management system to establish a safe harvest
of fish, the actual levels of harvest set and the size of the stocks needed to ensure
an ongoing harvest with a high level of probability. In contrast, environmental
issues are sometimes poorly researched, and there may be little data or knowledge
with which a sustainability standard can be constructed, or the impacts of a fishery
Search WWH ::




Custom Search