GSSI Global Benchmark Tool - Draft For Consultation

Date: 16 June 2014
Subject: Announcing 60 day consultation period on draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool

Dear GSSI Stakeholder,

Over the past year, the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) has been working to develop a first draft of its
Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes to ensure confidence in the supply and promotion of
sustainable seafood to consumers worldwide as well as promote improvement in the schemes.

Public Consultation Period
GSSI will conduct an extensive consultation and pilot testing process in order to ensure the relevance,
applicability and usability of its Global Benchmark Tool. As a start of this process, on June 16 2014, the initial draft
of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool has been released for a 60 day public consultation period. As part of the
consultation period GSSI will host a series of webinars and workshops, please visit www.ourGSSI.org for an
overview of the scheduled events and contact the GSSI Secretariat for more information on registration.

In support of the draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool an excel file is available to submit your comments. If you
have not received the excel file, please contact the GSSI Secretariat and they will make sure you will be provided
with a complete set of documents and files.

Submit Comments
To participate in the public consultation period:
Submit your comments by filling out the excel file. All comments must be submitted in English before
August 16 2014 to comments@ourGSSI.org
Visit the GSSI website (www.ourgssi.org) for more details on the scheduled webinars and workshops, and
contact the GSSI Secretariat for information on the registration process

Please note that this initial draft of the Benchmark Tool is a work in progress. In particular there are
still areas where perspectives differ and the expert working groups are still seeking consensus. It is expected that
the public input process will help to resolve some of these issues.

Next Steps
The public consultation period will be followed by a pilot testing program to test the Tools usability and help
GSSI address any major issues from the consultation period.
When the consultation period has ended, the Expert Working Groups and the Secretariat will review the
comments and prepare a summary of the major issues that require specific attention during the pilot testing
period. A list of all of the comments and this summary will be posted on the GSSI website at that time.

More Information
GSSI is looking forward to receive your comments, and please do not hesitate to contact the GSSI Secretariat
with any further enquiries you might have.
For more information about the process for developing the Tool, please visit www.ourgssi.org.

Yours Sincerely,

The GSSI Steering Board

GSSI GLOBAL
BENCHMARK TOOL
Please note that this initial draft of the Global Benchmark Tool
is a work in progress.

2
Foreword
Responsible certification schemes are effective mechanisms for promoting sustainability in the
seafood supply chain. Over the past few years the number of seafood certification schemes in
the marketplace has been rapidly increasing without a clear way to determine which ones are in
alignment with existing international normative references (at a minimum the FAO Guidelines
1
)
commonly accepted and recognized by all relevant stakeholders. This has created confusion
and increased costs throughout the seafood supply chain, which could ultimately harm
consumer confidence in certified sustainable seafood products. Therefore there is a need for a
globally accepted tool to provide an objective and transparent assessment of the performance
and provide recognition of seafood certification schemes.
The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI)
The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) was created to develop a common, consistent
Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes that will:
Creating an internationally agreed set of criteria and indicators to measure and compare
the performance of seafood certification and labelling programs, in order to facilitate their
implementation and use;
Provide an international Multi-Stakeholder Platform for collaboration, knowledge
exchange in seafood sustainability; and
Reduce cost by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency of seafood
certification and labelling programs thereby increasing affordability and flexibility within
the supply chain
The current draft Global Benchmark Tool was created by a diverse range of stakeholders,
including retailers, food services, manufacturers, harvesters and farmers, non-governmental
organizations, academics and intergovernmental organizations.

Please note that this initial draft of the Benchmark Tool is a work in progress. GSSI
participants are still working to find common ground on some areas in the Framework and
expect that the consultation period and pilot testing phase will help to resolve some of these
issues.

1
Throughout the entire document the term FAO Guidelines refers to these three Guidelines:
FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries,
FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and
FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification
3
Contents
Foreword ......................................................................................................... 2
Overview.6
About the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) .................................... 6
Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6
Scope of GSSI .............................................................................................................................. 6
Structure and Governance ........................................................................................................... 7
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 7
About the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool ............................................................ 8
Development of the Global Benchmark Tool ................................................................................ 8
GSSI Benchmark Process ............................................................................................................. 9
GSSI Benchmark Framework........................................................................................................ 9
GSSI recognition and opportunity for improvement ................................................................... 10
The Consultation and Pilot Testing ................................................................. 12
Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 12
Pilot Testing .............................................................................................................................. 12
Part I: GSSI Benchmark Process...14
Introduction ................................................................................................... 14
GSSI Benchmark Process: Key Steps and Activities ......................................... 14
The Benchmark Committee ............................................................................ 20
The Benchmark Committee: Responsibilities ............................................................................. 20
The Benchmark Committee: Structure ....................................................................................... 20
Part II: GSSI Benchmark Framework21
Introduction ................................................................................................... 22
Benchmark Framework Sections: Scope and Performance Areas .................... 23
Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes .......................... 23
Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes ..... 25
Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards ............................................... 27
Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards .................................................... 29
Explanation of the GSSI Requirements Tables ............................................................................ 34
4
Section A Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification
Schemes ......................................................................................................... 35
A.1 Scheme Governance ............................................................................................................ 35
A.2 Scheme Management.......................................................................................................... 39
A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 42
Section B Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood
Certification Schemes ..................................................................................... 49
B.1 Accreditation ...................................................................................................................... 49
B.2 Certification ........................................................................................................................ 52
B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody ........................................................................................ 57
Section C Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards ................ 60
C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management ................................................................................... 60
C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use ....................................................................................... 64
C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use ....................................................................................................... 66
C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity ..................................................................................... 68
C.5 Seed .................................................................................................................................... 71
C.6 Species Selection and Escapes .............................................................................................. 74
C.7 General Site Management ................................................................................................... 75
C.8 Water Quality and Waste .................................................................................................... 77
Section D Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards ...................... 80
D.1 Governance and Fishery Management ................................................................................. 80
D.2 Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... 83
D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans ................................................................... 86
D.4 Data and Information .......................................................................................................... 92
D.5 Assessment Methodologies ................................................................................................. 94
D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes ........................................................................................... 97
D.7 Compliance and Enforcement .............................................................................................. 99
GSSI Terms and Definitions .......................................................................... 100
Part III: Reference Matrix to the FAO Guidelines121

5

INTRODUCTION

This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark
Tool which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing.
Global Sustainable
Seafood Initiative
6
Overview
About the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI)
In 2013, the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) was founded as a strategic partnership
between the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and global
seafood stakeholders, including retailers, food services, manufacturers, harvesters and farmers,
non-governmental organizations, academics and intergovernmental organizations.

The mission of GSSI is to deliver a common, consistent and global benchmarking tool for
seafood certification schemes to ensure confidence in the supply and promotion of sustainable
seafood to consumers worldwide as well as promote improvement in the schemes.
Objectives
Creating an internationally agreed set of criteria and indicators to measure and compare
the performance of seafood certification and labelling programs, in order to facilitate their
implementation and use;
Provide an international Multi-Stakeholder Platform for collaboration, knowledge
exchange in seafood sustainability; and
Reduce cost by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency of seafood
certification and labelling programs thereby increasing affordability and flexibility within
the supply chain

Scope of GSSI
The GSSI was created as a multi-stakeholder initiative to address sustainability certification
issues in the global seafood value chain. The initial mandate of the GSSI has been to develop a
Global Benchmark Tool to assess the governance and operational procedures of seafood
certification schemes and the robustness of the environmental criteria in the certification
standards for aquaculture and fisheries.
All parties involved with GSSI recognize the importance of social issues in the seafood supply
chain; however the current available expertise and resources for GSSI are not adequate to
address this important issue at this point in time. In the future, GSSI will explore what if any
type of role the initiative could play in assessing how this important component in seafood
production is assessed.

7
Structure and Governance
GSSI has the following structure in place:
A Steering Board that oversees the daily management and provides strategic direction
for GSSI. The Steering Board includes a diverse set of stakeholders, including major
seafood harvesters and producers, seafood processors and manufacturers, retail and
food service companies, non-governmental organizations, academics, and inter-
governmental organizations.

Expert Working Groups mandated by the Steering Board to conduct specific tasks. To
date over 40 experts in seafood sustainability and certification have joined three working
groups to develop the first draft of the Global Benchmark Tool:
o The Aquaculture Expert Working Group.
o The Fisheries Expert Working Group
o The Process Expert Working Group.

A Secretariat that manages the daily operations of GSSI.

Formal GSSI partners, which are companies and organizations that are committed to
actively supporting GSSI through funding, participation and/ or endorsement of the tool.
Funding
The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) is co-funded by Public Private Partnership
between the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and the
GSSI Consortium GbR, a global consortium with 31 leading seafood companies.
For more detailed information, background, and contact information for the GSSI please visit
www.ourGSSI.org.

8
About the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool
The draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes has three main
components:
Benchmark Process This component outlines the process by which seafood
certification schemes, who are seeking formal recognition by the GSSI, can be
objectively assessed against the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework

Benchmark Framework This component outlines the requirements against which
seafood certification schemes are assessed.

Public Recognition This component outlines GSSIs process for communicating the
benchmark results of seafood certification schemes that have successfully undergone
the Benchmark Process.

This document includes initial drafts of the Benchmark Process and Benchmark Framework that
are being released for consultation with GSSI stakeholders.
Development of the Global Benchmark Tool
The components of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool are being developed according to the
following key steps.

Initial draft of the Global Benchmark Tool. Over the past year, the Expert Working
Groups have developed initial drafts of the Benchmark Framework and the Benchmark
Process. These documents have been approved and released by the GSSI Steering
Board for a consultation period and a pilot testing period,

Consultation period. The consultation period will include a series of consultation
workshops and webinars as well as an online form for gathering stakeholder comments.
Based on a review of the comments received a summary of the major issues that require
particular attention during the pilot testing period will be prepared

Pilot testing program. The pilot testing program will be conducted using this initial draft
of the Benchmark Tool, and will give particular attention on any major issue that may
come out of the consultation period. In the pilot testing program, a number of seafood
certification schemes will go through key steps of the Benchmark Process to test its
usability and help GSSI to assess the applicability of the requirements in the Benchmark
Framework.

Revised draft of Global Benchmark Tool. The Expert Working Groups will use input
from the consultation period and pilot testing period to develop a revised draft of the tool.

9
Potential 2nd comment stage. The Steering Board will review the nature and amount of
comments received during the consultation period and results from pilot testing to
determine if the revised draft needs to go through a second consultation period.

Launch Global Benchmark Tool. The Expert Working Groups will finalize the tool,
present it to the Steering Board for final approval, after which it will be launched and
open for seafood certification schemes to apply for benchmarking.

The goal is to have the tool ready for a public launch before the summer of 2015, shortly after
which the GSSI hopes to welcome the first applications from seafood certification schemes for
benchmarking.

GSSI Benchmark Process
The Benchmark Process defines the process by which seafood certification schemes that are
seeking formal recognition by the GSSI will be objectively assessed against the requirements of
the GSSI Benchmark Framework.
The GSSI Benchmark Process is designed to ensure integrity and consistency between
assessments, and is carried out in an independent, impartial and transparent manner by
technically competent experts. The six key steps of the Benchmark Process are:
Submission of application and supporting documentation by certification scheme;
Preliminary desk top review by an Independent Expert;
Office audit or desk top review (dependent upon adequacy of application) by
Independent Expert;
Review by multi-stakeholder Benchmark Committee;
Stakeholder Consultation;
Recognition decision by GSSI Steering Board.

GSSI Benchmark Framework
The GSSI Benchmark Framework is the collective set of requirements against which seafood
certification schemes are assessed. The Benchmark Framework is divided into four sections,
each of which includes a number of Performance Areas:
Section A Requirements for Governance of a Seafood Certification Scheme
A.1 Scheme Governance
A.2 Scheme Management
A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance
Section B Requirements for Operational Management of a Seafood Certification Scheme
B.1 Accreditation
B.2 Certification
10
B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody
Section C Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards
C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management
C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use
C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use
C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity
C.5 Seed
C.6 Species Selection and Escapes
C.7 General Site Management
C.8 Water Quality and Waste
Section D Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards
D.1 Governance and Fishery Management
D.2 Management Objectives
D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans
D.4 Data and Information
D.5 Assessment Methodologies
D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes
D.7 Compliance and Enforcement

GSSI recognition and opportunity for improvement
The GSSI will provide formal recognition to certification schemes with demonstrated responsible
practices and is committed to providing seafood certification schemes with an opportunity for
improvement through identified improved and leading practices; this is reflected in the
requirements for each Performance Area in the Benchmark Framework through a 3-tiered
approach:
Tier 1: Responsible Practice
Tier 2: Improved Practice
Tier 3: Leading Practice
Certification schemes for which alignment with all requirements for Responsible Practice has
been verified through the GSSI Benchmark Process will receive a formal recognition by GSSI.
Through the verification of alignment with requirements for tiers 2 and 3, the GSSI Benchmark
Process will also demonstrate and verify the implementation of Improved and Leading Practices
for specific elements of a certification scheme.

11
The table below provides a general framework of the requirements for each respective tier.

Tier General Requirements
Tier 1:
Responsible
Practice

Requirements for recognition in alignment with:
Principles and Requirements of the FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling
Marine/Inland Capture Fisheries
Principles and Requirements of the FAO Technical Guidelines for
Aquaculture Certification
Current common practices for responsible seafood certification schemes
in alignment with existing international normative references to
supplement FAO Guidelines (where appropriate).
Tier 2:
Improved
Practice

Requirements in addition to Tier 1 related to scheme governance and operational
management, including but not limited to:
Increased engagement of stakeholders within the organizational and
institutional arrangements of the certification scheme.
Increased transparency and communication.
Improved scheme management practices.

Requirements reflecting increased robustness of the environmental impact
criteria of the certification standard, including but not limited to:
Monitoring of ecosystem impacts.
Adoption of additional practices demonstrated to reduce environmental
impacts of fishery and/ or aquaculture operations.
Transparency and review of fishery and/ or aquaculture management
programs and documents.
Tier 3:
Leading
Practice

Requirements in addition to Tier 2 related to both scheme governance,
operational management and certification standard requirements, including but
not limited to:
Proactive engagement of relevant stakeholders.
Independent evaluation and demonstration of improvements against
certification schemes sustainability objectives.
Incorporation of established leading practices in the certification standard,
including a holistic approach to ecosystem effects and management, and
cumulative environmental impacts.
12
The Consultation and Pilot Testing
In order to ensure the relevance, applicability and usability of the Global Benchmark Tool, GSSI
is conducting a public consultation of stakeholders and a pilot testing program.

Consultation

This initial draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool has been released for a 60 day public
consultation period on June 16 2014. The GSSI Steering Board is encouraging all interested
stakeholders to submit their comments electronically to the GSSI Secretariat.

As part of the consultation period GSSI will also host a series of webinars and workshops,
please visit www.ourGSSI.org for an overview of the scheduled events. For more information on
registration please contact the GSSI Secretariat.

To learn more about the workshops, webinars and how to submit comments and remain updated
on the progress of the consultation, please visit www.ourGSSI.org.

After the consultation period has ended, the Expert Working Groups and the Secretariat will
review the comments and prepare a summary of the major issues that require specific attention
during the pilot testing period. This summary will be posted on the GSSI website, together with
all comments received.

Pilot Testing
A number of seafood certification schemes have volunteered to participate in the GSSI Pilot
Testing Program using the draft Framework to test its usability and help GSSI address any major
issues from the consultation period. The pilot testing period will run from September through
October 2014. Pilot testing will not result in recognition by GSSI.

After the Pilot testing period, the Expert Working Groups will integrate comments from the
consultation period and the feedback from the pilot testing program into the Global Benchmark
Tool and present this to the Steering Board.

In January 2015, the Steering Board will decide if a second consultation period for the revised
Benchmark Tool is desired, based on the feedback and outcomes of the consultation process
and the pilot testing program, and the review and recommendations of the Expert Working
Groups.

13

GSSI GLOBAL
BENCHMARK TOOL

PART I:
BENCHMARK PROCESS
This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool
which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing.

Global Sustainable
Seafood Initiative
14
Part I: GSSI Benchmark Process
Introduction
This section defines the key steps and activities of the GSSI Benchmark Process for the
objective assessment of seafood certification schemes against the requirements of the GSSI
Benchmark Framework. The GSSI Benchmark Process is designed to ensure consistency
between assessments, and is carried out in an independent, impartial and transparent manner
by technically competent experts. Its duration is expected to vary dependent on a number of
factors and GSSI expects to obtain a clear timeframe through the pilot testing.
GSSI will develop a mechanism to ensure continued alignment of recognised schemes with the
requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework.
The following experts and individuals are involved in the key steps of the Benchmark Process:
Independent Expert (IE): a competent trained person, approved and appointed by the
GSSI Steering Board, who is assigned to conduct the assessment and manage the
benchmark process for a specific seafood certification scheme application.
Benchmark Committee (BMC): A multi-stakeholder team of technical experts who have
been approved and appointed by the GSSI Steering Board with the task of reviewing the
benchmark report of the Independent Expert and providing a recommendation to the
GSSI Steering Board on whether or not GSSI should recognise a specific seafood
certification scheme.
Steering Board Liaison: Appointed member of the GSSI Steering Board who is
assigned for a specific application to work closely with the Independent Expert,
Benchmark Committee members and applicant scheme owners to provide support and
guidance on issues arising from GSSI benchmarking activities, with particular reference
to the resolution of conflict or disagreement.
The following sections outline the key steps and activities in the Benchmark Process and the
structure and roles and responsibilities of the Benchmark Committee.
GSSI Benchmark Process: Key Steps and Activities
This section outlines the activities and expected time frames for the key steps in the Benchmark
Process. Within the Benchmark Process six critical steps are identified. These are highlighted in the
figure The GSSI Benchmark Process Key Steps and the tables in dark blue below:
Submission of application and supporting documentation.
Review of Preliminary Report by the independent Expert and GSSI Steering Board
Liaison.
Office Audit or Desk Top Review (dependent upon adequacy of application).
Benchmark Committee Review.
Stakeholder Consultation followed by review by Benchmark Committee of comments
received and formulation of recommendation.
Recognition decision by GSSI Steering Board.
As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, the Benchmark Process will be regularly
reviewed, maintained and updated as required to ensure consistency and integrity.
15

The GSSI Benchmark Process Key Steps

Office Audit Undertaken by IE 9a Desktop Review Undertaken by IE (in cases where
preliminary information provided is sufficient)
9b
Supplementary Actions Undertaken by Applicant 10
Interim Report issued by IE 11
Convene GSSI Benchmarking Committee (BMC) 12
Review by GSSI BMC 13
GSSI BMC/ Scheme Owner Meeting 14
Issue of Report by GSSI BMC 15
Stakeholder Consultation 16
Review of Stakeholder Consultation Response by BC 17
Issue of Final Report to GSSI Steering Board 18
Decision by GSSI Steering Board 19
Continuous Recognition Process (to be developed) 20
Submission of Application via an IT Platform

1
Application Review by Trained Staff
2
Benchmark Agreement 3
Appointment of an Independent Expert (IE)
4
Appointment of GSSI Steering Board Liaison 5
Preliminary Desk Review by the Independent Expert 6
Completion of Preliminary Report by the IE 7
Review of Preliminary Report by the IE and GSSI
Steering Board Liaison
8

16
Step Description Objective Description of Activity
1 Submission of
Application
via an IT Platform
To submit a clear, concise
and complete application to
GSSI, allowing the benchmark
process to commence. The
application shall be compliant
with application requirements
and be submitted to the GSSI
Secretariat using a secure IT
platform.
The Scheme Owner submits a completed application
for GSSI recognition to GSSI Secretariat using
defined documentation and following guidance for
completion of the GSSI application.

2 Application
Review by
Trained Staff
To review the submitted
application for completeness
and relevance.
The GSSI Secretariat reviews the submitted
application for completeness and relevance; this is not
a detailed review of content but only to ensure all
expected documentation has been submitted.
3 Benchmark
Agreement
To review, agree and sign an
Agreement/ Contract in
relation to the benchmark
process and possible
recognition by the GSSI.
The GSSI and the Scheme Owner shall review, agree
and sign an Agreement/Contract to cover all aspects
of the benchmark process.
4 Appointment of
an Independent
Expert
To appoint a competent,
trained independent expert,
who shall manage the
benchmark process
The GSSI appoints a competent independent expert
to take a lead on the verification process. The
independent expert will have undergone training
specified by the GSSI.
5 Appointment of a
GSSI Steering
Board Liaison
To appoint a GSSI Steering
Board Liaison from the GSSI
Steering Board membership
The GSSI appoints a GSSI Steering Board Liaison for
each application who will be made aware of all
information during the benchmark process and will act
as an advisor for the verification process and support
the Independent Expert and the Benchmark
Committee.
6 Preliminary Desk
Top Review by
the Independent
Expert
To undertake a preliminary
review of the scheme
application and to make an
assessment on the status of
alignment with GSSI
Framework Document
Requirements.
The Independent Expert reviews the submitted
application and makes an assessment on the
schemes alignment with GSSI Framework Document
Requirements.
The review will act as a preliminary assessment of the
likelihood of the scheme gaining recognition, without
significant amendment and within the expected
timeframe. Unless it is decided that the resubmission
of an application must occur (see Step 7), the
information will be used to plan for the office review
or desk top review that will be taken later in the
process.
The Independent Expert should liaise with the
Scheme Owner to clarify any issues identified by the
review.
7 Completion of
Preliminary Desk
Review Report by
the Independent
Expert
To produce a short, but
detailed report upon the
findings of the preliminary
desk review and confirm
status of the application.
The Independent Expert drafts a report on the
findings/outcomes of the preliminary review and
agrees this with the Scheme Owner, as far as
possible, and circulates it to the GSSI Secretariat and
Steering Board Liaison.
The report will state the experts opinion of the
likelihood of the scheme either to gain recognition
within a defined time frame or the non-recognition of
the scheme leading to the need for a resubmission of
the application.
17
8 Review of
Preliminary
Report by the
Independent
Expert and GSSI
Steering Board
Liaison
To review the detailed
Preliminary Report to
determine and agree upon the
status of scheme alignment
and to decide upon course of
action, namely resubmission,
office audit or desk top audit.
The Independent Expert provides a copy of the
Preliminary Report to the GSSI Steering Board
Liaison and a decision is made on the requirement for
resubmission, to progress to an Office Audit or to
progress to a Desk Top Review.
In the event that resubmission is not required, the
Office Audit shall be the default action, but if it is
deemed that the application and supporting
documentation are of sufficient detail that an Office
Audit can be deferred, then this shall be agreed by the
GSSI Steering Board Liaison and a Desk Top Review
be undertaken.
In the event that when the Desk Top Review
commences and unforeseen issues are experienced,
the Independent Expert shall seek agreement with the
GSSI Steering Board Liaison to undertake an Office
Audit.
Where the decision that the scheme would require
significant amendment, or would be unlikely to gain
recognition within the expected timeframe, the GSSI
shall inform the scheme of its decision and it is the
responsibility of the scheme if resubmission is made;
in this case the scheme will have to submit a revised
application at their discretion and process steps 1-8
shall be followed once again.
9 a Office Audit
Undertaken by
the Independent
Expert
To undertake a detailed and
comprehensive audit of the
Scheme Owners systems and
procedures, at specified
locations of the Scheme
Owner, in order to assess
conformity with the
requirements of the GSSI
Framework Document.
The Independent Expert undertakes an in depth office
audit to assess alignment of the Scheme Owner with
GSSI requirements.
All information in relation to objective evidence of
alignment should be made available and reviewed in
detail by the Independent Expert.
9 b Desk Top Review
Undertaken by
the Independent
Expert
To undertake a detailed and
comprehensive Desk Top
Review of the Scheme
Owners systems and
procedures, in order to assess
conformity with the
requirements of the GSSI
Framework Document.
The Independent Expert undertakes an in depth desk
top review to assess alignment of the Scheme Owner
with GSSI requirements.
All information in relation to objective evidence of
alignment should be made available and reviewed in
detail by the Independent Expert.
10 Supplementary
Action
Undertaken by
the Applicant
To ensure any supplementary
actions relating to deficiencies
identified by the GSSI
Independent Expert during the
Desk Top Review or the
Office Audit are successfully
completed and are in
alignment with the GSSI
Framework Document
requirements.
The Independent Expert shall, following the Office
Audit or Desk Top Review, make comment on all
areas where the applicant scheme does not meet
GSSI requirements and, where appropriate in
consultation with the Steering Board Liaison, agree
any supplementary action with the Scheme Owner.

The effectiveness of supplementary action taken shall
be verified by the Independent Expert in consultation
with the Steering Board.
If it is believed the supplementary actions will mean
significant changes to the Scheme to that submitted
within the application, the Independent
Expert shall refer the matter to the GSSI Steering
Board Liaison for guidance on action.
18
11 Interim Report
Issued by the
Independent
Expert
To produce a short, but
detailed report upon the
findings of Office Audit or
Desk Top Review, issues that
require action, associated
agreed supplementary actions
and the effectiveness and
acceptability of supplementary
actions.
The Independent Expert issues an Interim Report
which confirms the findings of the office audit, agreed
corrective actions arising from the Office Audit or
Desk Top Review and the effectiveness of the
corrective actions. The report will be agreed with the
Scheme Owner and then circulated to the GSSI
Secretariat and GSSI Steering Board Liaison.
The report will state the experts opinion of the
likelihood of the scheme to gain recognition within a
defined time frame or the non-recognition of the
scheme.
In the event that agreement cannot be reached with
the Scheme Owner, the Independent Expert shall
refer this matter to the GSSI Steering Board Liaison
for resolution.
The Independent Expert, with the agreement of the
GSSI Steering Board Liaison, defines if the interim
report can be sent to the GSSI Benchmark
Committee.
If the decision is to send the report, this will mean the
GSSI Benchmark Committee can be convened.
If the decision is not to send the report to the
Benchmark Committee, the GSSI Secretariat will
inform the GSSI Steering Board and agree actions to
be taken.
12 Convene the
GSSI Benchmark
Committee
To convene a GSSI
Benchmark Committee by the
appointment of specified GSSI
members.
The GSSI Secretariat convenes a Benchmark
Committee from a cohort of trained GSSI members.
13 Review by the
GSSI Benchmark
Committee
To objectively review the
applicant scheme
requirements against the
defined requirements laid
down in the GSSI Framework
Document and prepare
recommendations for
recognition or non-recognition.
All documentation and reports are made available to
GSSI Benchmark Committee members and the
Committee members are briefed by the Independent
Expert and Steering Board Liaison.
The Benchmark Committee members should
challenge any issues that arise from their review of
the process and document. These issues will be
discussed with the Independent Expert and potential
resolution of these issues agreed.
14 GSSI Benchmark
Committee/
Scheme Owner
Meeting
To conduct a meeting
between the GSSI Benchmark
Committee and the
management of the Scheme
Owner in order to discuss,
and where possible, resolve
any issues identified within the
GSSI Benchmark Committee
review.
A meeting is convened between the GSSI Benchmark
Committee and the Scheme Owner to discuss and
agree issues identified by the Committee. It is at the
discretion of the GSSI Steering Board Liaison, if
he/she wishes to attend the meeting.
15 Issue of
Assessment
Report by the
GSSI Benchmark
Committee
To issue a clear and concise
Assessment Report which
summarises the outcomes of
the Benchmark Process to
date, confirmation of issues
identified and where these
issues have been corrected.
The Report shall also
summarise issues which have
not been resolved by the
GSSI Benchmark Committee
and the Scheme Owner.
The Independent Expert drafts an Assessment Report
following the GSSI Benchmark Committee/Scheme
Owners meeting, which will be approved by the
committee.

The report shall document the outcome of the process
and highlight where alignment is in place, where non-
alignment has been corrected and any issues that
have been raised by the Benchmark Committee that
remain unresolved.

19
16 Stakeholder
Consultation
To conduct and open,
effective and transparent
stakeholder consultation on
the outcome of the GSSI
Benchmark Process.
The GSSI conducts an open and transparent
stakeholder consultation and collate comments from
respondents.
17 Review of
Stakeholder
Consultation and
Response by the
GSSI Benchmark
Committee
To review and act upon the
responses from stakeholders
following consultation.
The Benchmark Committee reviews the responses
from the stakeholder consultation and agrees
action(s), if required.
The Benchmark Committee may, at their discretion,
share information and agree further actions with the
Scheme Owner.
18 Issue of Final
Report to the
GSSI Steering
Board
To issue a clear and concise
Final Report. This Report shall
contain details of all the
activities of the Benchmark
Process and shall provide
recommendation regarding
recognition or non-recognition
of the scheme, and verified
improved and leading
practices to the GSSI Steering
Board.
The Independent Expert drafts a Final Report which
contains details of the activities undertaken within the
Benchmark Process. The GSSI Benchmark
Committee vets and agrees the final report.
The report shall have a clear and concise
recommendation to the GSSI Steering Board,
regarding recognition or non-recognition of the
scheme, and verified improved and leading practices.
The GSSI Secretariat ensures all supporting
documentation is collated and available for review by
GSSI Steering Committee Board members, if
required.
The GSSI Benchmark Committee Final Report shall
clearly specify the reasons for the recommendation,
whether for recognition or non-recognition.
19 Decision by the
GSSI Steering
Board
To review the activities
undertaken within the
Benchmark Process and
agree upon the recognition or
non-recognition, and verified
improved and leading
practices of the applicant
scheme.
The members of the GSSI Steering Board review the
Final Report to ensure that all due process has been
followed and accept or reject the recommendation by
the Benchmark Committee. The GSSI Steering Board
reaches agreement by consensus.
During the decision making process the GSSI
Steering Board members may request further
information or clarity on any issue.
The GSSI Steering Board shall provide the Scheme
Owner with the reasons for the decision, whether it is
for recognition or non-recognition. In the event of non-
recognition, the Steering Board will specify any
possible further action by the Scheme Owner. The
minutes of the meeting of the GSSI Steering Board
shall include all necessary detail.
20 Continuous
Recognition
Processes
(to be developed)
To ensure continued
alignment of recognised
schemes on a regular basis.
GSSI will develop a mechanism to ensure continued
alignment of recognised schemes with the
requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework.

20
The Benchmark Committee
The Benchmark Committee: Responsibilities
Each seafood certification scheme that goes through the Benchmark Process will have a
Benchmark Committee who will be responsible for ensuring that:
An applicant scheme is objectively assessed against the Benchmark Framework using the
Benchmark Process.
The Benchmark Process is carried out within an agreed timeframe.
The findings of the Benchmark Process are clearly and concisely documented.

The Benchmark Committee will also submit recommendations to the Steering Board for
recognition or non-recognition of the applicant scheme.

The Benchmark Committee: Structure
Each Benchmark Committee will consist of 8 members and an independent expert who are
selected by the Steering Board in accordance with a set of defined technical competencies.
Committee members will appoint a Committee Leader.
Each Committee member must:
Agree to serve for a minimum of 4 scheme applications.
Declare their potential conflicts of interest in advance.
Participate in the Committee as an individual and not represent an organization.
The role of the appointed independent expert and a Benchmark Committee is to undertake
assessment and not to provide consultative advice to scheme owners.

21
GSSI GLOBAL
BENCHMARK TOOL

PART II:
BENCHMARK
FRAMEWORK
This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool
which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing.

Global Sustainable
Seafood Initiative
22
Part II: GSSI Benchmark Framework
Introduction
This section outlines the requirements against which seafood certification schemes are
assessed. The Benchmark Framework is divided into four sections, each of which includes a
number of Performance Areas. The requirements for each Performance Area follow the tiered
approach to outline Responsible, Improved and Leading Practices for specific elements within
the respective Performance Areas. The first two sections of the Benchmark Framework outline
the requirements for scheme governance and operational management, while the last two
sections outline the requirements in relation to the environmental criteria of certification
standards for aquaculture and fisheries:
Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Scheme
Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes
Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards
Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards
All seafood certification schemes seeking recognition by the GSSI will need to verify alignment
with, at a minimum, the requirements for Responsible Practice in Section A and B. Seafood
certification schemes will also need to verify alignment with, at a minimum, the requirements for
Responsible Practice of Section C and / or Section D, depending on their scope for certification
(Aquaculture and/or Fisheries). The process for formal verification of alignment with the
requirement of the Benchmark Framework is outlined in section 1 of the Global Benchmark Tool:
GSSI Benchmark Process. The Benchmark Framework provides additional guidance to
applicant certification schemes on the objective evidence that is required to verify alignment with
the individual requirements.
The requirements in the Benchmark Framework have been developed by the GSSI Expert
Working Groups in alignment with the principles and requirements outlined in the FAO
Guidelines
1
. The requirements for Responsible Practice are based on a detailed review of the
FAO Guidelines
1
and relevant normative references. In specific areas requirements based on
current common practices for responsible seafood certification schemes have been included
where these supplemented the requirements in the FAO Guidelines
1
. Where appropriate,
requirements reflecting identified Improved and Leading Practices for specific elements of a
Performance Area have been included in the Benchmark Framework. These requirements have
been included to acknowledge enhanced practices and, where appropriate, serve as an
opportunity for improvement.
The following section will provide an overview of the scope and performance areas of the four
sections of the Benchmark Framework, followed by the detailed requirements and guidance for
objective evidence of each Section. The last section of this document includes a glossary of
terms.
1
FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries,
FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and
FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification
23
Benchmark Framework Sections: Scope and Performance Areas
Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes
Section A of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements for the governance of a
seafood certification scheme, recognizing the importance of effective management control by a
scheme owner. There is specific emphasis placed upon transparency regarding the schemes
legal standing, the adoption and implementation of good governance principles, the
appropriateness of scheme rules/ procedures, adequacy of resource and the robustness of
supporting systems.
The table below provides an overview and short summary of the different Performance Areas
addressed in this section.
Section A Performance Areas
A.1 Scheme
Governance
This Performance Area defines the requirements in relation to the
ownership and the effective governance of a seafood certification
scheme.
Compliance with the defined elements will ensure that the scheme
owner has demonstrated that a level of responsible governance is in
place at all times.

This performance area includes five topics:
- Governance
- Institutional Arrangements
- Non-discrimination
- Scheme Integrity Monitoring Program
- Scope and Objectives
A.2 Scheme
Management
This Performance Area defines the requirements in relation to the
effective management of a seafood certification scheme.
It includes two topics:
- Logo use and misrepresentation
- Complaints and Appeals.
Logo use and misrepresentation
The requirements in this area ensure that the use of information such
as symbols, logos and claims are effectively controlled and managed
by a seafood certification scheme and that there are clear rules by
which symbols, logos and claims can be used.
The information conveyed by the use of symbols, logos and claims is
important to consumers to make informed choices. The misuse or
misinterpretation of symbols, logos and claims in relation to a seafood
certification scheme will bring the Seafood Industry into disrepute and
seriously damage the confidence of the consumer with respect to the
integrity of seafood certification schemes.
GSSI wishes to ensure that effective control mechanisms are in place
to prevent the occurrence of such issues.
Complaints and Appeals
24
Section A Performance Areas
Effective complaint handling and resolution of complaints is a key
indicator of a well governed seafood certification scheme. The
elements of these processes are defined within this section. In the
event that an appeal is made to a seafood certification scheme,
procedures shall be through, fair and transparent.
There are a number of benefits in relation to the way in which a
seafood certification scheme manages its complaints and appeals.
GSSI wishes to promote the effectiveness of complaint and appeal
handling procedures to ensure these benefits are gained and the
integrity of the seafood certification scheme is not compromised.
A.3 Standard
Setting and
Maintenance
This Performance Area ensures that a certification standard has been
developed, implemented and is maintained in accordance with
responsible practice. The requirements are in alignment with the
relevant sections of the ISEAL Standard Setting Code and ISO 59.
Effective standard setting and the maintenance of its standard by a
scheme owner is defined within this section and there is specific
emphasis placed upon the standard setting bodys structure and
terms of reference, the standard setting bodys competence, standard
setting and approval procedures, standard review and revision
procedures and consultative process.
GSSI wishes to ensure that a seafood certification scheme
management of its standard is robust and meets defined responsible
practice in accordance with Industry and Stakeholder expectations.
Compliance with the defined elements within this section will provide
assurance that these expectations have been met.
This performance area includes one topic:
- Standard Setting and Maintenance

25
Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood
Certification Schemes
Section B of the Benchmark Framework defines the requirements for the operational
management of seafood certification schemes, to ensure a high level of assurance. The key
performance areas in this section are accreditation, certification, and maintenance of Chain of
Custody. Requirements for the respective Performance Areas are based on the implementation
of the relevant standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Section B: Performance Areas
B.1 Accreditation This section has been developed to ensure that there are in place
formal relationships between a seafood certification scheme owner
and Accreditation Bodies and that the requirements of ISO/IEC
17011:2004 (Conformity assessment General requirements for
Accreditation Bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies) are
supplemented by rules and procedures issued and monitored by a
scheme owner.
The ISO Standard ISO/IEC 17011:2004 is used as an assurance
mechanism and is comprehensive in its content. However, the
supplementary requirements issued by a scheme owner provide an
increased level of assurance that scheme specific requirements are in
place, understood and reflect the relevant sector needs.
GSSI places the onus of control and management of a seafood
certification scheme with a scheme owner, but GSSI is conscious that
accreditation of Certification Bodies is highly reliant upon the correct
and consistent application of ISO Standards by Accreditation Bodies.
The elements defined in this section are those required to be in place
to provide assurance that a seafood scheme owner has taken action
to ensure that Accreditation Bodies operate in a consistent manner
and within an agreed framework.
- Accreditation
B.2 Certification Similar to the section relating to Accreditation, this section has been
developed to ensure that there are clearly defined criteria for the
application of scheme requirements by accredited Certification Bodies.
In addition to these basic requirements for all Certification Bodies to
be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012, GSSI has focused on specific
requirements in relation to additional rules and procedures, audit
frequency, surveillance audits, certification status, audit reporting ,
non-compliance identification and Certification Body personnel
competence.
Once again GSSI places the onus of control and management of a
seafood certification scheme with a scheme owner. In addition to the
control exercised by the accreditation of Certification Bodies by
Accreditation Bodies, there are scheme specific requirements, which
have been reflected in the elements defined in this section. Those are
26
Section B: Performance Areas
required to be in place to provide assurance that a seafood scheme
owner has taken action to ensure that Certification Bodies operate in a
consistent manner and within an agreed framework.
- Certification
B.3 Maintenance of
Chain of
Custody
This performance area has been developed to ensure that there is in
place a defined system, utilizing an audit process, to provide
assurance of the identification and status of certified product at all
stages within the supply chain.
Procedures relating to chain of custody of certified product require
elements such as auditing methodology and periodicity, audit
reporting, record keeping, product identification, segregation and
traceability processes to be in place and are defined within this section
in order to provide assurance of correct product status.
Linked directly to issues that could result in the inadvertent misuse or
misinterpretation of symbols, logos and claims in relation to a seafood
certification scheme and the unacceptable consequences to the
Seafood Industry, GSSI wishes to ensure that effective control
mechanisms are in place to confirm the status of certified product is
known at all times and at all locations.
This performance area includes two topics:
- Management of Chain of Custody
- Standard for Maintenance of Chain of Custody

27
Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards
Section C of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements in relation to the
environmental criteria of certification standards for aquaculture. The requirements in this section
are in alignment with the Principles and Minimum Substantive Criteria from the FAO Technical
Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification that deal with environmental integrity and animal health
and welfare (where relevant for environmental integrity).
Section C: Performance Areas
C.1 Aquatic Animal
Health
Management
Disease has the potential to impede aquaculture development and
impact environmental sustainability through the loss of resources, the
use of chemicals, and the potential effects of resistance. Responsible
aquaculture standards include animal health controls, such as Aquatic
Animal Health Management Practices (AAHMP). These AAHMP are
required to be consistent with international norms defined by leading
organizations, such as World Animal Health Organization (OIE) and
overseen by a suitably trained aquatic animal health professional. The
standards are required to cover both disease prevention and the legal,
prudent use of veterinary drugs, in response to it.
- Aquatic Health Management
C.2 Chemical and
Veterinary
Drug Use
Responsible aquaculture standards ensure all chemical and veterinary
drug use is appropriately documented, consistent with legal
requirements, and prudent, based on international norms defined by
leading organizations, such as the OIE. When chemicals and
veterinary drugs are used, the standard content also includes criteria
to consider their impacts on environment.
- Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use
C.3. Feed and
Fertilizer Use
Responsible aquaculture standards ensure that the environmental
impacts associated with feed and fertilizer use is minimize, feed and
fertilizer use is adequately recorded and the wider issues associated
with feed, such as the environmental impacts associated with
ingredients are considered.
- Feed and Fertilizer Use
28
Section C: Performance Areas
C.4 Impacts on
Habitat and
Biodiversity
Responsible aquaculture standards require an understanding of the
impacts on habitats and biodiversity caused by the siting and
operation of the certified unit. They also offer protection for high
conservation value habitats and biodiversity, and in some cases
restoring these in areas damaged by previous aquaculture uses.
Additional focus is given to the impacts of waste on the marine seabed
and in terms of predator control.
- Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity
C.5 Seed Responsible aquaculture certification schemes ensure that the source
of seed or fry use in grow out facilities is legally obtained. They also
promote the use of hatchery-reared seed. Where an aquaculture
industry is reliant on wild seed (e.g., some bivalve culture), the
certification scheme requires it to be sourced in a responsible manner
- Seed.
C.6 Species
Selection and
Escapes
Responsible aquaculture certification schemes ensure legal
compliance on species selection, such as consistency with
international guidance, such as the FAOs Codes of Practice and
Manual of Procedures for Consideration of Introductions and
Transfers of Marine and Freshwater Organisms (1988) or the
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Code of
Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms
(2005). Aquatic animal containment is prioritized at certified
aquaculture establishments with the aim of reducing the risk of
escapes and their impact on the local environment.
- Species Selection and Escapes
C.7 General Site
Management
Responsible aquaculture certification schemes require legal
compliance during construction, waste disposal and general storage.
Certified operations are required to be well maintained to minimize
environmental damage. Feed and hazardous waste must be stored
appropriately, to prevent contamination and wasting resources.
- General Site Management
C.8 Water Quality
and Waste
Responsible aquaculture certification schemes require legal
compliance on water usage, water quality, and effluents. Additional
monitoring and control of effluent water quality is required, including
addressing key factors, such as nutrients, and that the impacts of
salinization are prevented.
- Water Quality and Waste
29
Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards
Section D of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements in relation to the
environmental criteria of certification standards for capture fisheries. The requirements in this
section are in alignment with the Principles and Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria
set out in the FAO Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine
Capture Fisheries (revision 1, 2009) and also the Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and
Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries (2011). Where there are references to the FAO
Guidelines in the column Guidance for Objective Evidence, numbers in parentheses are
paragraph numbers from Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from
Inland Fisheries (2011). Those standing before parentheses are paragraph numbers from the
FAO Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries
(revision 1, 2009).
This section provides benchmark indicators for certification standards applied to any marine or
inland capture fisheries, including small-scale and data limited fisheries. The benchmark
indicators also apply to certification standards that cover enhanced components of the stock
being exploited by the certified fishery (the stock under consideration), provided that:
A natural reproductive stock component is maintained and fishery production is based
primarily on natural biological production within the ecosystem of which the stock under
consideration forms a part.
The species are native to the fisherys geographic area or were introduced historically and
have subsequently become established as part of the natural ecosystem.
There are natural reproductive components of the stock under consideration.
The growth during the post-release phase is based upon food supply from the natural
environment and the production system operates without supplemental feeding.
The Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria cover four main topics: management
systems of wild and enhanced fisheries, stocks under consideration, ecosystem considerations,
and methodological aspects regarding the assessment of the current state and trends in the
stock under consideration.
The requirements in this section are organised in a series of seven interrelated Performance
Areas, following a logical progression from the establishment of a governance structure, through
management objectives, approaches and measures, the gathering and analysis of data, stock
and ecosystem outcomes, and compliance and enforcement. The four main topics outlined in
the Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria are addressed within and throughout these
Performance Areas.
The table on the following pages provides an overview and short summary of the seven
Performance Areas in this section.
30
Section D: Performance Areas
D.1 Governance
and Fishery
Management
The existence and functioning of a fishery management organization or
arrangement representing the designated authority mentioned in the
FAO Guidelines; implementation of a participatory, transparent and
responsive governance and management system; the national and
international jurisdiction of the management organization and
measures; and the accommodation of governance and management
systems for small scale and data limited fisheries.
- Fishery Management Organization
- Legal Framework
D.2 Management
Objectives
The need for management objectives for the unit of certification and the
stock under consideration seeking outcomes consistent with rational
use of the resources under management, including the establishment of
reference points for the stock under consideration, the avoidance of
ecosystem impacts that are irreversible, or very slowly reversible, and
the use of best scientific evidence available.
- Stock under Consideration
- Ecosystem Effects of Fishing
D.3 Management
Approaches,
Strategies and
Plans
The existence of management measures to meet the objectives
established under Performance Area D.2 for the unit of certification and
the stock under consideration, including ecosystem impacts;
management in accordance with the precautionary and ecosystem
approaches; establishment of decision rules to operationalise reference
points.
This performance area includes four topics:
- Management under Uncertainty
- Fishery Management Documentation
D.4 Data and
Information
Fishery monitoring and the collection and maintenance of adequate,
reliable and current data and/or other information about the state and
trends of the stock under consideration and the effects of the unit of
certification on the ecosystem, including traditional, fisher or community
knowledge; i.e. the data and information required to assess the efficacy
of the management measures established under Performance Area D.3
in meeting the Objectives established under Performance Area D.2.
- Collection and Maintenance of Data
- Traditional, Fisher or Community Knowledge
31
Section D: Performance Areas
D.5 Assessment
Methodologies
Assessment of the current status and trends of the stock under
consideration and impacted ecosystem components using the data and
information collected under Performance Area D.4; development and
delivery of the best scientific evidence available; handling of uncertainty
and implementation of a risk assessment/risk management approach.
This performance area includes three topics:
- Dissemination of Assessment Results
D.6 Stock and
Ecosystem
Status and
Outcomes
Requirement for outcome indicators covering the objectives established
under Performance Area D.2; the stock under consideration is not
overfished; link to reference points; establishment of outcome status
indicators of ecosystem components.
D.7 Compliance
and
Enforcement
Fishery is in compliance with applicable local, national and international
laws and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fishery
management organisation with jurisdiction over the fishery; requirement
for effective and suitable monitoring, surveillance, control and
enforcement.
This performance area includes one topic
- Compliance with Laws and Regulations

The seven Performance Areas are divided up into a series of ten Topics as follows:

Performance Area
F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
g
a
l

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

S
t
o
c
k

u
n
d
e
r

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

u
n
d
e
r

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
a
t
a

T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

F
i
s
h
e
r

o
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

D
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

L
a
w
s

a
n
d

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s



D.3
Management Approaches, Strategies and
Plans


D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Status and Outcomes


32

The ten Topics contain a further series of 32 Elements. These are distributed among the Topics
according to the table below. These Elements are not intended to change the meaning or
application of the Indicator to which they are attached, but are to aid the users of the Benchmark
Framework to navigate among the indicators and see the relationships between different
indicators. They are also included in the spreadsheet version of the Indicators Table that
enables users to sort the table by different categories, again to help with navigation and
understanding of the structure of the framework.
Element
F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
g
a
l

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

S
t
o
c
k

u
n
d
e
r

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

u
n
d
e
r

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
a
t
a

T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

F
i
s
h
e
r

o
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

D
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

L
a
w
s

a
n
d

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

Management organization

Adaptive Management

Participatory Management

Legal framework

Transparency

Small scale and data limited fisheries

Transboundary stocks

Best scientific evidence available

Management objectives

Management measures

Stock assessment

Target stock status

Enhanced fisheries

Reference points

Decision Rules

Traditional, fisher or community knowledge

Recovery and rebuilding

33
Element
F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
g
a
l

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

S
t
o
c
k

u
n
d
e
r

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

u
n
d
e
r

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

F
i
s
h
e
r
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
a
t
a

T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

F
i
s
h
e
r

o
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

D
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

L
a
w
s

a
n
d

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

Precautionary Approach

Ecosystem Approach

Impact Assessment

Non-fishing impacts

Ecosystem effects

Non-target catches

ETP species

Habitat

Food web

Dependent predators

Ecosystem structure and function

Biodiversity

Cumulative Impacts

Monitoring Control and Surveillance

Compliance outcomes

34
Explanation of the GSSI Requirements Tables
The following tables containing the GSSI Requirements are subdivided in four columns:
i. GSSI Requirement Number (No.),
ii. Element Name (Element),
iii. GSSI Requirement Content (GSSI Requirement), and
iv. Guidance for Objective Evidence
The first column, GSSI Requirement Number (i.), indicates in which section (A, B, C or D) and
performance area (first digit) a GSSI Requirement is to be found. The last digit specifies its
position within a performance area. To give an example, GSSI Requirement C.8.01 is the first
requirement of performance area 8 Water Quality and Waste within Section C on
Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards.
The second column, Element (ii.), is to be understood as an individual title to each GSSI
Requirement.
The third column, GSSI Requirement (iii.), contains the full text of each GSSI Requirement.
The fourth column contains Guidance for Objective Evidence (iv.). This is provided to assist
scheme owners with the provision of information needed to support an effective application, and
GSSI benchmark experts in their assessment of alignment with the requirements. With respect
to Section A Requirements for Governance and Section B Requirements for Operational
Management the objective evidence is relatively generic. That documentation will be of
constitutional or corporate format and content whereas Section C - Requirements for
Aquaculture and Section D Requirements for Fisheries is more specific as the objective
evidence will relate directly to content of the scheme standard's requirements.
In order to demonstrate the progression within topics of individual performance areas and their
respective tiers, the following colour coding has been applied:

The complete tier structure and respective coloring has only been applied where different tiers
within a topic exist. An example for this is the topic "Institutional Arrangements" within
Performance Area A.1 Scheme Governance. In some cases no tier two or three requirements
exist.
Tier 1 Responsible Practice
Tier 2 Improved Practice
Tier 3 Leading Practice
35
Section A Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes
No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence
Institutional Arrangements - Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.1.01
Independence The scheme owner is independent from any organisation that can, or has
influence regarding accreditation or certification decisions.

Confirmation of
i) Scheme Constitution
ii) Articles of Association
iii) Corporate Governance Documentation
iv) Summary of activities and relationships with other bodies
A.1.02
Legal Status The scheme owner is a legal entity, or an organization that is a partnership of
legal entities, or a government agency.

Confirmation of
A.1.03
Resource Management The scheme owner has in place an appropriate number of competent staff with
adequate resources to effectively manage the schemes day to day operations
Confirmation of
i) The details of typical day to day operation of the scheme and
expected performance criteria.
ii) The number and type of staff employed is commensurate with
the effective operation of the scheme.
iii) Human Resources policy regarding personnel competence and
procedures to ensure that personnel appointed have the
appropriate qualifications, experience, competence and training
of that staff to undertake defined roles and responsibilities.
iv) results of internal audit
A.1.04
Insurance and Reserves The scheme owner has adequate arrangements (e.g. insurance or reserves) to
cover liabilities arising from its activities.
Confirmation of
i) Cover of insurance with a registered underwriter (certificate of
insurance)
ii) Financial reserves signed off by a registered CPA.
iii) Liability levels represent no lower than acceptable minimum
standard industry levels.
A.1.05
Copyright Protection

Where the scheme owner has copyright on any normative document, symbol,
logo or mark these are held by the legal entity. The scheme owner has
systems in place to minimize the risk of breach of copyright and to apply
sanctions when misrepresentation is established

Confirmation of
i) A procedure for checking for breaches of copyright of normative
documents, symbols, logo or mark
ii) A policy and procedure in relation to the issuing of sanctions in
relation to breach of copyright
iii) Contract/ Document issued to users of documents, symbols,
logo or mark on their use and misuse
A.1.06
Document Controls The scheme owner has adequate controls for the translation and publication of
normative documents
Confirmation of
i) A procedure for the accurate translation and publication of
normative documents

36
Governance Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.1.07 Impartiality

The scheme owner is not directly engaged in the operational affairs (auditing,
evaluation, certification etc...) of the certification program.

Confirmation of
i) Summary of activities and relationships with other bodies
ii) Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel ( Job Descriptions)
A.1.08 Operating Procedures

The scheme owner operates to a defined set of governance policies and
procedures specifying at least the following:
- Board or Governance Body election or appointment process,
- Board or Governance Body representation and ToRs,
- Member categories (where applicable),
- Income generation or funding processes,
- An organisational structure,
- The decision making processes of each governance body,
- Personnel roles (responsibility and authority),
- Standard-setting and maintenance procedures, and
- A conformity assessment program.
Confirmation of
iv) Organization Structure
v) Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel ( Job Descriptions)
vi) Standard-setting, maintenance procedures and records of
activity
vii) Conformity assessment program, procedures and records of
activity

A.1.09 Transparency of
Governance

The scheme owner makes information freely available on request about the
schemes governance structure, scheme ownership, standards and standard-
setting procedures, and the composition, operating procedures and
responsibilities of its governance bodies.
Confirmation that the specified information is freely available on request by
i) The existence of a statement, which is it freely available,
concerning the issuing of information and how this can be
obtained.
ii) An example where this information has been provided upon
request.
A.1.10 Conflict of Interest in
Governance

The scheme owners governance ensures that there is no conflict of interest,
which could call into question its impartiality and integrity.
Confirmation that within the Schemes Constitution, Articles of Association or
Corporate Governance Documentation, the scheme owner has a policy or
statement regarding non conflict of interest in relation to its management or
personnel and a procedure in place to assure adherence to this requirement
Governance Requirements for Improved Practice
A.1.11 Transparency of
Governance
The scheme owner makes information in A.1.04 freely and publicly available on
their website
Assessor should check the scheme web site
A.1.12 Governance Complaints

The scheme owner has a transparent complaints resolution process based on
a publicly available procedure for resolving complaints related to governance,
scheme management and executive functions (which includes requirements for
investigation, complaint management, documentation and successful
resolution of the complaint).
Confirmation of
i) Public availability of the scheme complaint management
process
ii) An effective complaint management procedure
iii) Documentation and results of complaints received
A.1.13 Governance
Participation

The scheme owner requires that stakeholders have the opportunity to
participate in the top governance body

Confirmation of
v) Roles and Responsibilities of Governance Body
37
A.1.14 Governance Decision-
making

The scheme owner requires that voting procedures for governance bodies
ensure that no category of stakeholders has a majority vote in decision-making.

Confirmation of
A.1.15 Governance
Performance Review

The scheme owner requires a regular performance review of the top
governance body, with results that are made publicly available

Confirmation of
Governance Requirements for Leading Practice
A.1.16 Governance
Composition

The scheme owner requires that the top governance body has a balanced
multi-stakeholder composition.
Confirmation of
A.1.17 Governance Oversight The scheme owner has a mechanism for stakeholders to input into the choice
and removal of top governance body members.
Confirmation of
Scope and Objectives Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.1.18 Scheme Scope

The scheme owner has a defined scope in relation to its activities, which is
subject to certification by accredited certification bodies.
Confirmation of
i) Accreditation Schedules published by the Accreditation Bodies
A.1.19 Scheme objectives and
validation

The scheme owner has defined key performance indicators related to scheme
objectives and collects data over time on these KPIs to inform the revision of its
standard

Confirmation of
i) the agreement upon the key performance indicators (KPIs) by
the scheme management
ii) procedures for the collection of data relating to KPIs
iii) results of KPI performance
Scope and Objectives Requirements for Improved Practice
A.1.20 Scheme Objectives

The scheme owner has articulated objectives for its scheme that aim to
decrease negative environmental impacts.

Confirmation of
i) Objectives agreed by the management scheme that are in place
to decrease negative environmental impacts.
ii) That these objectives are communicated to scheme personnel,
certification bodies and other interested parties.
A.1.21 Monitoring and
evaluation system

The scheme owner has a documented monitoring and evaluation system with
specified sustainability indicators that are measured on an ongoing basis

Confirmation of
i) Documented monitoring and evaluation system in relation to
measured sustainability indicators
ii) Results of monitoring measured sustainability indicators
iii) Results of evaluation of measured sustainability indicators
38
Scope and Objectives Requirements for Leading Practice
A.1.22 Outcome and Impact
evaluations

The scheme owner can demonstrate it has delivered improvement against its
scheme objectives through independent outcome and impact evaluations of its
scheme

Confirmation of
i) Results of the comparison of performance criteria in relation to
defined scheme objectives.
ii) Methodology of the measurement of the performance indicators
is obtained independently and that the results provide
demonstrable improvement.
Non-Discrimination Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.1.23 Non-Discrimination -
Openness
The scheme owner ensures that all types of fishery/aquaculture operations
within the scope of its scheme can apply for certification, regardless of their
scale, size or management arrangements;
Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of
Certification Bodies

A.1.24 Non-Discrimination -
Openness
The scheme owner has not set an upper limit to the number of fisheries/
aquaculture operations that can be certified
Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of
Certification Bodies
A.1.25 Non-Discrimination
market access
The scheme owner does not have mandatory requirements by the scheme for
a fishery to be certified in order to access any markets.
Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of fisheries

Non-Discrimination Requirements for Improved Practice
A.1.26 Accessibility The scheme owner has a program with publicly available procedures for taking
into account the special circumstances of developing countries and/ or
countries in transition.
Confirmation of publically available policy/ scheme rules in relation to the
application of companies located in developing countries or countries in
transition.
Scheme Integrity monitoring program Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.1.27 Internal Review The scheme owner undertakes a formal internal review annually and, where
appropriate, revises its operating procedures

Confirmation of
i) Internal auditing program
ii) Internal audit procedures
iii) Copy of internal audit results
iv) Copy of minutes of internal audits and review
meeting/document revision /corrective action procedure arising
from internal audit activity and review.
A.1.28 Conformity Assessment
monitoring
The scheme owner monitors the activities of certification and accreditation
bodies within its scheme to ensure their consistent and competent
performance.

Confirmation of a monitoring system which effectively assesses the
performance of Certification Bodies and Accreditation Bodies to defined
criteria. The methodology of assessment may vary but the scheme owner
should demonstrate the type and level of monitoring is appropriate to identify
poor or inconsistent performance. Methodology may include monitoring of
complaints, certification audit report screening procedures, or a risk-based
program of office audits and witness audits.

39
Scheme Integrity monitoring program Requirements for Improved Practice
A.1.29 Internal Review The scheme owner ensures the formal internal review is fully documented, is
carried out with the involvement of direct stakeholders and addresses any
issues of concern raised by stakeholders.

Confirmation of
i) Internal auditing program
ii) Internal audit procedures
iii) Copy of internal audit results
iv) Copy of minutes of internal audits and review meeting
/document revision /corrective action procedure arising from
internal audit activity with evidence that stakeholders where
included within the review of the results of the internal audit
program and their concerns specifically addressed.

Logo Use and Claims Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.2.01
Claims Policy
The scheme owner has a publicly available policy governing use of symbols,
logos and claims

Confirmation of
i) Publically available policy governing use of symbols, logos and
claims
ii) Minutes of Meetings
A.2.02
Relevant Claims
Through the claims policy, the scheme owner ensures that symbols, logos and
claims are only applied to activities that are within the scope of certification, do
not overstate or mislead users relative to the defined scope, and are relevant to
that scope, so as to not cause barriers to trade or mislead consumers.

Confirmation of
i) Claims policy
ii) Assessment procedure of the use of symbols, logos and claims
iii) Complaints procedure
iv) Minutes of meetings
40
A.2.03 Claims-making
requirements
The scheme owner requires that the certified organization:
- Conforms to the scheme requirements when making reference to its
certification status in communication media such as the internet,
brochures or advertising, or other documents,
- Does not make or permit any misleading statement regarding its
certification,
- Does not use or permit the use of a certification document or any
part thereof in a misleading manner,
- Upon suspension or withdrawal of its certification, discontinues its
use of all advertising matter that contains a reference to certification,
as directed by the certification body,
- Amends all advertising matter when the scope of certification has
been reduced,
- Does not imply that the certification applies to activities that are
outside the scope of certification, and
- Does not use its certification in such a manner that would bring the
certification body and/or scheme into disrepute and lose public trust.
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Rules and Procedures for Certification Bodies
ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies
iii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies
iv) Complaint procedure
v) Minutes of meetings

A.2.04 Logo Management

The scheme owner or its delegated authority issues written and enforceable
authorizations and/or licenses to use the schemes mark/claim/logo only when
the facility and/or product has been certified as being in conformity with the
relevant standard.

Confirmation of
i) Scheme Rules and Procedures
ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies
iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations
A.2.05
Certificate Content
Management

The scheme owner requires certificates for use to include, at a minimum:
- The name and address of the AB or scheme owner;
- The name and address of the certification body;
- The name and address of the certification holder;
- The effective date of issue of the certificate;
- The substance (scope of certification) of the certificate;
- The term for which the certification is valid;
- Signature of the issuing officer.
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Rules and Procedures for Certification Bodies
iii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies
iv) Example of certificate template
v) Examples of certificates
vi) Minutes of meetings
A.2.06
Misuse Prevention
The scheme owner has mechanisms in place to ensure that no fraudulent or
misleading use is made with the use and display of its certification mark and
logos.

Confirmation of
i) Claims policy
ii) Assessment procedure of the use of symbols, logos and claims
iii) Complaints procedure
A.2.07
Sanctions for Misuse

The scheme owner has a procedure in place that requires that suitable action
is taken to deal with incorrect references to the certification system or
misleading use of symbols and logos

Confirmation of
ii) Claims policy
iii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies
iv) Contract / agreement / license with Accreditation Bodies
v) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations
41
A.2.08
Percentage-based
claims
The scheme owner has a publicly available policy that defines which
percentage of certifiable ingredients within a product must be of certified origin.
Confirmation of publically available policy regarding the percentage of
certifiable ingredients within a product must be of certified origin
Logo Use and Claims Requirements for Improved Practice
A.2.09 Minimum percentage-
based claims
The scheme owner requires that at least 95% of the certifiable seafood
ingredient within a product must be of certified origin in order for the schemes
claim or logo to be used.
Confirmation of
i) Claims/logo policy
A.2.10 Accuracy of claims The scheme owner has data to substantiate the claims about the sustainability
benefits of the scheme, e.g. with impacts data or monitoring and evaluation
results.
Confirmation of
i) Data regarding claims about sustainability benefits
ii) Records of review of data which substantiate the claims about
the sustainability benefits of the scheme
iii) Minutes of meetings
Complaints and Appeals Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.2.11 Complaints Policy and
Procedure

The scheme owner ensures there is a publicly available procedure applicable
to accredited certification bodies for dealing with complaints and appeals
related to certification or decertification from parties involved in, or consulted,
during the assessment.

Confirmation of
i) Public available policy for dealing with complaints and appeals
by Certification Bodies
Procedure

The complaints procedure is timely and clearly defines the scope and nature of
complaints and appeals that will be considered.

Confirmation of
i) Public available policy for dealing with complaints and appeals
Procedure

The scheme owner requires that costs of appeals are borne by the appellant.

Confirmation of
i) Policy for dealing with complaints and appeals
A.2.14 Impartial Complaints
Committee

An independent and impartial committee is established by the scheme owner
or the AB to respond to any complaint. If discussion and/or conciliation fail, the
committee provides a written finding to the CB, AB or scheme owner, which
transmits it to the other party or parties involved.

Confirmation of
ii) ToR of complaint committee
iii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies
iv) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies
v) Contract / agreement with certified organizations
42
A.2.15 Corrective Action

The CB, AB or scheme owner, as appropriate, takes appropriate corrective and
preventive action following the determination of the committee. This does not
exclude recourse to other forms of legal and administrative processes as
provided for in national legislation or international law.

Confirmation of
ii) ToR of complaint committee
iv) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies
v) Contract / agreement with certified organizations
A.2.16 Record Keeping

The Scheme Owner or AB:
- Keeps a record of all complaints and appeals, and remedial actions
related to certification;
- Takes appropriate corrective and preventive action;
assesses the effectiveness of remedial actions;
- Safeguards confidentiality of information obtained during the
investigation and resolution of complaints and appeals concerning
certification.
Confirmation of
i) Policy and procedure for dealing with complaints and appeals
ii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies
iii) Records

Standard Setting and Maintenance Requirements for Responsible Practice
A.3.01 Standard Setting Body

A scheme owner or other suitable arrangement (e.g. technical committee of
independent experts) is assigned with the tasks of setting, reviewing, revising,
assessing, verifying and approving standards.

Confirmation of
i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures
ii) Terms of Reference of Technical Committees.
iii) List of members and their details (company/ position/ job title)
who were directly involved with the development and
maintenance of the scheme.
iv) Minutes of Technical Meetings
A.3.02 Standards Development
& Maintenance
Procedure

The scheme owner has available on request procedures for the process under
which each standard is developed and revised

Confirmation of publically available standard setting and maintenance
procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not
published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs
to be carried out)
A.3.03 Complaints Standard-
setting procedural

The scheme owner makes impartial and documented efforts to resolve
procedural complaints related to standard-setting, based on a publicly
documented complaints resolution mechanism. Decisions taken on complaints
are available on request.
Confirmation of
i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance
procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on
request and not published on internet, although proper public
notification of its existence needs to be carried out)
ii) Minutes of Technical Meetings
43
A.3.04 Work Program

A work program is prepared and made publicly available at least every six
months, including:
- Scheme owners name and address
- The list of standards currently under preparation;
- The list of standards currently under reviewing or revision;
- The list of standards which were adopted in the preceding period.
Confirmation of
i) Publically available work program
ii) Minutes of Technical meetings
iii) Record of program amendment
A.3.05 Balanced Participation

The scheme owner ensures participation by independent technical experts and
balanced participation by representatives of interested parties in the standard
development, revision and approval process.

Development or revision of standards include, wherever possible,
representatives of fisheries management authorities, the fishing industry, fish
workers organizations, fishing communities, the scientific community,
environmental interest groups, fish processors, traders, and retailers and
hatchery managers as well as consumer associations.
Confirmation of
i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to
indicator criteria
ii) List of organizations involved with consultation
iii) Minutes of Meetings
A.3.06 Public Announcement

No later than the start of the comment period, the scheme owner publishes a
notice announcing the period for commenting in a national or, as may be,
regional or international publication of standardization activities and/or on the
internet.

Confirmation of
ii) Publically available work program
iii) Evidence of notices
iv) Minutes of Meetings
A.3.07 Stakeholder
Consultation

The scheme owner ensures that interested parties can participate in the
standard-setting process through a consultation forum or are made aware of
alternative mechanisms by which they can participate.

Confirmation of
A.3.08 Comment Submissions

The scheme owner allows a period of at least 60 days for the submission of
comments on the draft standard by interested parties prior to its adoption.

Confirmation of
A.3.09 Taking Comments into
Account

The scheme owner takes into account in further processing of the standard,
comments received during the period for commenting.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) Register of comments
44
A.3.10 Consensus Decision-
making

The scheme owner strives for consensus decisions on the content of the
standard. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the scheme owner defines
criteria in advance to determine when alternative decision-making procedures
should come into effect and what the decision-making thresholds will be.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) Register of comments
A.3.11 Deviations in Content

The scheme owner provides an explanation regarding any deviation from
relevant national or international standards.

Confirmation of
ii) Minutes of meetings
iii) Evidence of explanations
A.3.12 Local Applicability

Where international standards are to be adapted for direct application at the
national or regional level, the scheme owner develops interpretive guidance or
related policies and procedures for how to take into account local economic,
social, environmental and regulatory conditions.
Confirmation of
iii) Evidence of guidance policies and procedures
A.3.13 Standards Availability

The scheme owner promptly publishes adopted standards, and makes them
available for free on the internet, and on request, to any interested party.
Confirmation from the website of
i) Scheme standards
ii) Examples where standards have been provided
A.3.14 Translations

The scheme owner makes translations available in the official languages where
the standard is applied
Confirmation of
i) Register of countries where scheme certificates have been
issued
ii) Translations of normative documents into official languages
where scheme certificates have been issued
A.3.15 Translations

Upon request, the scheme owner provides, within its means, translations of its
standard-setting procedures, most recent work program, draft and final
versions of their standards.

Confirmation of
i) Examples where the information required within this indicator
has been provided.
ii) Where no requests have been made, a procedure should be
provided to confirm how the scheme owner shall achieve the
provision of the information required within this indicator.
A.3.16 Standards Records

The scheme owner keeps on file for at least 5 years the following records
related to each standard development or revision process:
- Policies and procedures guiding the standard-setting activity;
- Lists of stakeholders contacted;
- Interested parties involved at each stage of the process;
- Comments received and a synopsis of how those comments were
taken into account; and
- All draft and final versions of the standard.
Confirmation of
i) Documentation system and procedures
ii) Documentation register

A.3.17 Central Focal Point

The scheme owner identifies a central focal point for standards-related
enquiries and for submission of comments. The scheme owner makes contact
information for this focal point readily available including on the internet.
Confirmation of
i) Details of the central focal point contact details
ii) Provision of internet link regarding central focal point contact
details
45
A.3.18 Standards Review and
Revision

The scheme owner reviews standards at a defined frequency for continued
relevance and for effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives and,
undertake more frequent standards review based on emergence of new
scientific information; if revision is necessary, this is undertaken in a timely
manner (At a minimum every five years).
Confirmation of
indicator criteria
A.3.19 Transition period for
Compliance

The scheme owner requires that certified enterprises are given a period of at
least three years to come into compliance with the revised standards.

Confirmation of
ii) Communication with certificated companies
A.3.20 Transition period for
Compliance

The scheme owner notes the date of a revision or reaffirmation of a standard in
the standard along with a transition period by which the revised standard will
come into effect.
Confirmation of scheme standard with stated transition periods

A.3.21 Informing Enterprises of
Transition

The scheme owner informs its stakeholders of the revised standard and
transition period, in particular certification bodies and, where feasible, certified
enterprises.
Confirmation of
A.3.22 Proposals for Revisions

The scheme owner allows for comments on the standard or on the process to
be submitted by any interested party and considers them through a consistent
and transparent process.
Confirmation of
A.3.23 Updating Standard-
Setting Procedures

The scheme owner updates the procedural and methodological approach for
setting and revising standards in light of scientific and technical progress and of
the experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable fisheries.

Confirmation of
ii) Methodology of assessing scientific and technical progress and the
experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable fisheries.
A.3.24 Relevance of Standards
Content

The scheme owner demonstrates that the standard does not encompass
criteria or requirements that are of no relevance for sustainable fisheries and
that could cause unnecessary barriers of trade or mislead the consumer.

Confirmation of
ii) Methodology of assessing scientific and technical progress and
the experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable
fisheries.
A.3.25 Standards Content

The scheme owner ensures that standards are consistent with the following
requirements:
- Only include language that is clear, specific, objective and verifiable;
- are expressed in terms of process, management and performance
criteria, rather than design or descriptive characteristics; (ISO 59)
- Do not favour a particular technology, patented item or service
provider; and ( ISO 59)
- Attribute or cite all original intellectual sources of content.

Confirmation of
ii) Review of standard criteria against defined indicator
requirements.

46
Standard Setting and Maintenance Requirements for Improved Practice
A.3.26 Standards Development
& Maintenance
Procedure
The scheme owner has publicly available procedures for the process under
which each standard is developed and revised.

Confirmation of publically available standard setting and maintenance
procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not
published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs
to be carried out)
A.3.27 Complaints Standard-
setting procedural

The scheme owner makes impartial and documented efforts to resolve
procedural complaints related to standard-setting, based on a publicly
documented complaints resolution mechanism. Decisions taken on complaints
are disclosed are publicly available.
Confirmation of
A.3.28 Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference:
At the outset of a new standard development or revision process, the scheme
owner develops or update terms of reference (ToRs), which includes the
following elements:
- Proposed scope of the standard and intended geographic
application;
- A justification of the need for the standard, including an assessment
of the most important sustainability issues falling within the scope of
the standard; whether the proposed standard will meet an expressed
need; and documentation of what other standards exist or are in the
process of development which meet all or part of the expressed
need;
- Clear social and environmental objectives that the standard seeks to
achieve and how those are linked to the organisations intended
change;
- An assessment of risks in implementing the standard and how to
mitigate for these.
Confirmation of
i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures which includes
provision of indicator criteria
ii) Social and environmental objectives
iii) Risk assessment documentation in relation to standards
implementation
A.3.29 Public Summary

At the outset of a standard development or revision process, the scheme
owner makes publicly available a summary of the process that includes:
- Contact information and information on how to contribute to the
consultation;
- Summary of the terms of reference for the standard, including the
proposed scope, objectives and justification of the need for the
standard;
- Steps in the standard-setting process, including timelines and clearly
identified opportunities for contributing; and
- Decision-making procedures, including how decisions are made and
who makes them.
Confirmation of
i) Publically available Standard setting and maintenance
procedures in relation to indicator criteria

47
A.3.30 Public Consultation

The scheme owner allows at least two rounds of at least 30 days each for
comment submissions on the draft standard by interested parties.

Confirmation of
i) Publically available Standard setting and maintenance
procedures in relation to indicator criteria
A.3.31 Directly Affected
Stakeholders

The scheme owner identifies stakeholders who will be directly affected by the
standard and those that are not adequately represented in consultations and
proactively seeks their contributions.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) List of organizations identified and evidence of communication
with these organizations
A.3.32 Taking Comments into
Account - Transparency

The scheme owner makes publicly available the non-attributed copies of the
original comments and a synopsis of how the comments were addressed and
the synopsis is sent to all parties that submitted comments.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) Publically available information of the non-attributed copies of
the original comments and a synopsis of how the comments
were addressed
A.3.33 Participation in
Decision-Making

The scheme owner ensures participation in standards decision-making bodies
is open to all interested parties.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria, to verify the scheme owner / standard-setting
body does not have any criteria that limits who can provide
input on the standard
A.3.34 Balanced Decision-
making Committee
Governance

The scheme owners decision-making process for standards development or
revision ensures that no significant interest group can dominate nor be
dominated in decision-making.
Confirmation of
iii) List of members and their details (company/ position/ job title)
who were directly involved with the development and
maintenance of the scheme.
A.3.35 Balanced Decision-
making Structure of
Committee Membership

The scheme owner ensures that directly affected stakeholders make up a
meaningful segment of participants in decision-making.

Confirmation of
A.3.36 Membership Decision-
Making

Where the scheme owner limits decision-making to members, membership
criteria and application procedures shall be transparent and non-discriminatory.

Confirmation of
A.3.37 Decision-Making
Transparency

The scheme owner makes public any decisions on the content of the standard
as well as a summary of deliberations in arriving at the decision.

Confirmation of
iii) Publically available decisions
48
A.3.38 Standards Records -
Transparency

The scheme owner makes these records available to interested parties upon
request.

Confirmation of
i) Examples where the information required within this indicator
has been provided.
ii) Where no requests have been made, a procedure should be
provided to confirm how the scheme owner shall achieve the
provision of the information required within this indicator.
A.3.39 Relevance of Standards
Content

The scheme owner demonstrates that all of the criteria in its standard are
relevant to meeting the standards defined environmental objectives

Confirmation of
ii) Review of standard criteria against defined scheme
environmental objectives.
Standard Setting and Maintenance Requirements for Leading Practice
A.3.40 Disadvantaged
Stakeholders

The scheme owner addresses constraints faced by disadvantaged parties to
participate effectively in standards development and revision.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) List of organizations identified and evidence of communication
with these organizations
A.3.41 Feasibility Assessment

As part of the consultation process, the scheme owner carries out field tests to
assess the feasibility and auditability of requirements in the draft standard.

Confirmation of
indicator criteria
ii) Procedures for field testing
iii) Results of field testing
iv) Minutes of Meetings

49
Section B Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes
B.1 Accreditation
Accreditation Requirements for Responsible Practice
B.1.01 Accreditation - 17011
compliance

The scheme owner has a contractual or enforceable arrangement with their
respective Accreditation Bodies (AB) to ensure compliance with the
requirements of ISO/IEC 17011:2004 Conformity Assessment general
requirements for accreditation bodies accredited conformity assessment
bodies.
Confirmation of
i) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies
ii) Results of peer reviews
B.1.02 Accreditation -non-
discrimination

Accreditation services are available to potential certifying bodies (CBs)
irrespective of their country of residence, size and of the existing number of
already accredited bodies.
Confirmation of
i) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies
ii) Policy regarding non discrimination
B.1.03 Accreditation -
contractual
arrangements

Contracts or equivalent enforceable arrangements have been established
between the AB and scheme owner and between the AB and prospective CBs
describing the responsibilities of all parties with respect to the accreditation
process.
Confirmation of
i) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies
ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies
B.1.04 Accreditation
specified requirements

The Scheme owner shall define Rules and Procedures for conducting
accreditation activities, to be applied by the Accreditation Body.

Confirmation of
i) Scheme Rules and Procedures regarding accreditation
transition period

Subsequent to any changes in the accreditation requirements, Certification
Bodies are given a defined time period within which to conform to the changes.
Where deemed appropriate, the time period for conformance should be
considered separately for Certification Bodies in developing countries

Confirmation of
iii) Communication with Accreditation Bodies
iv) Communication with Certification Bodies
v) Minutes of Meetings
B.1.06 Accreditation Body
competencies

The scheme owner ensures that Accreditation Bodies and their auditors
possess the following competencies:
- In-depth knowledge of the standard and its intent (and other
requirements) and an understanding of the goals of the scheme.
- Competence to review sampling protocols and practice, where this is
undertaken by the CB.
Confirmation of
B.1.07 Accreditation external
review

External audits are carried out on the accreditation body to assess
performance.

Confirmation of
iii) External audit reports
50
B.1 Accreditation
organizational
transparency

The AB makes information available on request about its organizational
structure and the financial and other kinds of support it receives from public or
private entities

Confirmation of
iii) Publically available Accreditation Body information
Accreditation Requirements for Improved Practice
B.1.09 Accreditation Office
Audit

The accreditation process includes an office audit of the certification body.

Confirmation of
iii) Results of office audits
iv) Minutes of meeting
B.1.10 Accreditation field
audit

The accreditation process includes a review of the performance of assurance
providers and auditors in the field.

Confirmation of
iii) Results of review
complaints and appeals

The complaints procedures and results of complaints and/or appeals in relation
to accreditation are made publicly available.

Confirmation of
ii) Results of complaints and /or appeals publically available
remediation procedure

There is a procedure in place for how CBs are required to address non-
compliances, including when accreditation is suspended or revoked.

Confirmation of
ii) Results of non-compliance corrective action
review

performance and the results of these audits are made available upon request.

Confirmation of
B.1.14 Accreditation Public
summaries

The AB makes summaries of accreditation audit reports available on request.

Confirmation of
iii) Publically available audit reports
organizational
transparency

The AB makes information publicly available about its organizational structure
and the financial and other kinds of support it receives from public or private
entities

Confirmation of
iii) Publically available audit reports
51
B.1 Accreditation
Accreditation Requirements for Leading Practice
review

performance and the results of these audits are made publicly available.

Confirmation of
B.1.17 Accreditation audit
reports transparency

The Accreditation Body makes accreditation audit reports publicly available.

Confirmation of
iii) Publically available accreditation audit reports

52
B.2 Certification
Certification Requirements for Responsible Practice
B.2.01 Certification 17065
compliance
Certification Bodies operating in a scheme comply with the requirements of the
GSSI Framework Document and are accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012 for the
scope of respective standard of the scheme.
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Rules and Procedures regarding accreditation
iv) Accreditation Body schedules
B.2.02 Certification - Fee
structure
The Scheme Owner requires Certification Bodies to maintain a written fee
structure that is adequate to support accurate and truthful assessments
commensurate with the scale, size and complexity of the fishery or chain of
custody. The fee structure is non-discriminatory and takes into account the
special circumstances and requirements of developing countries and countries
in transition.
Confirmation of
iii) Evidence of fee structures of Certification Bodies
B.2.03 Certification - certificate
duration
The validity of a certificate does not exceed 5 years in the case of fishery or
aquaculture certification and 3 years in the case of chain of custody
certification.
Confirmation of
iii) Copies of certification
B.2.04 Certification -
Surveillance
Certification bodies are required to carry out annual surveillance audits of
certified enterprises.
Confirmation of
iii) Copies of audit program of certification body
iv) Audit register
Termination,
suspension, withdrawal
The Scheme Owner or accredited CBs have a documented procedure(s) that
specifies the conditions under which certification may be suspended or
withdrawn, partially or in total, for all or part of the scope of certification.
Confirmation of
B.2.06 Certification - Multi-site
Certification
Where multi-site certification is allowed under the scheme, the scheme owner
has certification procedures in place which include the requirements for the
multi-site organisation and sampling methodology.
Confirmation of
B.2.07 Certification - Audit
reports
The scheme owner has or requires CBs to have requirements for audit reports
and reporting
Confirmation of
Stakeholder input
The scheme owner requires that CBs have in place an appropriate mechanism
for stakeholder to provide input during the audit process.
Confirmation of
53
B.2 Certification
Assessment
Methodology
The scheme owner has requirements in place to ensure CBs have a consistent
interpretation of compliance with the standard and of the sampling
methodology.
Confirmation of
B.2.10 Certification - Non-
compliances
The scheme owner requires that CBs have a consistent procedure for
determining, remediating and appealing non-compliances
Confirmation of
Complaints resolution
The scheme owner requires that CBs provide parties involved or consulted with
during certification with access to a complaints resolution process for
compliance decisions
Confirmation of
B.2.12 Certification site visit The scheme owner requires that the (re-)certification audit includes an office
visit and a site visit
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports
B.2.13 Certification
Transparency on audit
reports
The scheme owner requires that Certification Bodies make publicly available a
summary of audit reports where certification is granted.
Confirmation of
iii) Publically available audit reports summary
Transparency on
certified entities
The scheme owner requires that a list of certified enterprises is made publicly
available.
Confirmation of
iii) Publically available list/ register of certified organizations
Notification of changes
The scheme owner notifies ABs, CBs and certified enterprises of any change
in management procedures which effects scheme rules and procedures for
accreditation or certification.
Confirmation of
iv) Contract/agreement with certified organizations
v) Communication regarding changes to management procedures
effecting scheme rules and procedures relating to accreditation
or certification
Certification Requirements for Improved Practice
Stakeholder input
The scheme owner requires that CB auditors solicit stakeholder input during
the audit process
Confirmation of
54
B.2 Certification
Unannounced audits
The scheme owner requires that CBs conduct unannounced audits [not
possible for fisheries]
Confirmation of
iii) Certification audit reports
Note: this indicator will not be possible to meet for fisheries
B.2.18 Certification - Audit
duration
The scheme owner has a publicly available methodology for calculating audit
duration
Confirmation of
iii) Publically available audit duration information
publication of audit
reports
The scheme owner requires Certification Bodies to make publicly available the
full audit reports after certification has been granted.
Confirmation of
iii) Publically available audit duration information
Surveillance Audit
The scheme owner requires that Surveillance Audits necessarily include a site
visit.
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports
B.2.21 Certification - Timeline
for corrective action
If the scheme owner allows for certification of an entity with non-compliances,
the scheme owner requires that:
- A timeline for corrective actions must be defined;
- Only non-conformities on minor, non-critical issues are allowed;
- A system to verify compliance is in place
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports and corrective action reports
B.2.22 Certification - Other
scheme enrolment
disclosure (CoC)
The scheme owner requires that new applicants disclose any certificates they
are holding in other certification schemes
Confirmation of
iii) Applicant disclosures
B.2.23 Certification Risk-
based audit frequency
The scheme owner has in place a risk-based methodology for CBs to calculate
audit frequency and intensity.
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports
B.2.24 Certification Provision
of advice
The scheme owner has defined the conditions under which auditors are able to
provide generic advice to clients during the audit process, but these shall not
include advice which will affect the certification decision.
Confirmation of
55
B.2 Certification
B.2.25 Certification Sampling
requirements
The scheme owner or CBs have defined requirements for sampling
methodology and frequency during the audit
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports
Certification Requirements for Leading Practice
stakeholder input
The scheme owner requires Certification Bodies to make publicly available for
comment a draft of the full audit report prior to the certification decision, with
sufficient time for interested parties to submit comments
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports for consultation
Auditor Competence - Requirements for Responsible Practice
B.2.27 Auditor Competence
Requirements for
Technical Knowledge
The scheme owner has defined the qualifications and education required by
auditors employed by Certification Bodies
Confirmation of
iii) Auditor personal records
B.2.28 Auditor Competence -
Technical Knowledge
CB auditors are required to have successfully completed training in the scheme
to the satisfaction of the scheme owner.
Confirmation of
iii) Training course materials
iv) Auditor personal records
general auditing skills
CB auditors are required to have successfully completed training in auditing
techniques, with duration of at least 40 hours.
Confirmation of
iii) Training course materials
56
B.2 Certification
Scheme specific
knowledge assessment
Certification Bodies shall include the following in their appraisal program of
auditors:
- An assessment of knowledge and skills for each fundamental area
the auditor will be expected to be working,
- An assessment of knowledge of pertinent Sustainable Fishery and
Aquaculture Programs and the ability to access and be able to apply
relevant laws and regulations,
- An assessment of the personal attributes of the auditor, to ensure
they conduct themselves in a professional manner,
- A period of supervised training to cover the assessment fishery and
aquaculture principles, specific audit techniques and specific
category knowledge,
- A documented sign off of the satisfactory completion of the training
program by the appointed competent supervisor.
Confirmation of
iii) Certification body training and appraisal procedures
Knowledge and Scheme
Specific Knowledge
maintenance
CB auditors are required to participate annually in at least one on-site audit
against the scheme standard to maintain category and scheme knowledge.
Confirmation of
iii) Auditor personal records, including proof of site visits.
Knowledge
maintenance
CBs have a continuing professional development program in place that
provides auditors with current best practice for sustainable fishery and
aquaculture.
Confirmation of
iii) Certification body continuous professional development
program
extension of scope
Where an auditor extends the scope of their competence, the CB requires
them to undertake training in the new category, conduct supervised audits and
be assessed and signed off as competent by the Certification Body to conduct
audits in the new category.
Confirmation of
iii) Certification body continuous professional development
program

57
Management of Chain of Custody Requirements for Responsible Practice
B.3.01 Segregation The scheme owner requires that all certified products are identified and
segregated from non-certified products at all stages of the supply chain.
Confirmation of
i) Reference to CoC Standard
ii) Auditor training
iii) Audit reports
B.3.02 Enterprises to be
audited
The scheme owner requires all enterprises that are physically handling the
certified product to undergo a CoC audit by an accredited CB.

Exceptions:
No audit is required for storage and distribution of tamper-proof packaged
products.
Confirmation of
B.3.03 Records for traceability The scheme owner requires CBs to verify that all enterprises maintain records
that allow any certified product or batch of products to be traced from initial
possession at receipt to release of possession at sale of product.
Confirmation of
i) Reference to CoC Standard
ii) Auditor training
iii) Audit Reports

Records should contain: name of the supplier, evidence of certificate validity
(own and suppliers), records of all entries, processing and sale of certified
products, receipts and invoices that state the certified status of the products
and sufficient other details.
B.3.04 Records/ information
confidentiality
The scheme owner has a policy that defines the level of confidentiality of the
traceability information or records. The following minimum information is
available upon request:
- Species name
- Certified fishery/ farm
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Policy
ii) Scheme Rules and Procedures
iv) Audit reports
Standard for Maintenance of Chain of Custody Requirements for Improved Practice
B.3.05 Sub-contractors The Scheme owner requires that enterprises are able to demonstrate that
these CoC requirements are met by its subcontractors.
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Policy
ii) Reference to CoC Standard
iii) Auditor training
iv) Audit reports

Subcontractors physically handling the certified product will undergo a CoC
audit by an accredited CB, as defined by B.3.2.
58
B.3.06 Auditing methods and
periodicity
The scheme owner has or requires CBs to have documented procedures for
auditing methods and periodicity of audits that meet the following requirements:
- periods between audits does not exceed 3 years;
- periodicity depends on risk factors
- major changes that are deemed to affect the integrity of the CoC
result in a re-audit (onsite),
Confirmation of
i) Scheme Policy
ii) Scheme Rules and Procedures
iv) Audit reports

Guidance:
Risk factors e.g. previous audit history, concerns about compliance with a
schemes standard, seasonality of product, significant capacity increases,
structural changes, changes in processing technology or changes in product
type.
Major changes: e.g. change of ownership, change of processing methods,
change of premises. The SC will provide general guidance but decisions will be
taken on a case by case basis by the CB.
B.3.07 Non-conformity/
Corrective Actions
The scheme owner requires the CB to record all identified breaches of the
chain of custody, including:
- An explanation of the factors that allowed the breach to occur;
- An explanation of the corrective actions required to ensure that a
similar breach does not re-occur;
- The time frames for the corrective actions to be completed; and
- The date of closing out of the corrective actions and how the problem
was solved.
Confirmation of

The recording of breaches of the CoC in the inspection / audit report is
identified as CB task; specification of responsibility.
B.3.08 Audit Report The scheme owner requires that CB audit reports include:
- The date of the inspection/audit;
- The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the audit and report;
- The names and addresses of the sites inspected/audited;
- The scope of the inspection/audit;
- The non-conformities identified;
- A conclusion on the conformity of the client with the chain of custody
requirements.
The scheme owner requires the CB to file reports at their office and
to make these reports available to pertinent parties.
Confirmation of
iii) Report template
iv) Audit reports
B.3.09 Record Keeping The scheme owner requires that an enterprise keeps records that demonstrate
conformity with these requirements for a period that:
- Exceeds the shelf life of the certified product; and
- Exceeds the periodicity between audits
Confirmation of
59
B.3.10 Group CoC Audit The scheme owner has a documented audit procedure that defines the audit
process for an enterprise, or group of related enterprises, with several sites
that share an internal CoC management system.
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports

One enterprise or a group of enterprises conducting activities at more than 4
discrete physical locations.
The enterprise or a group of enterprises has in place a common internal COC
management system with a documentation process.
B.3.11 Group CoC Internal
verification
The scheme owner requires that for group certification at least all sites /
enterprises are assessed as part of the internal audit during the period of
validity of the certificate.
Confirmation of
iii) Audit reports indicating internal audit programs

60
Section C Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards
Aquatic Animal Health Management Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.1.01 Biosecurity and Disease
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment has operational fish
health management practices, specifically favouring biosecurity and vaccines,
including introductions and transfers where relevant, which is overseen by an
aquatic animal health professional.
The standard should ensure sufficient elements and/or audit of culture
practices for an operational program relative to the scale, species, and
production systems covered by the standards scope. These elements must
incorporate measures focusing on the prevention rather than use of
antimicrobials. The content of the measures must also be addressed through
the oversight, but not necessarily full time employment, of an aquatic animal
health professional.
C.1.02 Record keeping The standard requires the aquaculture establishment maintain records on
disease occurrences, mortalities, and veterinary drug and chemical usage.
The audit must verify that suitable records are kept. Suitable records include
type, concentration, and dosage, method of administration and withdrawal
times of chemicals and veterinary drugs and the rationale for their use.
C.1.03 Chemical Usage The standard requires that the prophylactic use of antimicrobials is prohibited. The standard may explicitly prohibit prophylactic usage for growth promotion or
require that all antimicrobials are used in response to a diagnosed disease
(i.e., by the aquatic animal health professional or other relevant competent
authority).
Control
The standard requires that mortalities and moribund aquatic animals are
routinely collected, where collection is a suitable practice.
This indicator should only be applied where collection is a plausible function of
good management practice (e.g., finfish grow out). Examples where this is not
suitable could include hatcheries (where aquatic animals may be too small to
effectively collect) or where such collection is not feasible (e.g., marine shrimp).
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish and
implement procedures for the disposal of mortalities using appropriate methods
that prevent the spread of disease.
Given the nature of this indicator, the standard may appear as a general
requirement; in which case the audit should verify that the employed practices
prevent the spread of disease, this may include examples listed in the OIE
Aquatic Animal Health Code.
Control
The standard requires suitable farming locations and/or production conditions
for the all stages of the species raised which take into account water
temperature and water quality,
The standard includes provisions that require the farmer to maintain a suitable
culture environment; these could include specific metrics that would be suitable
for aquaculture or general requirements to monitor and respond to key
indicators of poor culture environment (e.g., disease, poor animal condition).
These provisions should specifically reference water temperature and sufficient
water quality criteria.
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement
and maintain appropriate procedures to respond to disease outbreaks, which
includes the ability to quarantine the aquatic animal where appropriate.
Appropriate procedures may include regular health inspections, contacting the
aquatic health professional or the relevant authorities.

The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records, written
contingency plans or interviews) to ensure procedures are in place to respond
to disease. For production systems where quarantine is appropriate, the ability
to quarantine must also be verified.
61
Control
and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems to reduce the likelihood of
disease and parasite transmission within and between the aquaculture
establishment and natural aquatic fauna.
Appropriate procedures or systems must address both on farm disease and
parasite transfer (such as the ability to quarantine diseased stocks, separating
equipment) as well as between the facility and natural fauna (such as
disinfection of effluents for diseased stocks, fallowing). The approach taken
must be relevant to the species, production system, and scale of production.

The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records, visual
checks, or through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are
operational.
Control
and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems for the early detection of
aquatic animal health issues, which include routine monitoring of stocks and
the environment.
Appropriate procedures may include general health/behavioural inspections or
testing for specific diseases. Monitoring must be regular enough and of a
sufficient sample size to identify disease outbreaks expediently, as well as
increased surveillance when potential issues are identified.

The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records or
through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are operational.
Control
and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems to minimize the
reoccurrence of aquatic animal health issues.
Appropriate procedures could include increased surveillance when potential
issues are identified, resistance testing before subsequent re-treatment of
veterinary drugs, failure analysis and/or end of production cycle reviews of
health management procedures.

The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records or
through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are operational.
C.1.11 Chemical Usage The standard requires the prudent use of antimicrobial agents at least
consistent with the guidelines outlined in section 6.3.7 of the Principles for
Responsible and Prudent Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Aquatic Animals of the
OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code.
See the latest addition of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code for specifics.
Standards may outline these expressly or reference the OIE code.
The audit must include a review of evidence that the individual components of
the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials are being followed appropriately.
Control
The standard requires an appropriate system is in place to ensure workers
employed in husbandry activities are adequately trained and aware of their
responsibilities in aquatic health and welfare management practices
Appropriate systems could include specific extension or training courses,
training developed and given by the aquatic animal health professional.

The audit must verify that the content of the training or qualification is suitable
for the husbandry activities, that training had occurred (e.g., records kept), that
it was reasonably current, and that the training was successful (e.g.,
employees interviewed to verify knowledge).

62
Aquatic Animal Health Management Requirements for Improved Practice
Control
The standard requires that where culture system allows the discharge of
pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to local wildlife, management
measures are in place to avoid significant impact to wild populations.
Add-on to C.1.08.

Examples of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to include sea
lice on farmed salmon; these could be called out in the standard or a suitable
risk assessment or other justification could be given to determine whether or
not this indicator is applicable.

Appropriate management measures could include treatment trigger levels of
parasite numbers on the farm-establishment or siting requirements that require
that the aquaculture establishment is located at suitable distances from wild
populations.

The audit must verify that the management measures are employed.
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment takes reasonable efforts
to determine the cause of death in periods of greater-than-expected-losses.
Add-on to C.1.09.

Reasonable efforts could include increased disease surveillance such as
laboratory testing of mortalities for the presence of disease.

The audit must verify policies or other systems are in place to respond to these
situations. Should these issues have occurred in the near-term, the audit
should verify that these systems are employed (such as by results and receipts
for testing).
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment establish, implement, and
maintain a written Aquatic Animal Health Management Plan (AAHMP) which is,
at a minimum, consistent with C.1.01 to C.1.12 with oversight by an aquatic
animal health professional.
The audit must verify the farm has a written AAHMP, and that the content
covers the necessary content. Evidence of oversight could include an interview
with the health professional or a signature on the documents. Verification also
must include a review of evidence that the plan is fully operation and frequently
reviewed.
Control
In addition to C.1.15, the standard also requires the AAHMP include:
- An emergency response protocol in the event of an invasive disease,
which includes depopulation where appropriate.
- A written list of all diseases that the aquatic animals are likely to face
during production.
- Annual/end of production review and failure analysis.
- Where possible, the rotation of effective chemical treatments to
reduce the risk of resistance.
The audit must verify the additional information in the AAHMP.
Control
The standard requires that the aquatic animals are vaccinated against
relevant/important diseases for which vaccines are available and effective
against.
Add-on to C.1.01
Relevant/important pathogens can include those identified by the aquatic
animal health professional and sources such as the OIE/ transboundary
disease lists.
The audit must include a review of justification by the aquatic animal health
professional as to which vaccines could be used and records/receipts for
vaccinations.
63
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement,
and maintain a written plan for improving recovery rate, including defined
annual targets.
Add-on to C.1.01.
The audit must include a review of evidence that a written plan exists and that
includes actions directed at increasing recovery rate (such as increasing
vaccination, biosecurity, water quality etc.) and that suitable records are kept
on recovery rate and the factors being considered in the plan, and that the plan
is operational (e.g., by interview).
C.1.19 Cumulative Impact
Control
The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to adequately cooperate
with relevant neighbouring aquaculture establishments (if they exist) in the
shared management of aquatic animal disease risk.
Add-on to C.1.08.
Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently
isolated that disease transfer is highly unlikely.
Adequate cooperation can include notification of disease outbreaks as they
occur, shared practices to improve biosecurity (such as all in all out strategies).
The audit must include a review evidence that aquaculture establishment does
or doesnt have neighbouring entities (e.g., maps, satellite images). If
neighbouring aquaculture establishments exist then the auditor is required to
review evidence (such as written records, meeting notes, contractual
agreements and/or interviews) that the aquaculture establishment actively
cooperates with neighbours to manage disease in the region.
C.1.20 Chemical Usage The standard prohibits the use of antibiotics listed by the World Health
Organization (WHO) as highly or critically important to human health.
The audit must include a review of evidence that supports a claim of no listed
antibiotic usage, this could include independent laboratory testing results,
reviews of financial records, inspections of offices and chemical storage
facilities.
C.1.21 Chemical Usage The standard requires regular monitoring of the local environment to
appropriately detect antimicrobial resistance in bacteria.
The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the effectiveness of the
monitoring system, that monitoring takes place and that the results are
appropriately recorded and responded to by the aquatic animal health
professional.
C.1.22 Chemical Usage The standard requires regular monitoring of the local environment to
appropriately detect drug persistence.
The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the effectiveness of the
monitoring system, that monitoring takes place and that the results are
appropriately recorded and responded to by the aquatic animal health
professional.
Aquatic Animal Health Management Requirements for Leading Practice
Control
Where the production system allows the discharge of pathogens or parasites
that are a known concern to local wildlife, the standard requires monitoring and
adapting farming practices based on trigger limits of relevant pathogen or
parasite numbers on wild fish.
Add-on to C.1.08. Compliance with C.1.13 is also required.
Examples of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to include sea
lice on farmed salmon; these could be called out in the standard or a suitable
risk assessment or other justification could be given to determine whether or
not this indicator is applicable.
The audit must include a review of evidence that shows monitoring of pathogen
or parasite numbers on wild fish, that the monitoring system is likely to be
effective at finding evidence of impact if its occurring, and that appropriate
trigger limits (e.g., expert opinions, scientific literature) and adaptive
management plans exist and are employed to reduce the pressure on wild
populations (such as by treating fish, fallowing, etc.).
64
Control
The standard requires a suitable performance based metric limits on recovery
rate or similar criteria that demonstrate that the aquatic health management
practices are effective.
A suitable performance based metric limit could include those set on a species-
specific basis using industry average data or based on farm monitoring
records. Other possible criteria may include metric limits on veterinary drug
usage.

The audit must include a review of evidence that the metric limits has been
met based on a suitable monitoring and record keeping system
C.1.25 Cumulative Impact
Control
The standard requires the organization to participate in a formal area
management system (AMS) for aquatic animal diseases; specifically including
suitable requirements to prevent disease outbreaks, share disease status
information, and, where appropriate, coordinate response actions in the
presence of a disease.
isolated that disease transfer is highly unlikely.
All aquaculture establishments must be in compliance with PA 1 Tier 1
Requirements.
The audit must review evidence that the plan exists and is operational and that
its content is likely to achieve the stated goals. . The content of the plan must
be verified to include the requirements outlined in C.1.25.
C.1.26 Chemical Usage The standard requires that no antimicrobials are used on certified products
while still maintaining animal welfare.
The audit must include a review of evidence that supports a claim of no
antimicrobial usage, this could include independent laboratory testing results,
reviews of financial records, inspections of offices and chemical storage
facilities.

Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.2.01 Legal compliance The standard requires the aquaculture establishment operates in compliance
with relevant national and local laws with regard to the application of chemicals
and veterinary drugs
The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all
relevant laws.
C.2.02 Chemical management
system
The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of
an appropriate system for the use of chemicals and veterinary drugs.
An appropriate system could conform to the relevant sections of OIE Aquatic
Animal Health Code or other suitable reference. The system must ensure that
usage follows the instructions of the manufacturer or other competent authority.
The audit must include an inspection of records of use.
C.2.03 Chemical Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment undertakes a risk
assessment regarding adverse impacts from the release, whether from regular
usage, discharge or accidental spillage, of chemicals and veterinary drugs into
the immediate surroundings.
The audit must include a review of the risk assessment and verification that it
was sufficiently detailed and using appropriate methods in order to address the
types of risks described. This could also be covered by a suitable EIA.
65
C.2.04 Chemical Use The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of
an appropriate system for the record keeping and traceability of any application
of chemicals and veterinary drugs.
An appropriate system would capture information include must include the
source, type, concentration, dosage, method of administration and withdrawal
periods of chemicals and veterinary drugs and the rationale for their use.
The audit must include review of evidence that demonstrates appropriate
record keeping.
C.2.05 Impacts of chemical
discharge or spillage
Based on the risk assessment (C.2.03) and other suitable resources, the
standard requires appropriate measures for minimizing adverse impacts from
the release, whether from regular usage, discharge or accidental spillage, of
chemicals and veterinary drugs into the immediate surroundings.
Appropriate measures could include contingency plans, specific containment
plans, effluent treatment systems, and environmental monitoring with
appropriate trigger levels for mitigation. These could be covered in a suitable
EIA.
The audit must include a review of evidence to verify that the measures are
operational and fit for purpose.
C.2.06 Antifoulant treatments The standard requires the responsible collection and disposal of polluting
antifoulants during cleaning.
Examples of polluting antifoulant include some copper-based paints.
Responsible collection and disposal could include measures that prevent the
release of antifoulants into the aquatic environment; including in-situ and off-
site systems.
The audit must include a review of evidence supporting responsible collection
and disposal, such as equipment inspections, records of collection and
disposal, site inspections, and environmental monitoring data.
Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use Requirements for Improved Practice
C.2.07 Chemical Use The standard prohibits chemicals to be used that are listed as highly polluting
by relevant organizations or other justification.
Relevant organizations could include the World Health Organization and the
Rotterdam Convention (www.pic.int).
The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim of no use,
such as inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc.
C.2.08 Chemical Use The standard does not allow the use of polluting antifoulants The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim of no use,
such as inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc.
Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use Requirements for Leading Practice
C.2.09 Chemical Use The standard requires that chemical use is restricted to identified
environmentally benign (e.g., rapidly denaturing chemicals), with a suitable
justification for their listing as benign.
Replaces all C.2 Tier 2 indicators.
Suitable justification can include scientific literature or product description.
The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim, such as
inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc.

66
Feed and Fertilizer Use Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.3.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that feed, feed additives, feed ingredients, and fertilizers
used are compliant with relevant national and local laws
relevant laws.
C.3.02 Record Keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on all feed use. Appropriate records must include feed source, feed Batch/Lot/ID number, date
of purchase, feed conversion ratio (FCR), feed inclusion percentages of
fishmeal and fish oil or a fish in: fish out ratio.
record keeping and suitable documentation from feed manufacturers.
C.3.03 Feed Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has suitable
measures in place to prevent overfeeding.
Suitable measures could include the use of feedtrays, cameras, pellet sensors,
documented records of visual feed response.
The audit must ensure the measures are operational and fit for purpose.
C.3.04 Record keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on all fertilizer use. Appropriate records must include source of fertilizer, fertilizer Batch/Lot/ID
number, date of Purchase.
record keeping.
C.3.05 Fertilizer Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has measures in
place to prevent over-fertilizing
Suitable measures could include visual assessments of water colour or aquatic
vegetation.
The audit must ensure the measures are operational and fit for purpose.
C.3.06 Feed Source The standard requires the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a
manufacturer with a stated objective for all feed ingredients (including
terrestrial materials) can be traced back to the source, for wild harvest aquatic
feed ingredients this must be back to the source fishery.
The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self-
declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website.
manufacture that prohibits marine feed ingredients from endangered species
as listed on the IUCN Red List or equivalent.
manufacture that prohibits the use of marine feed ingredients from illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing (I.U.U.).
C.3.09 Feed Source The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a
manufacturer that has a written policy which includes assessment of source
fishery status and identification of improvement needs and work plan to deliver
improvements. The policy must include a commitment and timeline to source
aquaculture and fishery products from responsible/best practice sources, such
as those certified a standard benchmarked at minimum consistent with relevant
FAOs ecolabelling guidelines or by identified independent risk assessment
(e.g., FishSource).
C.3.10 Feed Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment has measures in place to
ensure expired and unusable feeds are disposed of in an environmentally
responsible manner.
Suitable measures could include composting or feed recycling.
The audit must include a review of evidence such as disposal records or visual
inspection.
67
C.3.11 Feed Source The standard prohibits the use of wet-fish as a direct feed source in grow-out, This could also include a requirement for all feed to be manufactured dry feed.
The audit must include a suitable review of evidence, such as feed use
records, visual observation, financial records etc.
C.3.12 Feed Source The standards prohibit aquatic feed protein from the same species and genus
as the species being farmed.
Feed and Fertilizer Use Requirements for Improved Practice
C.3.13 Record Keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on feed/or fertilizer use
at the individual production unit level.
Replaces C.3.02.
Appropriate records must include a unique identifier for each individual
production unit and records, including feed/fertilizer used, Batch/Lot/ID number,
amount used, and its efficiency (e.g. FCR).
C.3.14 Fertilizer Use The standard requires that fertilizer is efficiently used at the individual
production unit level.
Replaces C.3.05.
The audit could include a review of evidence of limits, the appropriateness of
the measures used to determine efficient usage, and that regular performance
reviews are undertaken. Examples of suitable metrics could include mass
balance or water quality criteria.
C.3.15 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source;
- Can trace aquatic feed ingredients traceable to species, fishery and
country of origin, and
- That aquatic feed ingredients are from responsible/best practice
sources, such as those certified a standard benchmarked at
minimum consistent with relevant FAOs ecolabelling guidelines or
identified as low risk by independent risk assessment or in an
effective Fishery Improvement Project (FIP).
This could be by the auditor reviewing evidence at the feed mill or by virtue of a
3rd party certification of the feed manufacturer.
Direct marine sources of fishmeal and fish oil are evaluated for environmental
risk .
C.3.16 Feed Use The standard requires the minimal usage of aquatic feed ingredients relative to
the production system and the welfare of the aquatic animal.
Replaces C.3.05; requires compliance with C.3.13.

Suitable approaches could include setting a suitable maximum Fish in: Fish
Out Ratio, which reflects the importance of limited wild-harvested aquatic
resources, this could include be species specific performance based metric
limits. Consideration for extreme events (such as disease or escapes) is
permissible.

The audit must include a review of evidence to show compliance at the
aquaculture establishment level.
Feed and Fertilizer Use Requirements for Leading Practice
C.3.17 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source only
sources aquatic feed ingredients certified a standard benchmarked to be, at
minimum, consistent with relevant FAOs ecolabelling guidelines
Add-on to C.3.06. Replaces C.3.15
68
C.3.18 Feed Use The standard requires efficient net protein conversion. Suitable approaches could include by setting a suitable minimum acceptable
limit. Records of protein conversion must be kept.
The audit must include a review of evidence to show compliance at the
C.3.19 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source only
sources terrestrial feed ingredients certified to an ecolabel or risk assessed not
to present significant environmental impacts.
Add-on to C.3.06.


Examples of ecolabels in terrestrial feed ingredients include the Roundtable for
sustainable soy and the Roundtable for sustainable palm oil. Accepted
ecolabels should demonstrably have met credibility thresholds for content and
process requirements relevant to the industry they represent

Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.4.01 Legal compliance The standard requires compliance with national and local laws on habitat and
biodiversity, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where
required.
relevant laws.
C.4.02 Habitat and Biodiversity
Management
The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of
an appropriate system for
- Regular monitoring and recording of environmental quality on the
aquaculture establishment and its immediate area of influence, using
appropriate methodologies taking into account the scale of operation
- Evaluation of the adverse impacts on the surrounding natural
ecosystem, including fauna, flora, and habitat.
- Appropriate mitigation measures / remedial action for the identified
adverse impacts on the surrounding natural ecosystem.
An appropriate system must consider the impact of siting and operation high
conservation value habitats and biodiversity.
The audit must ensure that all of the measures are operational and fit for
purpose.
C.4.03 Habitat Restoration The standard requires that in areas where damage of high conservation value
habitats has occurred previously:
- The aquaculture establishment cannot be certified where the initial
damage was illegal.
- Where restoration is possible and effective; restoration efforts will or
have resulted in a meaningful amount of restored habitat; either
through direct on-farm restoration or by an off-farm offsetting
approach.
It is allowable for an appropriate date to be used prior to which legal impacts
can be grandfathered in.
The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires restoration and
to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images, certification etc.). Where
restoration is required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, records, financial
records) that the restoration meets the stated goals.
69
C.4.04 Predator Control The standard prohibits the use of any lethal predator control techniques on
high conservation value species.
The audit must include an site inspection and verification of the predator
controls used, and details of the high conservation value species in the area.
Examples of supporting evidence of non-use include interview, appropriate
signage, and mortality records.
C.4.05 Benthic habitats For cage production systems, the standard requires appropriate management
measures for preventing the adverse impacts of aquaculture establishment
waste on benthic environments.
Must be required for all cage systems include marine and freshwater.

Appropriate measures must consider biological, chemical and physical
impacts, impact footprint, and additional chemical residues resulting from
culture practices. Where relevant, they should conform to ISO 16665. The use
of systems with suitable allowable zones of effect are acceptable,

The audit must ensure that all of the measures are operational and fit for
purpose. Evidence of the prevention of adverse impacts could include
comparisons with baseline conditions or standardized limits with a suitable
justification for their use.
Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity Requirements for Improved Practice
Management
The standard ensures no net loss of high conservation value habitats on an
area basis as a result of aquaculture establishment construction and
conversion and culture practices. Grandfathering is allowed, but must use a
meaningful specific date in the context of the habitat loss. Offsetting is also
allowed. The standard requires that where restoration is applied monitoring
demonstrably shows progress towards successful restoration.
Replaces C.4.03
Meaningful specific dates are those that address to periods of maximal loss of
high conservation value habitats.
The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires restoration and
to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images etc.). Where restoration
is required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, records, certification) that
monitoring and progress meets the stated goals.
Management
The standard requires appropriate performance based limits for negative
impacts on high conservation value habits as a result of aquaculture
establishment construction and conversion and culture practices.
Add-on to C.4.02

The audit must verify the monitoring and measurement of impacts are fit for
purpose and review supporting evidence of compliance, e.g., visual inspection
of the health of the habitat or records of biodiversity assessments etc.).
C.4.08 Predator Control The standard prohibits the use of any lethal predator control techniques on
higher animals such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Replaces C.4.04

The audit must include a site inspection and verification of the predator used.
Examples of supporting evidence of non-use include interview, appropriate
signage, and mortality records.
Management
The standard requires verification that a suitable EIA was performed prior to
expansions on recent (including currently certified or by an appropriate fixed
date) aquaculture establishments.
Suitable EIAs should fit for purpose.
The audit must include a review of the scale and scope of the EIA, evidence
that it occurred, that it met legal requirements, and evidence of the operational
implementation of measures prescribed in the EIA.
Management
The standard prohibits the further expansion or movement (e.g. net pens) on
(including currently certified or by a fixed date) of aquaculture establishments in
high conservation value habitats.
The audit must include a review of evidence (visual inspection, maps, aerial
photos, satellite images, certification, or EIA etc.).
70
C.4.11 Cumulative Impacts The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to adequately cooperate
with relevant neighbouring aquaculture establishments (if they exist) in the
shared management of habitat and biodiversity impacts.
isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely.
Adequate cooperation can include shared monitoring, measurement and
restoration of habitat or biodiversity.
The audit must include a review evidence that aquaculture establishment does
or doesnt have neighbouring entities (e.g., maps, satellite images). If
neighbouring aquaculture establishments exist then the auditor is required to
review evidence (such as written records, meeting notes, contractual
agreements and/or interviews) that the aquaculture establishment actively
cooperates with neighbours to manage habitat impacts in the region.
Management
Where relevant, the standard requires suitable habitat coastal and riparian
buffer zones, as well as salinization buffers agricultural land or rivers
Add-on to C.4.02
The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires buffer zones
and to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images, certification etc.).
Where required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, maps, water quality results)
that the buffers are fit for purpose.
C.4.13 Record Keeping The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to maintain accurate
records of impactful interactions with local wildlife.
The audit must include an inspection of supporting evidence, including written
records. Other evidence could include interviews with employees and local
community and management plans.
Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity Requirements for Leading Practice
Management
The standard ensures no loss of high conservation value habitats as a result of
aquaculture establishment construction, conversion, expansion, and culture
practices at the site. No grandfathering or offsetting is allowed.
Replaces C.4.03 and C.4.06
The audit must review and verify to the extent practical the no loss claim;
example of evidence could include visual inspection, map, aerial photos,
satellite images, suitable certification, interviews with the local community etc.).
Management
The standard requires environmental management measures are consistent
with ISO:14001
Replaces C.4.02 compliance with C.4.14, C.4.07,,C.4.10,C.4.11
The audit must verify ISO:14001 requirements are followed or suitable
certification.
Management
The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment is part of a formal
area management system that requires the identification and protection of high
conservation value habitats and biodiversity, and undertakes habitat restoration
of impacted areas.
Replaces C.4.12.
The audit must include a review of evidence including the area management
agreement, and other example evidence such as written records and
monitoring results, meeting notes, financial records, visual inspection).
Management
The standard excludes aquaculture establishments where accidental and
deliberate mortality of high conservation value species has occurred during
recent production cycles.
Accidental mortality can include those as a result of entanglement etc.

The audit must include an inspection of supporting evidence. Examples of
include employee and local community interviews, appropriate signage, and
interaction records.

71
C.5 Seed
Seed Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.5.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that all seed is sourced and used in compliance with
relevant national and local legal requirements for both the source and
destination law.
relevant laws. This could include international laws (e.g., CITES) and laws
governing introductions and transfers of live aquatic animals. Suitable
evidence could include self-declaration by the seed supplier or supporting
evidence such as fishing license/permit for wild seed.
C.5.02 Record keeping The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of
an appropriate system for recording the source, stocking and health status of
seed.
An appropriate records system must include source of the seed, date of
purchase, results of disease/heath status tests (including ISO 23893-1:2007),
vaccination record of the seed, stocking density, and stocked seed batch
identification.
The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for
purpose.
C.5.03 Hatchery Seed The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment deliberately stock
hatchery-raised seed unless justification exists otherwise.
Suitable justifiable exclusions include the lack of commercially-available
hatchery-raised seed, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of the
farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered
at the standard or aquaculture establishment level.
purpose.
C.5.04 Wild Seed The standard requires that where the deliberate use of wild seed is justifiable, it
is collected in a manner that:
- Ensures controls are in place so that the collection of seed is not
detrimental to the status of the wild target and non-target
populations, nor the wider ecosystem.
- Avoids the use of environmentally damaging collection practices
Justifiable uses include where the lack of commercially-available hatchery-
raised seed, inability/lack of technology to hatchery-raised the farmed species,
or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered at the standard or
i) Suitable controls can include aspects such as a fishery
management plan that limits take to maintain the wild
populations, appropriate safeguards against excessive bycatch,
and prevention of damaging gear types.
ii) Examples of environmentally damaging collection practice
include dynamite or poison fishing, habitat impacts.
The audit must include a review of evidence of responsible
seed collection, such as copies of the fishery management plan,
self-certification by the seed supplier, visual inspection etc.

72
C.5 Seed
Seed Requirements for Improved Practice
C.5.05 Hatchery seed The standard requires that the source hatchery is independently-verified to
meet relevant law and appropriate controls for animal health management,
Water Quality, Escapes, Habitat, Chemical Use, Feed
Replaces C.5.01, C.5.03, C.5.04.

Appropriate controls must include:
Compliance with international/ national laws and CITES and introductions and
transfers of live aquatic animals requirements, including legal broodstock
sourcing.

All C1 Tier 1 criteria
C.3.15
C.4 (4.01 to 4.04)
C.5.C5.2
C.6. 6.01 to.6.02, 6.04
All C.7- Tier 1 criteria

The audit must include a review of evidence of the independence of the
validation and supporting evidence of compliance with the required controls
(e.g., an audit report, certificate, benchmarking result, supplier of wild
broodstock could include fishing license/permit).
C.5.06 Record Keeping The standard requires that the source hatchery has established, implemented
and maintained appropriate system for recording the source, stocking and
health status of broodstock.
Compliance with C.5.05 required.
An appropriate records system must include source of the seed, date of
purchase, results of disease/heath status tests, vaccination record of the seed,
stocking density, and stocked broodstock batch identification.
purpose.
C.5.07 Broodstock Source The standard requires that source hatchery uses hatchery-raised broodstock
unless justification exists otherwise.
hatchery-raised broodstock, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of
the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be
offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level. Small numbers of
wild broodstock are allowable to maintain genetic rigor, but they must be
sourced in compliance with C.5.08.
The audit must review evidence of the source of the broodstock (e.g.,
inspection of written/financial records, marking techniques).
73
C.5 Seed
C.5.08 Broodstock Source The standard requires that the source hatchery only use of wild broodstock if it
is justifiable and it is collected in a manner that:
- Ensures controls are in place so that the collection of
broodstock is not detrimental to the status of the wild target and
non-target populations, nor the wider ecosystem.
- Prohibits the use of environmentally damaging collection
practices
hatchery-raised broodstock, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of
the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be
offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level.
i) Suitable controls can include aspects such as a fishery
management plan that limits take to maintain the wild
populations, appropriate safeguards against excessive bycatch,
and prevention of damaging gear types.
ii) Examples of environmentally damaging collection practice
include dynamite or poison fishing, habitat impacts.
The audit must include a review of evidence of responsible
broodstock collection, such as copies of the fishery
management plan, self-certification by the seed supplier, visual
inspection etc.
C.5.09 Hatchery seed The standard requires that all hatchery seed must be suitably verified to be free
from relevant/important pathogens before stocking for grow-out.
Relevant/important pathogens can include those identified by the aquatic
health professional and sources such as the OIE/ transboundary disease lists.
The audit must include a review of evidence including the suitability of the
disease-testing methods, the disease tested for, and the results.
C.5.10 Broodstock Source The standard requires that, where feasible, the source hatchery uses a
broodstock facility that has established, implanted and maintained a
broodstock management plan to maintain reasonable genetic rigor.
The audit must include a review of evidence of the broodstock facility having an
operational and fit for purpose plan. This could include self-certification, copies
of the plan itself, suitable records etc.
C.5.11 Wild Seed Where standards permit natural spat fall for bivalves this collection is managed
to ensure that there is spat available to support both aquaculture uses and
sufficient protection of wild populations, with appropriate justification.
Add-on to C.5.04
The audit must include a review of evidence of, such as copies of the fishery
management plan, self-certification by the seed supplier, scientific literature
etc.
Seed Requirements for Leading Practice
C.5.12 Hatchery Seed The standard requires that wild caught seed are prohibited. 100% of manually
stocked seed must be from a hatchery.
Compliance with all Tier 2 indicators required.
The audit must include a review of evidence to support the claim (e.g., receipts
from seed purchases).
C.5.13 Broodstock source The standard requires that, where feasible, the source hatchery uses a
broodstock facility that has established, implanted and maintained includes
multi-factor broodstock selection program that maintains reasonable genetic
rigor.
Replaces C.5.10 and C.5.09, compliance with all other Tier 2 indicators is
required.
The audit must include a review of evidence of the broodstock facility having an
operational and fit for purpose plan. This could include self-certification, copies
of the plan itself, suitable records etc.

74
Species Selection and Escapes Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.6.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that all species are farmed in compliance with relevant
laws and regulations.
relevant laws.
C.6.02 Escapes The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establishes,
implements and maintains an appropriate system to minimize the unintentional
release or escape of cultured species. ,
An appropriate system should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood
of events and the magnitude of impacts on surrounding environment using a
suitable scientific method and taking into consideration, siting, culture
practices, local environmental conditions, including extreme events, and other
relevant uncertainties according to the precautionary approach and possible
impacts on genetic diversity, aquatic communities and ecosystems. Specific
standard requirements are acceptable.
The audit must include a review of evidence of an operational and fit for
purpose system.
The system must have addressed the following:
i) Measures for escape detection
ii) Monitoring for and record keeping of escapes events
iii) Suitable training of employees
iv) Incident management, including response or recapture
measures.
v) Regular monitoring and maintenance of the culture system
vi) Regular review and failure analysis

Where exotic are farmed, systems must appropriately reflect the additional
impact risks that maybe presented by exotic species, particularly regarding
measures to reduce the risk of the impact of escaped aquatic animals.
C.6.03 Genetically modified
organisms
In the case where the culture of GMO organisms is permitted, the standard
requires a suitable evaluation of the risk of impacts on the surrounding
environment.
A suitable evaluation must have been performed using an appropriate scientific
method that assesses the likelihood of events and the magnitude of impacts,
and take into account relevant uncertainties according to the precautionary
approach. The evaluation should consider the possible impacts on genetic
diversity, aquatic communities and ecosystems. Where ICES Code of Practice
on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms 2005 is relevant,
consistency with these requirements on genetically modified organisms (GMO).
purpose system.
Species Selection and Escapes Requirements for Improved Practice
C.6.04 Escapes The standard requires the establishment, implementation and monitoring of a
system designed to accurately count the aquatic animals stocked; and account
for leakage or unexplained losses.
Add-on to C.6.02
Examples of effective accounting systems include direct counts or
representative samples that are suitably accurate to estimate unexplained or
leakage losses. E.g., low error ratings in counting methods.
purpose system.
75
C.6.05 Escapes The standard requires that non-established non-native species are controlled
by effective escape impact prevention and mitigation measures.
Add-on to C.6.02
Effective measures could include sourcing only sterile, polyploidy, or mono-sex
seed or physical isolation.
purpose measures (e.g., hatchery records, visual inspection (farm and/or
aquatic animal).
C.6.06 Escapes The standard prohibits aquaculture establishments that, due to its negligence,
have repeated escape events over a representative number of production
cycles and/or a single significant escape event.
Repeated escape events should be considered in terms of the numbers of
aquatic animals stocked and the length of the production cycle. Escapes due to
factors outside of the farms control can be exempt.
The audit must include a review of evidence, such as monitoring records,
interviews with employees and the local community.
Species Selection and Escapes Requirements for Leading Practice
C.6.07 Escapes Within detection limitations, the standard requires a maximum cap on escapes
that effectively prohibits certification from aquaculture establishments with any
escape events.
Replaces C.6.07
Escapes due to factors outside of the farms control can be exempt. Escape
limits should be set to account for the detection limits of the counting system.
The audit must include a review of evidence, such as monitoring records,
interviews with employees and the local community.
C.6.08 Escapes The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment participate in formal
area management system that sets a maximum cap on escapes within the
area.
The standard must be consistent with all C.6 tier 1 and 2 indicators.
The audit must include a review evidence including the area management
agreement, and other example evidence such as written records and
monitoring results, meeting notes, interviews with local regulators and the
community).

Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.7.01 General site
maintenance
The standard requires that aquaculture establishment sites are well maintained
in order to prevent pollution, whether from construction, operation or
decommissioning, including the following requirements:
i) An effective general waste management system that requires
the collection and responsible disposal of waste.
ii) A requirement for derelict or damaged gear to be collected and
disposed of responsibly.
Responsible disposal includes recycling of materials where and when possible.
An appropriate system should account for more polluting waste.
The audit must include a general inspection of the aquaculture establishment
to ensure it is well maintained. The audit must also include a review evidence
of an effective waste management system; such as waste management plans,
waste disposal records, recycling plans, presence of bins for separating waste,
etc.
76
C.7.02 Storage The standard requires that where feed is stored, it is appropriately stored to
prevent biological, chemical, or physical contamination.
Appropriate storage must ensure that feed is stored separately, off the floor
(e.g., on pallets), and kept a sufficient distance away from walls. The storage
area must be kept dry. Stored feed must be accurately labelled and medicated
and non-medicated feed must be separated.
The audit must include an inspection of the feed storage area and ensure that
feed is appropriately labelled.
C.7.03 Storage The standard requires that where fuel is stored, it is appropriately stored to
prevent environmental damage and that a suitable fuel containment system is
in place to address accidents.
Appropriate storage must ensure that the storage system has a secondary
containment system that is, at a minimum, of 110% of initial storage, with no
drain. The storage must have appropriate signage.
The fuel containment system must address leakage and containment system
failure.
The audit must include an inspection of the fuel storage area and review
evidence of an operational and fit for purpose fuel containment system (e.g., a
written action plan, records of inspection and maintenance of the system, staff
training and access to emergency equipment).
C.7.04 General site
maintenance
The standard requires measures that ensure hazardous waste is disposed of
responsibly.
Responsible disposal must be compliant with all relevant laws; and follow
suitable prescribed practices such as the manufacturers guidelines, and the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
(GHS) specifications (or similar guidance).
The audit must include aquaculture establishment inspection and a review of
evidence that the measures are operational and fit for purpose (e.g., records,
receipts for disposal, written action plans, available GHS documentation,
presence of appropriate disposal, treatment and handling equipment).
C.7.05 General site
maintenance
The standard requires appropriate measures for pest control The audit must ensure pest control is operational and fit for purpose (e.g.,
visual inspection of traps, their locations and number, monitoring records).
C.7.06 General site
maintenance
The standard requires that domestic sewage shall be treated and/or properly
disposed of to avoid local contamination.
The audit must include aquaculture establishment inspection and a review of
evidence of appropriate treatment and disposal.
C.7.07 Storage The standard requires that chemicals are appropriately stored in a lockable,
labelled facility and accessible to only by authorized personnel.
Responsible storage must be compliant with all relevant laws; and follow
suitable prescribed practices such as the manufacturers guidelines, and the
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
(GHS) specifications (or similar guidance).
The audit must include an inspection of the chemical storage and a review of
evidence that the measures are operational and fit for purpose (e.g., records,
receipts for chemicals, written action plans, presence of suitable equipment,
available GHS documentation, interview with staff).
Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage Requirements for Improved Practice
C.7.08 Energy Use The standard requires energy use to be monitored and recorded (e.g., total
fuel or energy)
The audit must include a review of evidence that energy use is being
appropriately monitored and recorded. Appropriate calculations are used when
estimates of energy use are applied.
C.7.09 General site
maintenance
and maintain a general waste reduction system.
An appropriate system must include a baseline of waste generation and
actions aimed at reductions, and suitable monitoring.
purpose.
77
Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage Requirements for Leading Practice
C.7.10 General site
maintenance
The standard requires 100% recycling of recyclable waste. Additional component to C.7.01
The audit must review evidence that recyclable waste and recycling systems
have been appropriately identified and that recycling is occurring (e.g.,
receipts, visual inspection).
C.7.11 Energy Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement
and maintain an appropriate energy use reduction system.
Compliance with C.7.08 must be met.
An appropriate system must include a baseline of energy use per unit of
production, and actions aimed at reductions, and suitable monitoring and
revision of the system.
purpose.

No. Element GSSI Requirement
Guidance for Objective Evidence
Water Quality and Waste Requirements for Responsible Practice
C.8.01 Water Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has appropriate
management measures for efficient abstracted water and, where appropriate,
the measuring and recording of water use.
Appropriate management measures may include general promotion of efficient
water use, monitoring requirements for water use, or setting specific efficiency
limits for water use.
purpose.
C.8.02 Salinization
Subsidence
The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establish, implement
and maintain an appropriate system for monitoring and managing the use of
groundwater.
Aquaculture establishments that do not use groundwater should be exempt.
Appropriate systems must, where relevant, minimize the increase of
groundwater salinity and prevent subsidence. These systems could include a
determination of a baseline and using it to limit on groundwater use through a
management plan or a specific limit.
purpose.
C.8.03 Salinization The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establish, implement
and maintain an appropriate system to minimize the impact of the discharge or
seepage of saline water on freshwater resources and the surrounding
environment,
Aquaculture establishments that do not discharge saline water should be
exempt.
Appropriate measures can be based on risk assessments or standardized
requirements. Controls could include relevant monitoring of freshwater impacts
for salinity changes and measures such as pond-linings or other control
technique.
purpose, including visual inspection of the site.
78
C.8.04 Water Quality The standard requires, where applicable, management measures of effluents
to ensure that these do not exceed local environments ability to assimilate
aquaculture wastes without jeopardizing local ecosystem health or integrity.
Appropriate measures must include.
1. Monitoring and recording of effluent and receiving water quality,
including key parameters that need to be addressed include, where
applicable:
i) Nutrients Nitrate/Nitrogen (in seawater)
ii) Nutrients Phosphate/Phosphorous (in freshwater)
iii) Dissolved oxygen
iv) Salinity
v) Suspended Solids
vi) pH
vii) Pond sludge
2. Defined, aquaculture appropriate, maximum reference points (e.g.,
general concentration limits or aquaculture establishment-specific
limits) or mandatory systems (e.g., presence of a suitable filter) are
defined to prevent pollution
3. Where reference points are exceeded, the scheme either refuses
certification or that mitigation methods are employed and monitored
to meet a timebound goal to come into compliance.
purpose, including visual inspection of the site. Where effluent concentration
limits are used for compliance, the audit must include verification of
conformance.
C.8.05 Legal Compliance The standard requires compliance with all relevant laws regarding water use,
water quality, and waste discharge.
relevant laws.
Water Quality and Waste Requirements for Improved Practice
C.8.06 Water Quality The standard requires suitable specific limits on nutrients loads released to the
environment.
Add-on to C.8.04.
Suitable specific limits are those that are specific to the culture practices, and
designed to ensure minimal pollution.
The audit must review evidence that the limits are fit for purpose.
C.8.07 Water Quality The standard requires the use of appropriate water treatment measures
appropriate to the culture practice.
Cage systems are exempt. Add-on to C.8.04.
Appropriate water treatment measures should aim for the aquaculture
establishment to greatly improve effluent water quality. E.g., settling ponds,
particulate/solids filtration, biofiltration, treatment ponds.
The audit must review evidence that the treatment systems are fit for purpose.
C.8.08 Water Quality The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment collaborates with
neighbouring establishments in order to maintain regional water quality.
The audit must include a review evidence of collaboration as meeting notes,
sharing of effluent and influent water quality data, interviews with local
community).
79
C.8.09 Water Quality The standard requires effluent discharge water quality parameters are no
worse than the incoming water.
Add-on to C.8.04.
C.8.10 Salinization The standard prohibits salinization resulting from the production system. Add-on to C.8.03

The audit must include a review of evidence, specifically using metric limits and
suitable monitoring system.
Water Quality and Waste Requirements for Leading Practice
C.8.11 Water Quality The standard requires regional water quality monitoring that feeds back into the
future effluent management measures
Add-on to C.8.04.
The audit must verify that a suitable feedback system is in operation.
C.8.12 Water Quality The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment is part of an area
management system that sets a suitable maximum limit for cumulative impacts
on regional water quality.
isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. All aquaculture
establishments must meet C.8 Tier 1 requirements.
Suitable limits could include performance based water quality limits measured
at relevant locations within the area, a mass balance limit based on modelling
the regions assimilative ability with individual permitted loads for each
aquaculture establishment.
The audit must include a review of evidence, which could include the area
management agreement, environmental monitoring data, maps and justification
for monitoring locations, meeting notes, interviews with local regulators and the
community).

80
Section D Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards
Fishery Management Organization Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.1.01 Management
organization
The standard requires the existence of a fishery management organization or
arrangement that manages the fishery that is seeking certification (the unit of
certification).
A fisheries management organization or arrangement is defined by FAO (see
Terms and Definitions) and is used throughout the benchmarking framework. It
is intended to represent the designated authority mentioned in paragraphs
29.2 (36.2) and 29.4 (36.5) of the FAO Guidelines. In this context it is
essentially an entity holding the legal and generally recognised mandate for
establishing fisheries management measures and taking management
decisions such that those measures and decisions are legally enforceable.
Where the stock is transboundary, it might also encompass a Regional
Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) see below. It may also exist
under relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches to the management
of the stock under consideration, provided their performance can be objectively
verified (i.e. the knowledge has been collected and analysed though a
systematic, objective and well-designed process, and is not just hearsay).
D.1.02 Adaptive Management The standard requires that the fishery management organization or
arrangement receives and responds to in a timely manner the best scientific
evidence available regarding the status of the stock under consideration and
the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts of the unit of certification on
the stock under consideration and the ecosystem.
Best scientific evidence available is defined in the Terms and Definitions as a
process by which scientific advice is commissioned and solicited by the
management system. For the stock under consideration it can come from
assessments of stock status outside of the standard stock assessment,
accommodating techniques for data limited fisheries and including traditional
knowledge, providing its validity can be objectively verified. The actions of the
fishery management organization or arrangement in both receiving and
responding to the best scientific evidence available must be in accordance with
the Precautionary Approach as set out under D.3.22-D.3.26. This Indicator is
linked to those in D.4 that cover the collection and handling of data and
information.
D.1.03 Management
organization
The standard requires that the fisheries management organization operates in
compliance with local, national and international laws and regulations.
This indicator refers to the requirement that the fisheries management
organization or arrangement itself to be operating legally (locally, nationally and
internationally); the legality of the fishery (i.e. compliance with applicable
fishing regulations) is covered under D.7. For the purposes of clarity, this
includes compliance with the requirements of any regional fisheries
management organisation that exercises internationally recognized
management jurisdiction over the stock under consideration.
81
D.1.04 Small scale and data
limited fisheries
The standard accommodates governance and management systems for small
scale and data limited fisheries where appropriate, provided their performance
can be objectively verified, with due consideration to the availability of data and
the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different types
and scales of fisheries.
The standard holder should define what it considers to be small scale, and
what procedures apply to those fisheries. The great diversity of small-scale
fisheries should be recognized, as well as the fact that there is no single,
agreed definition of the subsector. Accordingly, GSSI does not prescribe a
standard definition of small-scale fisheries. Rather it is important for the
certifying body to ensure transparency and accountability by ascertaining which
activities and operators are considered small-scale, taking into consideration
relevant country views that have been guided by meaningful and substantive
participatory, consultative, multi-level and objective-oriented processes. This
should be undertaken at a regional, sub regional or national level according to
the particular context in which a certifying body is working.

Being data limited is not necessarily synonymous with being small scale, but
the issues for fishery management may be similar. Accommodating
governance and management systems for small scale and data limited
fisheries does not mean standards are lowered; it relates to being able to take
into consideration different kinds of information and utilize different fishery
management approaches in a risk management context.

In order to accommodate governance and management systems for small
scale and data limited fisheries, the standard also needs to accommodate
relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches used by the fisheries
management organization or arrangement to manage the unit of certification,
provided their performance can be objectively verified. Evidence to verify the
performance of the relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches is to
be established by the certification body implementing the standard and can be
derived, for example, from the assessment of conformance with other GSSI
benchmark indicators, in particular those covering the Stock and Ecosystem
Status and Outcomes (D.6).

The words "where appropriate" were added to allow for the situation where a
standard is not relevant to any Small Scale Fisheries. Only those standards
that might potentially be applied to Small Scale Fisheries need to develop a
mechanism to accommodate them.
82
D.1.05 Participatory
Management
The standard requires the governance and management system implemented
by the fishery management organization or arrangement to be both
participatory and transparent
Principle 2.4 (2.5) of the FAO Guidelines requires ecolabelling schemes to be
transparent, including balanced and fair participation by all interested parties.
Requiring the standard also to require that the governance and management
system being assessed is participatory and transparent (i.e. not just the
scheme/ standard itself) is not specifically mentioned in the FAO Guidelines,
but paragraph 6.13 of the FAO Code of Conduct states that: States should, to
the extent permitted by national laws and regulations, ensure that decision
making processes are transparent and achieve timely solutions to urgent
matters. States, in accordance with appropriate procedures, should facilitate
consultation and the effective participation of industry, fishworkers,
environmental and other interested organizations in decisionmaking with
respect to the development of laws and policies related to fisheries
management, development, international lending and aid.
To meet this indicator, the standard must require the fisheries management
organization or arrangement to make information and advice used in its
decision-making publicly available. While it is possible for an organization to be
separately participatory or transparent, being one without the other is regarded
as of much less value, hence both are needed to meet this indicator.
A participatory approach to fisheries management requires there to be an
opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the
management process. This does not mean that stakeholders are required to
have specific decision rights in the fishery, but there should be a consultation
process that regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including
traditional, fisher or community knowledge and there is a transparent
mechanism by which the management system demonstrates consideration of
the information obtained. See the Terms and Definitions for more details.
D.1.06 Transboundary stocks Where the stock under consideration is a transboundary fish stock, straddling
fish stock, highly migratory fish stock or high seas fish stock, the standard
requires the existence of a management organisation or arrangement covering
the stock under consideration throughout its range.
In this context, the management organisation or arrangement is an institution
or arrangement established (usually between two or more States) to be
responsible for activities related to fisheries management, including
consultation between parties to the agreement or arrangement, formulation of
the fishery regulations and their implementation, allocation of resources,
collection of information, stock assessment, as well as monitoring, control and
surveillance (MCS). (E.g. a Regional Fisheries Management Organization
RFMO). See also FAO Code of Conduct paragraph 7.1.3 et seq.
D.1.07 Adaptive Management The standard requires that the fishery management organization or
arrangement that manages the unit of certification convenes regularly to
manage the integrated process of information collection, stock assessment,
planning, formulation of the management objectives and targets, establishing
management measures and enforcement of fishery rules and regulations.
The constitution of the fishery management organization or arrangement (e.g.
the rules of procedure) specifies a statutory requirement for regular meetings
(note that "convenes" is not intended to require mandatory face to face
meetings). Reports summarizing the results of the meetings of the fishery
management organization or arrangement provide clear evidence that the
meetings take place regularly. The frequency of meetings must be
commensurate with the requirement in D.1.02 for the fishery management
organization or arrangement to receive and respond to in a timely manner the
best scientific evidence available regarding the status of the stock under
consideration and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts of the unit
of certification on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. Normally
meetings would be expected to be held at least annually. Such an arrangement
is common practice within well managed fisheries.
83
Legal Framework Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.1.08 Legal framework The standard requires that the fisheries management organization or
arrangement manages the unit of certification under an effective legal
framework at the local, national or regional (international) level as appropriate.
Legal framework is defined in the Terms and Definitions. An effective legal
framework is one that is shown to be fit for purpose, such that the fishery
seeking certification proceeds in an orderly and well controlled manner. An
effective legal framework should enable the fisheries management organization
or arrangement to perform its functions without hindrance from systemic and
repeated illegal activity. An effective legal framework can be one that
incorporates traditional, fisher or community approaches (e.g. co-management
under community approaches) provided their performance can be objectively
verified. Evidence of the performance of the legal framework can be derived
from the assessment of conformance with other GSSI benchmark indicators, in
particular those covering compliance and enforcement (D.7)

Stock under Consideration Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.2.01 Management objectives The standard requires the existence of management objectives that address
the unit of certification and the stock under consideration and seek outcomes
consistent with rational use of the resources under management.
The term management objectives is defined in the Terms and Definitions. This
indicator tests for the existence of clearly stated management objectives that
meet the definition and are consistent with rational use. The effectiveness of
those objectives in achieving desirable outcomes (and avoiding undesirable
outcomes) is tested in other indicators, both in terms of their suitability as
objectives, and their outcomes for the stock under consideration and the
ecosystem.
D.2.02 Best scientific evidence
available
The standard requires that the management objectives take into account the
best scientific evidence available.
The management objectives are those referred to in D.2.01.
See Terms and Definitions for guidance on best scientific evidence available.
84
D.2.03 Reference points The standard requires that the management objectives clearly define target
and limit reference points, or proxies for the stock under consideration in
accordance with the Precautionary Approach.
See Terms and Definitions for definitions of target and limit reference points.

Reference points must be set at levels consistent with providing the stock
under consideration adequate protection from overfishing. To be effective,
reference points must be incorporated within a framework of decision rules
(See D.3.05).

The words or proxies were included as a consideration for small scale and
data limited fisheries, This should not be interpreted to mean that small scale
or data limited fisheries do not require target and limit reference points, but that
the methods used to develop them and monitor the stock status in relation to
them may be less data intensive than for large scale fisheries. See also D.1.04
and D.5.05.
D.2.04 Reference points The standard requires the existence of management objectives consistent with
avoiding adverse impacts on the stock under consideration that are likely to be
irreversible or very slowly reversible.
Recruitment overfishing is an example of an impact on the stock under
consideration that is likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible
D.2.05 Reference points The standard requires the determination of appropriate limit reference points
for the stock under consideration that are consistent with achieving Maximum
Sustainable Yield, MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average, or a lesser fishing
mortality if that is optimal in the circumstances of the unit of certification (e.g.
multi-species fisheries).
This indicator requires that MSY is used as the limit reference point. In
accordance with the Code of Conduct, consistent with achieving MSY is
interpreted as meaning 'designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels
capable of producing MSY which means at or above MSY level, and thereby
that MSY is an upper limit on fishing mortality. "On average refers to a long
term average. Caddy and Mahon (1995)[1] considered the use of MSY as a
target reference point in the light of the performance of fishery management
(i.e. with regard to preventing overfishing), and suggested that MSY and other
reference points formerly used as targets, may be more appropriately applied
as LRPs.
D.2.06 Enhanced fisheries The standard requires, in the case of enhanced fisheries, the existence of
management objectives consistent with avoiding significant negative impacts of
enhancement activities on the natural reproductive stock component of the
stock under consideration
Any displacement of the naturally reproductive stock components of enhanced
stocks must not reduce the natural reproductive stock components below
abundance-based Target Reference Points or their proxies. Note that the
Target Reference Points are for the natural reproductive stock component. For
example, in the case of salmon fisheries, if the spawning stock is comprised of
fish both from enhanced and natural origins, the escapement goal considers
only the natural origin component. An example Target Reference Point would
be an escapement target based on the natural reproductive stock component.

85
Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.2.07 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to
avoid or mitigate the effects of fishing and any associated culture and
enhancement activity on main non-target species that are likely to be
Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of
certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought.
Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches:
Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20),
Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5),
Vulnerable species,
High value species.

Examples of irreversible or very slowly reversible effects on bycatch species
include excessive depletion of very long-lived organisms. To mitigate effects
that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible requires those effects
to be made less severe such that they are no longer likely to be irreversible or
very slowly reversible.
D.2.08 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to
avoid hindering the recovery of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP)
species arising from the unit of certification.

D.2.09 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to
avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on essential habitats and on habitats that
are highly vulnerable to damage by fishing gear.
Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Examples of
impacts on habitat that should be avoided include the destruction or severe
modification of rare and/or vulnerable habitats.
D.2.10 Food web The standard requires the existence of management objectives that consider
the role of the stock under consideration in the food web.
For example, if the stock under consideration is a key prey species in the
ecosystem, the standard must require that management objectives are in place
to avoid severe adverse impacts on dependent predators. See also following
indicator. This indicator also requires the consideration of other indirect effects
of fishing on the stock under consideration that propagate though food web
interactions, including the removal of apex predators (e.g. in tuna fisheries).
D.2.11 Dependent predators The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to
avoid impacts of fishing on dependent predators that are likely to be
Meeting this objective may require, for example, fishing mortality to be at a rate
lower than that consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY (or
a suitable proxy) on average (see D.2.05), if that is optimal to avoid severe
adverse impacts of fishing on dependent predators or other indirect effects of
fishing on the ecosystem.
D.2.12 Ecosystem structure
and function
The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to
conserve the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems.
Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions.
Examples of irreversible or very slowly reversible indirect effects on the
ecosystem include genetic modification and changed ecological role.
D.2.13 Biodiversity The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to
conserve the biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems.
The requirement to conserve biodiversity is not specifically required by the
FAO guidelines, but it is included in the Code of Conduct, which states in
paragraphs 7.2.01 and 7.2.02 that States and sub-regional or regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements should adopt appropriate
measures, based on the best scientific evidence available to provide that inter
alia biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved.

86
Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Requirements for Improved Practice
D.2.14 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize
and address cumulative impacts on main non-target species.
Vulnerable species,
High value species.
D.2.15 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize
cumulative impacts on ETP species.
ETP species are defined in the Terms and Definitions. All ETP species
impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative
impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be
Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Requirements for Leading Practice
D.2.16 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize
cumulative impacts on habitat.
Any habitat impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for
cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not
likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.
and function
The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize
cumulative impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem within which
the unit of certification exists.
Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Any
aquatic ecosystem impacted by the unit of certification should be considered
for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is
not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.

D.3.01 Management measures The standard requires the existence of management measures for the unit of
certification consistent with achieving management objectives for the stock
under consideration.
This is the partner indicator of D.2.01; the management objectives are those
referred to in that Indicator. Achievement of the management objectives for the
stock under consideration may not be entirely within the purview of the fishery
management organization or arrangement that manages the fishery that is
seeking certification. There may be other fisheries targeting the stock under
consideration that fall under a separate administrative jurisdiction (potentially in
another country). The management measures should therefore be consistent
with achieving management objectives for the stock under consideration.
87
D.3.02 Non-fishing impacts The standard requires that management measures for the unit of certification
that take into account the multipurpose nature of the use patterns in inland and
marine waters.
The multipurpose nature of the use patterns refers to the uncertainty of other
(non-fishery) impacts on the stock under consideration. For example, if there
are other users from other sectors, fishery management, although not being
able to control those sectors, should take their impacts into account when
devising the management plan. For example, if water is abstracted from rivers
at certain times of the year, management should address that fact, although
not being able to influence when and to what extent the water is abstracted.
D.3.03 Best scientific evidence
available
The standard requires that management measures for the stock under
consideration are in accordance with the best scientific evidence available.
This is the partner indicator of D.2.02. Best scientific evidence available is
defined in the Terms and Definitions as a process by which scientific advice is
commissioned and solicited by the management system. It can come from
assessments of stock status outside of the standard stock assessment (also
defined in the Terms and Definitions), accommodating techniques for data
limited fisheries and including traditional knowledge, providing its validity can
be objectively verified (i.e. the knowledge has been collected and analysed
though a systematic process, and is not simply hearsay).
D.3.04 Cumulative Impacts The standard requires that management measures for the stock under
consideration consider total fishing mortality on the stock under consideration
from all sources
Management measures for the stock under consideration must be based on an
assessment of that stock which takes account of all removals over its entire
area of distribution (as any reliable stock assessment should do); i.e. not just
by the fishery that is seeking certification (i.e. the unit of certification), but by all
fisheries that take fish from that stock, including bycatch, discards, unobserved
mortality, incidental mortality, and unreported catches.
D.3.05 Decision Rules The standard requires that management measures specify the actions to be
taken in the event that the status of the stock under consideration drops below
levels consistent with achieving management objectives, that allow for the
restoration of the stock to such levels within a reasonable time frame. This
requirement also pertains to species introductions or translocations that have
occurred historically and which have become established as part of the natural
ecosystem.
This requires the specification of decision rules that mandate remedial
management actions to be taken if limit reference / target points are
approached or exceeded or the desired directions in key indicators of stock
status are not achieved. For example, decreasing fishing mortality (or its proxy)
if the stock size falls below its limit reference point. This is a central component
of the Precautionary Approach (see D.3.22-D.3.26).
D.3.06 Enhanced Fisheries In the case of enhanced fisheries, the standard requires the existence of
management measures that avoid significant adverse impacts of enhancement
activities associated with the unit of certification on the natural reproductive
stock components of the stock under consideration and any other wild stocks
from which the organisms for stocking originate.
Standards that apply to enhanced components of the stock under
consideration require that stocking of enhanced fisheries, whether sourced
from aquaculture facilities or wild stocks, is undertaken in such a way as to
maintain inter alia:

i) The integrity of the environment;
ii) The conservation of genetic diversity;
iii) Disease control; and
iv) Quality of stocking material
v) The donor wild stocks

In the case where organisms for stocking originate from wild stocks other than
the stock under consideration, those stocks should be managed according to
the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In
particular, those stocks should be within biologically based limits , or if outside
those limits, the removal of organisms for stocking purposes does not hinder
recovery and rebuilding of those stocks
88
D.3.07 Recovery and
rebuilding
For stocks under consideration that become overfished or depleted due to non-
fishing impacts the standard includes a requirement for the management
system to specify and follow a well-defined rebuilding plan which is highly likely
to restore overfished or depleted stocks to levels consistent with achieving
management objectives within a reasonable time frame.
Suggestions for a reasonable time frame are provided in the Terms and
Definitions.
Stock under Consideration Requirements for Improved Practice
D.3.08 Decision Rules The standard includes a requirement for clear evidence that remedial
management actions to be taken if limit reference / target points are
approached or exceeded or the desired directions in key indicators of stock
status are not achieved are highly likely to prevent the stock under
consideration from being subject to overfishing or becoming overfished.
The clear evidence referred to in this indicator is likely to come from statistical
analysis, including simulation models that quantify the likelihood of the
management actions resulting in outcomes in accordance with management
objectives. A track record of management interventions that resulted in the
reversal of undesirable directions in key indicators of stock status would also
be relevant.
D.3.09 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to
achieve management objectives seeking to avoid or mitigate the effects of
fishing and any associated culture and enhancement activity on main non-
target species that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.
This is the partner indicator of D.2.07. The standard should require
consideration of the most probable adverse impacts of the unit of certification
and any associated culture and enhancement activity on main non-target
species, taking into account the best scientific evidence available.

Vulnerable species, High value species.
D.3.10 Non-target catches The standard requires that, where main non-target species are below the point
where recruitment is impaired (or undergoing other impacts that are irreversible
or very slowly reversible), there are management measures in place that
ensure that the UoC is not hindering recovery.
Recruitment overfishing is an example of an impact on non-target stocks that
may be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Note that the term species is used
in this indicator in the context of a stock that is being impacted by the unit of
certification.
Vulnerable species, High value species.
89
D.3.11 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures that minimize
unwanted catch and discards, where appropriate, and maximize post-released
survival where incidental catch is unavoidable.
This indicator is not specifically required by the FAO Guidelines on
ecolabelling. Paragraph 31.1 requires only that non-target catches and
discards do not threaten those non-target stocks with a serious risk of
extinction. However, under D.2.07-D.2.12 the standard requires the existence
of management objectives intended to avoid or mitigate the direct effects of
fishing and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem.
Minimizing unwanted catch and discards is consistent with this objective. The
words where appropriate were added to give a scheme the flexibility not to
require a fishery to have bycatch avoidance if there is no risk of bycatch in the
fishery. FAOs International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and
Reduction of Discards (2011) includes the objective of promotion of
responsible fisheries by minimizing the capture and mortality of species and
sizes which are not going to be used in a manner that is consistent with the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The code states (paragraph 6.6)
that States and users of aquatic ecosystems should minimize waste, catch of
non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on associated
or dependent species.
D.3.12 ETP Species The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to
achieve the management objectives seeking to avoid hindering the recovery of
endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species arising from the unit of
certification.
The term protected species refers generally to any plant or animal that a
government declares by law to warrant protection; most protected species are
considered either threatened or endangered. By definition, therefore, ETP
species are in a situation from which they need to recover; it is that recovery
process that the fishery should not hinder.
D.3.13 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to
achieve the management objectives seeking to avoid, minimize or mitigate
impacts on essential habitats and on habitats that are highly vulnerable to
damage by fishing gear.
Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions
D.3.14 Food web The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to
achieve the management objectives that consider the role of the stock under
consideration in the food web.
This is the partner indicator of D.2.10. It requires management measures that
are designed to meet the management objectives that consider the role of the
Stock under Consideration in the food web. For example allowable catches
might be set at a lower level to allow additional escapement for dependent
predators.
D.3.15 Dependent predators The standard requires the existence of management measures that result in
fishing mortality lower than that consistent with achieving Maximum
Sustainable Yield, MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average, if that is optimal to
avoid severe adverse impacts on dependent predators or other indirect effects
of fishing on the ecosystem.
This is the partner indicator of D.2.11.
and function
The standard requires the existence of management measures that minimise
the adverse impacts of the unit of certification, including any enhancement
activities, on ecosystem structure and function.

90
D.3.17 Biodiversity The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to
achieve the management objectives that seek to conserve the biodiversity of
aquatic ecosystems.
The requirement to conserve biological diversity is not specifically required by
the FAO guidelines but it is included in the Code of Conduct, which states in
paragraphs 7.2.01 and 7.2.02 that States and sub-regional or regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements should adopt appropriate
measures, based on the best scientific evidence available to provide that inter
alia biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved.
D.3.18 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures that address
cumulative impacts on main non-target species.
Vulnerable species, High value species
D.3.19 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize
cumulative impacts on ETP species.
ETP species are defined in the Terms and Definitions. All ETP species
impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative
impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be
D.3.20 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize
cumulative impacts on habitat.
Any habitat impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for
cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not
likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.
and function
The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize
cumulative impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem within which
the unit of certification exists.
Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Any
aquatic ecosystem impacted by the unit of certification should be considered
for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is
not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.
Management under Uncertainty Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.3.22 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that the management system is applying the
precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation
of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic
environment.
This is an overarching requirement. The standard must require all management
measures referred to under D.3.01-D.3.21 to be developed and implemented in
accordance with the Precautionary Approach and the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, as defined and elaborated by the FAO. The
Precautionary Approach requires inter alia that any necessary corrective
measures are initiated without delay, and that they should achieve their
purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades. The
absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for
postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Code of
Conduct, paragraph 7.5.1). The standard must apply this to all species
(including by-catch species and non-target species), reduction of discards,
habitat and enhancements procedures. A precautionary approach is a
particular lens` used to identify risk that every prudent person possesses
(Recuerda, 2008).
91
D.3.23 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that the management system uses a suitable method of
risk management to take into account relevant uncertainties in the status of the
stock under consideration and the impacts of the unit of certification on that
stock and the ecosystem, including those associated with the use of introduced
or translocated species.
Risk management is defined in the Terms and Definitions. Much greater
scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing the possible ecosystem
effects of fishing than in assessing the status of target stocks. The suitability of
the method of risk management should be assessed by the technical team
undertaking the assessment for certification.
D.3.24 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that where the application of less quantitative and data
demanding approaches results in greater uncertainty, the management system
applies more precautionary approaches to managing fisheries, which may
necessitate lower levels of utilization of the resource.
The General Principles and Article 6.5 of the FAO International Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) prescribe a precautionary approach
to all fisheries, in all aquatic systems, regardless of their jurisdictional nature,
recognizing that most problems affecting the fishing sector result from
insufficiency of precaution in management regimes when faced with high levels
of uncertainty.
D.3.25 Non-fishing impacts The standard requires that the management system takes into account the
multipurpose nature of the use patterns in inland and marine waters.
The multipurpose nature of the use patterns refers to the uncertainty of other
(non-fishery) impacts on the fishery. For example, if there are other users from
other sectors, fishery management, although not being able to control those
sectors, should take their impacts into account when devising the strategy for
achieving management objectives. This is akin to taking into account all
sources of mortality on the fish stock, from fishing and non-fishing sources. For
example, if water is abstracted from rivers at certain times of the year and this
has an adverse impact on the fish stock, management of the fishery should
address that fact (perhaps by reducing fishing or having a closed season at this
time), although not being able to influence when and to what extent the water is
abstracted. In a coastal context, the fishery management should be integrated
with coastal zone management to the extent necessary to account for non-
fishing impacts.
Management under Uncertainty Requirements for Improved Practice
D.3.26 Ecosystem Approach The standard requires that the management system is implementing an
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management (EAF) for the unit of
certification that also takes into account the multipurpose nature of the use
patterns in inland and marine waters.

Fishery Management Documentation Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.3.27 Transparency The standard for the management system requires documented management
approaches covering the unit of certification and the stock under consideration
that are current and regularly updated.
There is no uniform way that approaches need to be documented (for example
they do not have to be all within one overarching Fishery Management Plan),
but the standard must require the various elements of the management system
to be present and identifiable and in use by the fishery management
organization or arrangement (D.1.01) , including the constitution and rules and
procedures of the Fisheries Management Organization or Arrangement
(D.1.01-D.1.07); the legal framework (D.1.08); the management objectives
(D.2); methodologies (D.5) and the compliance regime (D.7) although not
necessarily all within one overarching Fishery Management Plan. The
frequency of update should be consistent with the requirements of meeting the
management objectives.
92
Fishery Management Documentation Requirements for Improved Practice
D.3.28 Transparency The standard for the management system requires the existence of a current
and regularly updated Fishery Management Plan (FMP), incorporating
management objectives and management measures to achieve those
objectives, for the stock under consideration and pertinent aspects of the
ecosystem effects of fishing.
Fishery Management Plan is defined in the Terms and Definitions. The
frequency of update should be consistent with the requirements of meeting the
management objectives.

Collection and Maintenance of Data Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.4.01 Target stock status The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure adequate,
reliable and current data and/or other information about the state and trends of
the stock under consideration and the effects of the unit of certification,
including any enhancement activities, on that stock are collected and
maintained in accordance with applicable international standards and
practices.
Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which
are commensurate with the development and delivery of the best scientific
evidence available. The requirements for data collection are focussed primarily
on the unit of certification, however, data relating to the assessment of the
stock under consideration also need to be sufficiently adequate, reliable and
current to enable an assessment of the current status and trends of that stock
(see Indicators D.5.01-D.5.04).

Applicable international standards and practices include the output of the
Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and the FAO
Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382.
D.4.02 Ecosystem effects The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure adequate,
reliable and current data and/or other information about the effects of the unit
of certification, including any enhancement activities, on the ecosystem are
collected and maintained in accordance with applicable international standards
and practices.
Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which
are commensurate with the development and delivery of the best scientific
evidence available. The requirements for data collection are focussed on the
effects of the unit of certification on the ecosystem, including direct and indirect
effects.

Applicable international standards and practices include the output of the
Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and the FAO
Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382.
D.4.03 Non-target catches The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure effective
monitoring of non-target catches and discards in the unit of certification.
Effective monitoring means that data on non-target catches and discards are
adequate, reliable and current. This includes ETP species.
93
D.4.04 Habitat The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure there is
adequate knowledge of the essential habitats for the stock under consideration
and those within the area of the unit of certification and potential fishery
impacts on them.
Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of habitats and
fishery impacts on them to detect impacts that are likely to be irreversible or
very slowly reversible.
D.4.05 Food web The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure data and
information are collected on the role of the stock under consideration in the
food-web.
The data and information collected must be sufficient to provide adequate
knowledge of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web.
Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of the role of the
stock under consideration in the food-web to detect impacts that are likely to be
Collection and Maintenance of Data Requirements for Improved Practice
D.4.06 Ecosystem effects The standard requires the management system to be proactive in the collection
of data and information to identify all potential adverse impacts of the unit of
certification, including any enhancement activities, on the ecosystem.
The distinction intended in this Tier 2 indicator is that the management system
is required to actively seek out information on all potential impacts, including
non-fishery impacts and those that that may not be immediately apparent. This
would enable an assessment of cumulative impacts. For example, this might
include strategic mapping of habitats to assess their distribution and rarity.
Traditional, fisher or community knowledge Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.4.07 Traditional, fisher or
community knowledge
The standard requires that the management system facilitates, where
appropriate, the collection of traditional, fisher or community knowledge
regarding the unit of certification and its effects on the stock under
consideration and the ecosystem.
The terms and Definitions specify that adequate, reliable and current data
and/or other information (as required by D.4.01) may include traditional, fisher
or community knowledge, provided that their validity can be objectively verified.
Collection of this type of knowledge requires specific techniques that are often
different to those used to collect more typical data on fish stocks and fisheries.
It is the incorporation of those techniques into the management system that
this Indicator is addressing. This requires a participatory approach (link to
indicator D.1.05).
community knowledge
The standard requires that the management system specifies the conditions
under which traditional, fisher or community knowledge is collected, processed,
organized and maintained.
The standard should require the management system to specify how, when,
why, and on what traditional, fisher or community knowledge is collected.
Traditional, fisher or community knowledge Requirements for Improved Practice
community knowledge
The standard requires that the management system proactively seeks out
traditional, fisher or community knowledge regarding the unit of certification
and its effects on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem.
This Tier 2 indicator is distinct from D.4.07 in that the management system
proactively solicits traditional, fisher or community knowledge, irrespective of
whether the scientific knowledge base for managing the fishery is considered
to be adequate without it. This requires a participatory approach (link to
indicator D.1.05).

94
D.5.01 Stock assessment The standard requires management decisions to be based on an assessment
of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration, using
adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information.
The purpose of the assessment is to provide the best scientific evidence
available regarding the current status and trends of the stock under
consideration. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information can
include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided that their validity
can be objectively verified.
D.5.02 Cumulative impacts The standard requires that the assessment of the current status and trends of
the stock under consideration considers total fishing mortality on that stock
from all sources including discards, unobserved mortality, incidental mortality,
unreported catches and catches in all fisheries over its entire area of
distribution.

D.5.03 Stock assessment The standard requires that the assessment of the current status and trends of
the stock under consideration takes into account the structure and composition
of that stock which contribute to its resilience.
Resilience is defined in the Terms and Definitions
limited fisheries
In the absence of specific information on the stock under consideration, where
there is low risk of overfishing, the standard allows the use of generic evidence
based on similar stocks; where the risk to the stock under consideration is
higher, the standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of
increasingly specific evidence to ascertain the sustainability of fisheries.
Low risk of overfishing can be ascertained (for example) from a Productivity
Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).
limited fisheries
In small scale and data limited fisheries, where there is a low risk of
overfishing, the standard allows the use of less elaborate methods for
assessment of the stock under consideration that are less quantitative and
data-demanding; where the risk to the stock under consideration is higher, the
standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of more
elaborate methods of assessment.
Low risk of overfishing can be ascertained (for example) from a Productivity
Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).
D.5.06 Enhanced fisheries In the case of enhanced fisheries, the standard requires that the assessment of
current status and trends includes an evaluation of whether there are
significant negative impacts of enhancement activities on the naturally
reproductive component of the stock under consideration.
Stock assessment of fisheries that are enhanced through aquaculture inputs
must consider the separate contributions from aquaculture and natural
production. Significant negative impacts in this context would be, for example,
impacts that are irreversible or very slowly reversible.
D.5.07 Stock assessment The standard requires the stock under consideration to undergo a stock
assessment that is regularly reviewed and scientific management advice based
on this assessment is submitted to the fishery management organization or
arrangement at least annually under the terms of a Fisheries Management
Plan.
This indicator requires a Fisheries Management Plan under which the fishery
management organization or arrangement that manages the unit of certification
receives management advice at least annually. This advice must be derived
from a stock assessment, but this does not necessarily mean that the stock
assessment is fully updated every year. The frequency of full updates of the
stock assessment must be commensurate with the requirement in D.1.02 for
the fishery management organization or arrangement to receive and respond
to in a timely manner the best scientific evidence available regarding the status
of the stock under consideration and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse
impacts of the unit of certification on the stock under consideration and the
ecosystem.
95
D.5.08 Reference Points The standard includes a requirement for verifiable evidence that reference
points have been set at a level that effectively protects the stock under
consideration from overfishing.
The reference points are those required under D.2.03-D.2.05. Verifiable
evidence could come (for example) from simulation testing.
D.5.09 Impact Assessment The standard requires an assessment of the risks of impacts to the stock under
consideration from all sources.
D.5.02 requires an assessment that considers total fishing mortality on the
stock under consideration from all sources. This Tier 2 indicator includes non-
fishing impacts. D.6.01 requires the outcome that at the point of first
certification the stock under consideration is not overfished. It is possible to
make an assessment of this outcome without necessarily having undertaken
an assessment of the risks of impacts to the stock under consideration from all
sources, as required by this Tier 2 indicator.
Stock under Consideration Requirements for Leading Practice
D.5.10 Stock assessment The standard requires the stock under consideration to undergo a stock
assessment that is regularly subject to independent peer review, and the
results of this review are made public.

D.5.11 Impact Assessment The standard requires the most probable adverse impacts of the unit of
certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the
ecosystem to be identified and assessed using adequate, reliable and current
data and/or other information.
The assessment using adequate, reliable and current data and/or other
information is intended to result in the best scientific evidence available
regarding the ecosystem effects of fishing. This may include local, traditional or
indigenous knowledge and research. Adequate, reliable and current data
and/or other information are described in the Terms and Definitions.
D.5.12 Impact Assessment The standard allows significant scientific uncertainty in assessing possible
adverse ecosystem effects of fishing to be addressed by taking a risk
assessment approach that does not necessarily involve quantitative and data-
demanding approaches commonly used e.g. for stock assessment in large
scale fisheries commercial fisheries. Where there is low risk of severe adverse
impacts on the ecosystem, the standard allows the use of generic evidence
based on similar fishery situations; where the risk to the ecosystem is higher,
the standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of
increasingly specific evidence to ascertain the adequacy of mitigation
measures.
Much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing the possible
ecosystem effects of fishing than in assessing the status of target stocks.
However, impacts on bycatch species are often more readily assessed than
impacts on other ecosystem components. A risk assessment approach may
require less quantitative data but must still ensure adequate control of negative
impacts.
D.5.13 Habitat The standard requires an assessment of the impacts of the unit of certification
and any associated culture and enhancement activity on essential habitats and
vulnerable marine ecosystems and that this assessment considers the full
spatial range of the relevant habitat, not just that part of the spatial range that is
potentially affected by fishing.
Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions
D.5.14 Food web The standard requires that data and information on the role of the stock under
consideration in the food-web are evaluated.
The purpose of evaluating the data and information is to provide adequate
knowledge of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web.
Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of the role of the
stock under consideration in the food-web to detect impacts that are likely to be
96
D.5.15 Non-target catches The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on main non-target species impacted by the unit of certification.

D.5.16 ETP species The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on ETP species impacted by the unit of certification.

D.5.17 Habitat The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on essential habitat impacted by the unit of certification.

D.5.18 Food web The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on trophic interactions impacted by the unit of certification.

D.5.19 Dependent predators The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on dependent predators impacted by the unit of certification.

and function
The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on ecosystem structure and function that is impacted by the unit of
certification.

D.5.21 Biodiversity The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative
impacts on biodiversity impacted by the unit of certification.

Dissemination of Assessment Results Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.5.22 Transparency The Standard requires that the methodology and results of assessments of the
current status and trends of the stock under consideration are made publicly
available in a timely manner.
This indicator goes beyond the requirements of the FAO guidelines in requiring
assessments to be made publicly available in a timely manner, but this is now
regarded as common practice for well managed fisheries.
D.5.23 Transparency The Standard requires that the methodology and results of the analysis of the
most probable adverse impacts of the unit of certification and any associated
culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem are made publicly available
in a timely manner.
This indicator goes beyond the requirements of the FAO guidelines in requiring
assessments to be made publicly available in a timely manner, but this is now
regarded as common practice for well managed fisheries.

97
D.6.01 Target stock status The standard requires that at the point of first certification and/or the point of
re-certification the stock under consideration is not overfished.
The stock under consideration is considered to be overfished if its stock size is
below its limit reference point (or its proxy). A stock can become depleted for
reasons other than fishing mortality; if this results in the stock under
consideration becoming overfished but the fishery management organization or
arrangement must be responding appropriately to the overfished status
(D.3.05).
D.6.02 Target stock status The standard contains outcome performance indicators consistent with
achieving management objectives for the stock under consideration.
The relevant management objectives are those referred to in Performance
Area 2 and are for the whole of the stock under consideration. The FAO
Guidelines do not include a blanket requirement for outcome performance
indicators for all management objectives for the stock under consideration but
the precedent is created by paragraph 30 (40) with contains the requirement
that the stock under consideration is not overfished and is maintained at a level
which promotes the objective of optimal utilization and maintains its availability
for present and future generations. Common practice is now to have outcome
performance indicators for all management objectives for the stock under
consideration, which may include, for example, target levels that take into
account the requirements of dependent predators.
D.6.03 Enhanced Fisheries The standard requires that at the point of first certification the natural
reproductive stock component of enhanced stocks is not overfished.
See guidance for D.6.01. The natural reproductive stock component of
enhanced stocks is described in the Terms and Definitions.
D.6.04 Enhanced Fisheries The standard requires that the natural reproductive stock component of
enhanced stocks is not substantially displaced by stocked components.
In particular, displacement must not result in a reduction of the natural
reproductive stock component below abundance-based target reference points
(or their proxies).
D.6.05 Reference Points The standard includes a requirement that the stock under consideration is
fluctuating around its Target Reference Point.
The expression "fluctuating around its Target Reference Point" refers to a
situation where the stock size might dip below the Target level from time to
time, but there is no suggestion in the data that (for example) the stock size is
trending below its Target Reference Point towards the Limit Reference Point.
D.6.06 ETP Species The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with
achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on ETP species.
The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to
be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries
than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the
outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the
stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and
uncertainty.
98
D.6.07 Habitat The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with
achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on habitat.
uncertainty.
D.6.08 Habitat The Standard requires that any modifications to the habitat for enhancing the
stock under consideration are reversible and do not cause serious or
irreversible harm to the natural ecosystems structure and function.
uncertainty.
D.6.09 Food web The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with
achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on trophic
interactions.
uncertainty.
and function
The standard contains outcome performance indicators consistent with
achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on ecosystem
structure and function, including biodiversity.
uncertainty.
D.6.11 Non-target species The standard includes a requirement that non-target stocks are highly likely to
be within biologically based limits, or if outside those limits, the unit of
certification does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of those stocks.
uncertainty.
and function
The standard requires that all potentially serious adverse impacts of the unit of
certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the
ecosystem are demonstrably mitigated.
The intended distinction at Tier 2 is that this outcome requires mitigation of all
potentially serious adverse impacts. The objectives that would drive the
outcome indicators required by D.6.06-D.6.10 (Tier 1) require avoidance or
mitigation of ecosystem impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly
reversible.
D.6.13 Dependent predators The standard requires that populations of predators that are likely to be
dependent on the stock under consideration as a key prey species (dependent
predators) are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside those
limits, the unit of certification does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding.

This specific outcome is not described in the FAO Guidelines but it is
consistent with ecosystem based fishery management.
99
D.6.14 Cumulative impacts The standard requires that cumulative impacts on the ecosystem within which
the unit of certification exists (including non-target species and habitat) from all
[fisheries / human activities] are not irreversible or very slowly reversible.
Cumulative impacts are described in the Terms and Definitions.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations Requirements for Responsible Practice
D.7.01 Compliance outcomes The standard requires that the unit of certification operates in compliance with
local, national and international laws and regulations, including the
requirements of any regional fishery management organisation that exercises
internationally recognised management jurisdiction over the stock under
consideration.
There should be no evidence of systematic non-compliances by fishers in the
unit of certification that undermine the objectives of the fishery management
system.
D.7.02 Monitoring Control and
Surveillance
The standard requires effective and suitable monitoring, surveillance, control
and enforcement of the unit of certification.
Effective monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement is described in the
Terms and Definitions. The suitability of monitoring, surveillance, control and
enforcement for the unit of certification should be assessed by the technical
team undertaking the assessment for certification.

100
GSSI Terms and Definitions
Term Definition
Accreditation A process by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition of the competence of a certification body to provide certification services against an international
standard.
Accreditation body An agency having jurisdiction to formally recognise the competence of a certification body to provide certification services.
Accreditation
remediation
procedure
A process which is in place to specify how Certification Bodies are required to address non-compliances.
Accreditation
system
System that has its own rules of procedure and management for carrying out accreditation.
Adverse impacts See also Serious Adverse Impacts.
Adverse impacts of fisheries and any associated culture and stock enhancement activity on the ecosystem include at least any one of the following effects of fisheries:
i. Overfishing of the stock under consideration;
ii. Overfishing of the stocks forming incidental catch, unobserved catch; unreported catch, unregulated catch or discards;
iii. Reduction in abundance of dependent predators;
iv. Harmful impacts on essential habitat; or
v. Harmful impacts on any other part of the ecosystem.
Agreement An arrangement between parties as to the proposed course of action.
Alignment An arrangement in correct relative positions
Animal welfare The avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and
treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain. FAO, 2010.
Antimicrobial A naturally occurring, semi-synthetic or synthetic substance that at in vivo concentrations exhibits antimicrobial activity (kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms).
Parasiticides, anthelmintics and substances classed as disinfectants or antiseptics are excluded from this definition. (Adapted from OIE)
Appeal A request by a scheme owner for reconsideration of a decision made by the GSSI Steering Board, GSSI employee or person contracted to GSSI.
Application A document confirming a scheme owners intention to seek recognition by the GSSI for a scope of recognition.
Aquaculture The farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to
enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being
cultivated, the planning, development and operation of aquaculture systems, sites, facilities and practices, and the production and transport. FAO, 2010.
Aquaculture
establishment/
system
Concept identified by what is being cultured, giving also hints on how this is done, and possibly the aquaculture milieu in which it takes place, such as for example land-
based trout culture, suspended rope culture of mussel, intensive eel culture, pond culture of Nile tilapia and intensive catfish raceway culture. FAO, 2010.
Aquatic ingredients Components of feed from aquatic animals, such as fish and crustaceans, harvested from the marine environment.
Aquatic animal
products
Non-viable aquatic animals and products from aquatic animals. FAO, 2010.
101
Term Definition
Aquatic animal
health professional
A person who, for the purposes of the Aquatic Code, is authorised by the Competent Authority to carry out the actions identified in Article 6.3.7. of the OIE Aquatic
Animal Health Code 2014 (or latest version) including identifying, preventing and treating aquatic animal diseases, as well as the promotion of sound animal husbandry
methods, hygiene procedures, vaccination and other alternative strategies to minimise the need for antimicrobial use inaquatic animals. They are authorised to
prescribe veterinary medicines should only prescribe, dispense or administer a specific course of treatment with an antimicrobial agent for aquatic animals under their
care.
(Adapted from the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code. 2014).
Aquatic animals All life stages (including eggs and gametes) of fish, molluscs, crustaceans and amphibians originating from aquaculture establishments or removed from the wild, for
farming purposes, for release into the environment, for human consumption or for ornamental purposes. FAO, 2010.
Area management
system (AMS)
A contractual or legally enforceable agreement for shared activities by aquaculture establishments (and possibly other polluting industries) within a defined area or
zone. The AMS boundary must be defined to meet the objectives of the AMS. Alternative terms include zonal management agreement, area management agreements,
single bay management.
Arrangement A cooperative mechanism established by two or more parties be they governmental, private or non-governmental entities.
Audit A systematic and functionally independent examination to determine whether activities and related results comply with a conforming scheme.
Auditor A person qualified to carry out audits for or on behalf of a certification body.
Balanced decision-
making
A decision making process which ensures proportionate representation of interested parties in the standard development, revision and approval process.
Balanced
participation
The participation by proportionate representation of interested parties in the standard development, revision and approval process.
Benchmark
committee
A team of registered technical experts who have been appointed by GSSI to undertake the benchmarking process of a specific food safety scheme.
Benchmark
committee member
A person who has the required qualifications and experience and has undergone selection for the membership of a Benchmark Committee.
Benchmark process A mechanism by which a seafood certification scheme can be objectively assessed, against a series of defined requirements laid down in the GSSI Framework
Document, to determine if formal recognition by the GSSI Steering Board can be gained.
102
Term Definition
Best scientific
evidence available

The "best scientific evidence available" is required by UNCLOS as the basis for management decision-making, including for the application of the precautionary
approach.
The "best scientific evidence available" can include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified. Objective verification of
validity implies that the knowledge has been collected and analysed though a systematic, objective and well-designed process (See also Effective Data Collection) ,
and is not simply hearsay. Publication of results in the peer-reviewed literature could be one form of objective verification.
What is actually the best scientific evidence available in any given fishery or for any given stock under consideration will vary between fisheries and stocks and will also
vary over time and information levels fluctuate. What is important, therefore, is that the management system is designed in such a way that the mechanism by which it
commissions science and solicits scientific advice results in it receiving the best scientific evidence available. Achieving the best scientific evidence available requires
inter alia:
i. Questions to be clearly stated,
ii. Scientific investigation to be well designed, and
iii. Results to be analysed logically, documented clearly, and subjected to peer review.
Even science that has been developed through an open, transparent, and well-communicated process may not be fully adequate for addressing management issues.
Scientists must often rely on incomplete information in offering their best expert advice.
To adequately implement the best available science, it is essential that policymakers clearly articulate the purpose of regulations and laws, clearly specify who is
responsible for interpreting and enforcing them, endeavour to identify and reduce conflicts of interest, and recognize differences in the knowledge base and values of
scientists, managers, and other stakeholders.
Better management
practice(s) (bmp(s)
Management practices aimed at improving the quantity, safety and quality of products taking into consideration animal health and welfare, food safety,
environmental and socio-economical sustainability. BMP implementation is generally voluntary. The term better is preferred rather than best because
aquaculture practices are continuously improving (todays best is tomorrows norm). FAO, 2010.
Biodiversity Biodiversity is the degree of variation of life. This can refer to genetic variation, species variation, or ecosystem variation within an area, biome, or planet.
Biologically based
limits
Generally considered to be the point of serious or irreversible harm.
Biologically Acceptable Limit: A value of a critical biological indicator (e.g. spawning biomass) considered as the limit below which the stock sustainability cannot be
ensured, or below which the probability of a negative outcome (e.g. stock collapse) is unacceptable. Also referred to as Biologically Safe Limit.
Biomass Or standing stock. The total weight of a group (or stock) of living organisms (e.g. fish, plankton) or of some defined fraction of it (e.g. spawners), in an area, at a
particular time.
Biosecurity Measures which are being, or will be, applied to mitigate the risks to introduce and spread disease, taking into consideration the recommendations in the OIE
Aquatic Code. Adapted from the OIE>
BMSY (biomass at
MSY)
Biomass at MSY. Biomass corresponding to Maximum Sustainable Yield from a production model or from an age-based analysis using a stock recruitment model.
Often used as a biological reference point in fisheries management, it is the calculated long-term average biomass value expected if fishing at FMSY.
Bycatch Or by-catch. Part of a catch of a fishing unit taken incidentally in addition to the target species towards which fishing effort is directed. Some or all of it may be returned
to the sea as discards, usually dead or dying.
Central focal point A person, location or address that is put in place to ensure standards-related enquiries and comments are gathered.
Certification A process by which accredited certification bodies, based on an audit, provide written assurance that food safety requirements and management systems and their
implementation conform to requirements.
Certification body A provider of certification services, accredited to do so by an Accreditation Body.
Certification
decision
The granting, continuing , expanding the scope of, reducing the scope of, suspending, restoring , withdrawing or refusing of certification by a Certification Body.
Certification scheme The processes, systems, procedures and activities related to standard setting, accreditation and implementation of certification.
103
Term Definition
Chain of custody The set of measures that verify that a certified product originates from a certified aquaculture production chain, and is not mixed with non-certified products. Chain of
custody verification measures should cover the tracking/traceability of the product all along the production, processing, distribution and marketing chain, the tracking of
documentation, and the quantity concerned.
Chemicals In food technology: any substance either natural or synthetic, which can affect live fish, its pathogens, water, equipment used for production or at land within the
aquaculture establishment.
Co-management A process of management in which government shares power with resource users, with each given specific rights and responsibilities relating to information and
decision-making.
Competence The demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results.
Competent authority Means the Veterinary Authority or other Governmental Authority of a country having the responsibility and competence for ensuring or supervising the implementation
of animal health and welfare measures, international veterinary certification and other standards and recommendations in the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code in the
region. Adapted from the OIE.
Complaint A legal document that is an expression of displeasure or dissatisfaction, but is not an appeal.
Conflict of interest Where either a Certification Body or an individual is in a position of trust requiring them to exercise judgement on behalf of others and also have interests or obligations
(whether financial or otherwise) of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of that judgment.
Conforming scheme A seafood certification scheme that has successfully completed the GSSI Benchmark Process.
Conformity
assessment body
An organisation that performs assessment services and that can be the object of accreditation.
Conformity
assessment
program
A defined and documented program by which the scheme owner monitors the performance of Accreditation Bodies, Certification Bodies and participating organisations
against defined criteria.
Consensus General agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important concerned party and by a process that involves
seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity.
Contingency plan Means a documented work plan designed to ensure that all needed actions, requirements and resources are provided in order to eradicate or bring under control
outbreaks of specified diseases of aquatic animals.
Corrective action An action to eliminate the cause of a detected non conformity or other undesirable matters.
Culture practices Concept comprising not only the production facilities but also a description of the culture practices applied.
Cumulative impacts The combined, incremental effects of human activity. While they may be insignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts accumulate over time, from one or more
sources, and can result in the degradation of important resources. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in
a particular place and within a particular time. Cumulative impact analysis focusses on the combination of these effects and any resulting environmental degradation.
While impacts can be differentiated by direct, indirect, and cumulative, the concept of cumulative impacts takes into account all disturbances since cumulative impacts
result in the compounding of the effects of all actions over time. Thus the cumulative impacts of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a resource, ecosystem,
or human community of that action and all other activities affecting that resource no matter what entity (governmental, non-governmental, private) is taking the actions.
104
Term Definition
Data (information):
adequate, reliable,
current
See also effective data collection
Data are facts that result from measurements or observations.
Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which are fit for purpose and commensurate with the development and delivery of the best
scientific evidence available. This may include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided that their validity can be objectively verified.
Assessment of the adequacy of data for different purposes would generally be part of an assessment against the certification standard.
Applicable international standards and practices for fisheries data and statistics include the output of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP):
http://www.fao.org/fishery/cwp/en and the FAO Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382.
The adequacy of data relates primarily to the quantity and type of data collected (including sampling coverage) and depends crucially on the nature of the systems
being monitored and purposes to which the data are being put. Some assessment of the adequacy of sampling coverage should be undertaken to demonstrate
adequacy. For example, in regards to observer coverage, adequate coverage depends on a range of factors including the distribution of fishing and the rarity and
distribution of the species and habitats being encountered by the fishing gear.
The reliability of data relates to the quality of the data collected, and also the level and representativeness of sampling coverage. Inadequate sampling can lead to high
uncertainty and hence poor reliability, however, high sampling coverage does not necessarily mean the data collected are of high quality and hence reliable. Bias can
result from a poorly designed survey plan (e.g. if the gear and seasons of a fishery are not well sampled). Reliability depends on the design and execution of an
effective data collection program (see also Effective Data Collection).
The currency of data relates to how recently the data were collected relative to the application of the conclusions that are being drawn from them. Catch data generally
need to be of the highest currency in order for management to function effectively (e.g. to close fisheries when catch limits are reached) and for assessments to provide
a reliable estimate of current stock size. A survey conducted several years in the past for assessing abundance of a short lived species with highly variable stock size
may not be regarded as current. Data from surveys of longer lived species with less variability may have greater longevity for drawing conclusions about current
abundance.
Data limited fishery Data-limited fishery A fishery where limited data are available to inform management, e.g. fisheries for species where baseline biological data such as size at
maturity, fishing mortality and growth rates are unknown.
Data limited fisheries are those fisheries where stock assessments are not feasible, yet they provide continuing yields for fisheries.
Data deficient An IUCN category for listing endangered species. A taxon is considered Data Deficient (DD) when there is inadequate information to make a direct,
or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status.
Data limited fisheries assessment:
Inputs Approximate catches, some life history information
Outputs Incomplete, imprecise status and some MRPs; often as broad probability distributions, with no clear answer.
Decision rule Specification of how pre-agreed management actions will respond to perceived or estimated states of nature.
Dependent
predators

Dependent Species In general, species within the food chain (e.g. a predator) which depends heavily on another (e.g. a prey species) for its maintenance.
Dependency may also be generated by other factors than predation (e.g. commensalism; habitat). UNCLOS refers to associated and dependent species.
Dependent Predator In general, a species within the aquatic or terrestrial food chain which depends heavily on an aquatic prey species for its maintenance.
Dependency may also be generated by other factors than predation (e.g. commensalism; habitat).
Desk top review An assessment carried out on documentation away for the location of the organisation being assessed.
Direct effects of
fishing
Direct effects of fishing arise from increasing the mortality of target and by-catch species and disturbing marine habitats. Actively (e.g. trawls and dredges) or passively
(e.g. static gears such as nets and longlines) fished surface, midwater and bottom fishing gears can have direct effects on non-target animals such as birds, marine
mammals and reptiles and fishes which are taken as by-catch. In addition, the actions of fishers and their gears can extensively modify seabed habitats and their
associated benthic communities.
105
Term Definition
Discards

Discard To release or return fish to the sea, dead or alive, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing vessel.
Discards Those components of a fish stock thrown back after capture. Normally, most of the discards can be assumed not to survive.
Discarded Catch That portion of the catch returned to the sea as a result of economic, legal, or personal considerations.
Ecolabelling scheme Ecolabelling schemes entitle a product to bear a distinctive logo or statement which certifies that the product has been produced in compliance with conservation and
sustainability standards. The logo or statement is intended to make provision for informed decisions of purchasers whose choice can be relied upon to promote and
stimulate the sustainable use of resources.
(Adapted from FAO Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries, revision 1, 2009)
Ecosystem
(structure and
function)
A spatio-temporal system of the biosphere, including its living components (plants, animals, micro-organisms) and the non-living components of their environment, with
their relationships, as determined by past and present environmental forcing functions and interactions amongst biota.
Structure: Pattern of the interrelations of organisms in time and in spatial arrangements.
Structure: Attributes related to the instantaneous physical state of an ecosystem; examples include species population density, species richness or evenness, and
standing crop biomass.
Function An intrinsic ecosystem characteristic related to the set of conditions and processes whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity (such as primary
productivity, food chain, biogeochemical cycles). Ecosystem functions include such processes as decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients
and energy.
Ecosystem
approach to
fisheries
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are
high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of
those ecosystems
Ecosystem
considerations
Taking into account the ability for an ecosystem to be maintained in a healthy, productive and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and
need - [Note this refers back to ecosystem approach to management definition.]
Ecosystem effects
of fishing
The direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems.

Effective data
analysis
Effective data analysis is a system that includes at least the following:
i. The institutions and stakeholders responsible for data analyses are specified in a FMP.
ii. The reasons for collecting each type of data are specified in a FMP.
iii. The types of data analyses to be completed are specified in a FMP.
iv. The timing and frequency of data analyses are specified in a FMP.
v. The methodologies of data analyses are documented by the FMO.
vi. Data are analysed in accordance with planned timing, frequency and methodologies.
vii. The designs of a data analyses are reviewed annually by the FMO.
See also best scientific evidence available.
Effective data
collection
Effective data collection is a system that includes at least the following:
i. Specification of the institutions and stakeholders responsible for collecting data;
ii. Specification of the types of data to be collected;
iii. Specification of the timing and frequency of data collections.
iv. Documentation of the methodologies for collecting each type of data;
v. Collection of data in accordance with planned timing, frequency and methodologies.
vi. Regular review and assessment of the design of a data collection.
Collection and organization of traditional, fisher or community knowledge may be an important component of effective data collection.
106
Term Definition
Effective deterrent An effective deterrent IUU fishing includes penalties for a specified infringement of a magnitude that reflects the damage and potential damage of the infringement on
the stock under consideration, stocks providing any incidental catch or discards due to the infringement and on the ecosystem.
The OECD has identified a range of actions that help to deter IUU fishing. These include:
i. International MCS Network
ii. Global information system on high seas fishing vessels
iii. Participation in UNFSA and FAO compliance agreement
iv. Better high seas governance
v. Adopt and promote guidelines on flag state performance
vi. Greater use of port and import measure
vii. Better use of technological solutions
Effective monitoring,
surveillance, control
and enforcement
actions

Monitoring The continuous requirement for the measurement of fishing effort characteristics and resource yields.
Control The regulatory conditions under which the exploitation of the resource may be conducted. This is generally considered to include the juridical component.
Surveillance The degree and types of observations required to maintain compliance with the regulatory controls imposed on fishing activities.
Effective monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement actions include at least the following:
i. There exists an awareness raising programme that ensures that all those involved in fisheries on the stock under consideration have access to and are
aware of all relevant fisheries laws, regulations and rules regulating such fisheries.
ii. There exists a designated process and code of conduct for undertaking fisheries inspections and patrols on land and water.
iii. Fisheries inspections and patrols are undertaken on land and water to detect, deter and control illegal fisheries activities in accordance with an agreed code
of conduct.
iv. The timing and frequency of fisheries inspections and patrols on land and water are reviewed and at least annually to respond to prevailing illegalities.
v. There exists a judicial system that provides an effective deterrent against illegal fisheries activities.
There exists evidence of reduced or typically negligible illegal activities due to the monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement actions.
Endangered,
threatened or
protected (ETP)
species
A species that is recognised by national legislation, affording it legal protection due to its population decline in the wild. The decline could be as a result of human or
other causes. Protected refers generally to any plant or animal that a government declares by law to warrant protection; most protected species are considered either
threatened or endangered.
Endangered Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa whose numbers have been drastically
reduced to a critical level or whole habitats have been so drastically impaired that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Also included are those that
possibly are already extinct, in so far as they definitely have not been seen in the wild in the past 50 years.
i. Endangered species are of particular concern for CITES which regulates their trade.
ii. A taxon is considered Endangered (EN) by IUCN when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future,
as defined by any of the relevant IUCN criteria.
Threatened: A category of organisms listed in CITES Annex 1. The vulnerability of a species to threats of extinction depends on its population demographics, biological
characteristics, such as body size, trophic level, life cycle, breeding structure or social structure requirements for successful reproduction, and vulnerability due to
aggregating habits, natural fluctuations in population size (dimensions of time and magnitude), residency/migratory patterns. This makes it impossible to give numerical
values for population size or area of distribution that are applicable to all taxa.
Enhanced fisheries See Fishery Enhancement
Enhancement
activities
See Fishery Enhancement
Entire area of
distribution
The complete geographical range over which a fish stock is distributed, including all life history stages; The entire area of distribution may have changed over time due
to natural fluctuations in conditions, or modification of habitats due to human activity, including fishing.
107
Term Definition
Environmental
impact
assessment (EIA)
A set of activities designed to identify and predict the impacts of a proposed action on the biogeophysical environment and on man's health and wellbeing, and to
interpret and communicate information about the impacts, including mitigation measures that are likely to eliminate the risks. In many countries, organizations planning
new projects are required by law to conduct EIA. Usually it is carried out by three parties, the developer, the public authorities and the planning authorities.
Environmental
impacts
A result of activity which has influence upon or changes the environment.
Equivalence Equivalence is the capability of different inspection and certification systems to meet the same objectives
Escapes A term used to describe specimens of cultured species, which escape from the rearing system into the ambient environment. There are potential impacts through
interbreeding with wild conspecifics and through disease transfer.
Essential habitat
(essential fish
habitat)

Habitat for a fish is the environment in which it lives, including everything that surrounds and affects its life: e.g., water quality; bottom; vegetation; associated species
(including food supplies).
Essential fish habitat (EFH) is those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.
In the context of impacts on habitat (whether from fishing or other activities or phenomena), essential habitat may have a time component i.e. there may be areas that
previously constituted essential habitat, but no longer do because they have been degraded to the extent that they no longer fulfil the ecological function for the fish that
they once did.
Waters Aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate;
Substrate - sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary - the habitat required to support a sustainable
fishery and the managed species contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity - stages representing a species full life
cycle.
Evaluation An examination of production facilities or services in order to verify that they conform to requirements.
Exotic species Species that are not native to a particular area or a native species that has been genetically adapted, such as through polyploidy, hybridization, or intensively
genetically selected but is not a GMO. Adapted from FAO 2010.
Species not native to a particular area, which may pose a risk to endemic species.
Expert A person appointed by GSSI who has demonstrable specific knowledge and expertise with respect to seafood certification schemes.
FAO Guidelines Where in this document there is a reference to FAO Guidelines without further specification it refers to all of the below listed documents:
i. FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries,
ii. FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and
iii. FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification
Feed Fodder intended for the aquatic animal in aquaculture establishments, in any form and of any composition. Adapted from FAO, 2010.
Feed additives Chemicals other than nutrients for fish that are approved for addition to their feed.
Feed ingredients A component, part or constituent of any combination or mixture making up a feed, including feed additives, whether or not it has a nutritional value in the animals diet.
Ingredients may be of terrestrial or aquatic, plant or animal origin and may be organic or inorganic substances.
Field audit An audit carried out at the location of a participating organisation.
Fish in fish out ratio A calculation to determine the ratio of wild harvested marine ingredients used per unit mass of farmed aquatic animal, usually on a wet weight basis. Alternative terms
include Forage Fish Dependency Ratio, or Forage Fish Equivalency Ratio.
108
Term Definition
Fish stock The living resources in the community or population from which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the particular population is
more or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining. In a particular fishery, the fish stock may be one or several species of fish but
here is also intended to include commercial invertebrates and plants.
Fisheries
management
The integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, decision making, allocation of resources and formulation and enforcement of fishery regulations by
which the fisheries management authority controls the present and future behaviours of the interested parties in the fishery, in order to ensure the continued
productivity of the living resources
Fisheries
management
organisation or
arrangement
Institution responsible for fisheries management, including the formulation of the rules that govern fishing activities. The fishery management organization, and its
subsidiary bodies, may also be responsible for all ancillary services, such as the collection of information, its analysis, stock assessment, monitoring, control and
surveillance (MCS), consultation with interested parties, application and/or determination of the rules of access to the fishery, and resource allocation. Also called:
Fishery management arrangement.
Fisheries management authority is the legal entity which has been assigned by a State or States with a mandate to perform certain specified fisheries management
functions.
Fishery
enhancement

Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment, or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total
production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification,
elimination of unwanted species, fertilization or combinations of any of these practices.
FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, Inland fisheries. 1997. Page 4. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/W6930e/W6930e00.pdf
Fishery
management plan

A fishery management plan is a formal or informal arrangement between a fishery management authority and interested parties which identifies the partners in the
fishery and their respective roles, details the agreed objectives for the fishery and specifies the management rules and regulations which apply to it and provides other
details about the fishery which are relevant to the task of the management authority.
In the context of the GSSI benchmarking, certain aspects of a fishery management plan (e.g. regulations and enforcement) may be delegated to another governmental
department and incorporated by reference in the fishery management plan.
Fishing mortality A technical term which refers to the proportion of the fish available being removed by fishing in a small unit of time; e.g. a fishing mortality rate of 0.2 implies that
approximately 20 percent of the average population will be removed in a year due to fishing. Fishing mortality can be translated into a yearly exploitation rate (see
above) expressed as a percentage, using a mathematical formula.
Fit for purpose (Of an institution, facility, etc.) Well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.
Generic evidence Generic evidence is generally information such as life history parameters taken from similar stocks/species when specific information on the target stock is not
available. The risk that this information is inaccurate is higher, hence the focus on the level of risk to the stock.
Genetically modified
organism (GMO)
An organism that has been transformed by the insertion of one or amore transgenes.
Group certification Certification for a group of farmers, normally considered for small-scale aquaculture farmers, for whom individual certification is cost- prohibitive and who have key
characteristics in common, e.g. common marketing of the produce as a group, homogeneity of members in terms of location, production system, products, the group
has an Internal Control System to ensure compliance with the standards by all members of the group. The group of facilities or operations that are considered
collectively may:
i. Be in close proximity to each other,
ii. Share resources or infrastructure (e.g. water sources or effluent discharge system),
iii. Share a landscape unit (e.g. watershed),
iv. Have the same production system,
v. Involve the same farmed species; or
vi. Other common characteristics as appropriate. FAO, 2010.
Guidelines/
technical guidelines
Documents that provide guidance on implementation of Codes of Conduct, Codes of Practice, certification principles, criteria and standards. FAO, 2010.
109
Term Definition
Habitat A specific place with its environmental conditions occupied by and covering the requirements of an organism, a population or a community.
High conservation
value habitat/
biodiversity
High conservation value is used in terms of habitat and/or biodiversity that are of biological, ecological values which are considered outstandingly significant or critically
important, at the local, national, regional or global level. Adapted from the High Conservation Value Network.
Relevant examples in aquaculture include, but are not limited to include mangrove and wetland forests, supported by the Ramsar Convention , International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed species and Protected Areas, High Conservation Value areas defined by the High Conservation Value Area Network, the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Highly likely 70% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined by analogy from similar systems when supported by limited data from the fishery
and no scientific controversy exists
Illegal, unreported,
and unregulated
(IUU) fishing
Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing refers to fishing conducted in violation of national laws or internationally agreed conservation and management
measures in effect in oceans around the world.
Illegal fishing refers to activities:
i. Conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws
and regulations;
ii. Conducted by vessels flying the flag of States that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organization but operate in contravention of
the conservation and management measures adopted by that organization and by which the States are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable
international law; or
iii. In violation of national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken by cooperating States to a relevant regional fisheries management
organization.
Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities:
i. Which have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations; or
ii. Undertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries management organization which have not been reported or have been
misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of that organization.
Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities:
i. In the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organization that are conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying
The flag of a State not party to that organization, or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and
management measures of that organization; or
ii. In areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures and where such fishing activities are
conducted in a manner inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law.
Impartiality The actual and perceived presence of objectivity.
Imprecision Lacking exactness and accuracy of expression or detail
Incidental mortality See bycatch
Independence A state of being free from outside control and not subject to anothers authority.
Independent expert A competent trained person, appointed by GSSI, who is assigned to manage the benchmarking process for a specific scheme application.
Indirect effects of
fishing
The direct effects of fishing have many indirect implications for other species and habitats. Fishers may remove some of the prey that piscivorous fishes, birds and
mammals would otherwise consume, or may remove predators that would otherwise control prey populations. Reductions in the density of some species may affect
competitive interactions and result in the proliferation of non-target species. The activities of fishers also provide food for scavenging species in the form of discarded
fishes, benthic organisms and other unwanted by-catch, and organisms displaced and/or killed, but not retained, by towed gears. Indirect effects consider inter alia the
functional role of fishes within the marine ecosystem and the indirect effects of changes in their abundance or diversity arising from fishing. Changes in the structure of
fish and benthic communities may affect the growth of those organisms which are responsible for structuring habitats. The resuspension, transport and subsequent
deposition of sediment may affect the settlement and feeding of the biota in other areas.
110
Term Definition
Individual
production unit
An individual tank, cage, or pond holding a single batch of aquatic animals.
Internal audit A systematic and documented process carried out by competent staff (company or contracted) to obtain evidence and evaluate the evidence to determine compliance
with defined food safety policy, system or procedures.
Internal review An evaluation, undertaken on a regular basis by representatives of a company's management, to assess the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the company's
management system and to identify improvement opportunities. The evaluation shall also be used to identify and assess any changes needed to policy, objectives,
resource needs and improvement to product or services.
Introduction Of a fish species: intentional or accidental transport and release by humans into an environment beyond its present range.
Irreversible or very
slowly reversible
Examples of slowly reversible or irreversible effects of fishing are recruitment overfishing (reduced age structure with consequences to the quality of spawning), genetic
modification, changed ecological role such as in food-web dynamics, and excessive depletion of very long-lived organisms.
Serious or Irreversible Harm: Impacts that compromise ecosystems integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that:
i. Impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves;
ii. Degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats; or
iii. Causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types.
Key performance
indicators
A series of criteria which are quantifiable measurements, agreed to beforehand, that reflect the critical success factors of an organization.
Key prey species Species which is depended upon, through predator-prey relationships, by another species within the ecosystem. See Dependent Predator definition
Legal entity Any entity recognized by the law, including both juristic and natural persons.
Legal framework A broad system of rules that governs and regulates decision making, agreements, laws etc. It includes a set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established
through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case.
Likely 60% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined according to expert judgment and/or plausible argument
Local applicability The process of adaptation by a scheme owner of standards or rules for direct application at the national or regional level.
Low risk of
overfishing
A low risk of overfishing includes at least the following:
i. No evidence of overfishing in the past five years.
ii. No reported concerns by the fisheries management
iii. Organisation of excessive fishing effort in the previous two years.
iv. No reported concerns by the fisheries management organisation of excessive illegal fisheries activities in the previous two years.
v. In cases where the fisheries have been certified previously, there has been no formal objection to the certification on the grounds of overfishing or fisheries
illegalities.
Low risk of serious
adverse ecosystem
impacts of fisheries
A low risk of serious adverse ecosystem impacts by fisheries on the stock under consideration includes at least the following:
i. No evidence of harmful effects on the ecosystem in the past five years.
ii. No reported concerns by the fisheries management organisation of harmful effects on the ecosystem in the previous two years.
iii. In cases where the fisheries have been certified previously,
iv. There has been no formal objection to the certification on the grounds of harmful effects on the ecosystem by them.
111
Term Definition
Management
measures
A management measure is the smallest unit of the fishery managers tool kit and consists of any type of control implemented to contribute to achieving the
management objectives. Management measures are classified as technical measures, input (effort) and output (catch) controls, and any access rights designed around
input and output controls. Technical measures can be sub-divided into regulations on gear-type or gear design (e.g. on mesh size to improve the selective properties of
a fishing gear) and closed areas and closed seasons. A minimum legal mesh size, a seasonal closure of the fishery, a total allowable catch (TAC), a limit on the total
number of vessels in a fishery, and a licensing scheme to achieve the limit are all examples of management measures.
The sum of all the management measures constitutes the management strategy designed to achieve the biological, ecological, economic and social objectives of the
fishery. It is possible that in a single species fishery a management strategy could consist of a single management measure, such as a specified total allowable catch
(TAC), but in practice the great majority of management strategies consist of a number of management measures, encompassing technical, input and output controls
and a system of user rights. An effective management strategy, however, should not contain so many management measures that compliance and enforcement
become so difficult as to be practically impossible.
Management
objectives
A formally established, more or less quantitative target that is actively sought and provides a direction for management action.
The FAO Code of Conduct provides that: Fisheries management should promote the maintenance of the quality, diversity and availability of fishery resources in
sufficient quantities for present and future generations in the context of food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Management measures should
not only ensure the conservation of the target species but also of species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target species
(FAO 1995, Article 6.2). It also provides that management maintains or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by
relevant environmental and economic factors. FAO (1995, Article 7.2).
Fisheries policy is translated into goals and the goals into objectives that indicate precisely what is expected to be achieved from the fishery. The objectives are
achieved through the implementation of a management strategy which will also be a central element of a management plan.
The over-riding goal of fisheries management is the long-term sustainable use of the fisheries resources (Code of Conduct, Paragraph 7.2.1). Subordinate goals can be
divided into four subsets: biological; ecological; economic and social, where social includes political and cultural goals. The biological and ecological goals may be
more correctly thought of as constraints in achieving desired economic and social benefits. Examples of goals under each of these categories include:
i. To maintain the target species at or above the levels necessary to ensure their continued productivity (biological);
ii. To minimise the impacts of fishing on the physical environment and on non-target (bycatch), associated and dependent species (ecological);
iii. To maximise the net incomes of the participating fishers (economic); and
iv. To maximise employment opportunities for those dependent on the fishery for their livelihoods (social).
It is necessary to refine these goals further and to develop operational objectives for each fishery. Operational objectives are very precise and are formulated in such a
way that they should be simultaneously achievable in that fishery. In other words, the trade-offs between the biological, ecological, economic and social goals must
have been agreed upon and the conflicts and contradictions resolved. The following two examples illustrate the difference between goals and operational objectives:
i. To maintain the stock at all times above 50% of its mean unexploited level (biological);
ii. To maintain all non-targets, associated and dependent species above 50% of their mean biomass levels in the absence of fishing activities (ecological).
Management system The framework of processes and procedures used to ensure that an organization can fulfil all tasks required to achieve its objectives. In a fisheries context this includes
agencies involved in the management of the fishery, the legislative framework within which the fishery is undertaken, and the core management measures
implemented. -
Management targets See Reference Point, Biological
Maximum
sustainable yield
(MSY)

The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting
significantly the reproduction process. Also referred to sometimes as potential yield.
The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. For species with fluctuating recruitment, the
maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in others. Also called: maximum equilibrium catch (MEC); maximum sustained yield; sustainable
catch. - Ricker W.E. (1975): Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 191: 2-6
Monitoring A planned sequence of observations or measurements to assess compliance with requirements.
Multi-site
certification
Certification covering multi-site organisations including several sites (when applying the square root rule) and where sampling of these sites may be used by a
certification body in its conformity assessment work. The scope of certification covers the actual products and processes as defined in the normative documents
describing the scheme in question. Every site covered by this certification is mentioned on the main certificate documentation and every site is entitled to get its own
sub-certificate.
112
Term Definition
Multi-site
organisation
An organisation having an identified central function ( a central office, but not necessarily the headquarters of the organisation) at which certain activities are planned,
controlled and managed and a network of local offices or branches or sites at which such activities are fully or partially carried out.
Natural reproductive
stock component of
enhanced stocks
The survival of fish stocks that are not enhanced depends entirely on their natural reproductive component. Stocks that are enhanced may have a natural reproductive
component that contributes to the production of new generations.
Non-conformity A deviation of product or process from specified requirements, or the absence of, or failure to implement and maintain, one or more required management system
elements, or a situation which would, on the basis of available objective evidence, raise significant doubt as to the conformity of what the supplier is supplying.
Non-target catch
and stock
Species for which the gear is not specifically set, although they may have immediate commercial value and be a desirable component of the catch. OECD (1996),
Synthesis report for the study on the economic aspects of the management of marine living resources. AGR/FI(96)12
Normative
documents
Referenced documents which are indispensable for the correct application of a scheme.
Office audit An audit carried out at the office or designated centres of a Certification Body or participating organisation.
Operational In or ready for use.
Organisation A group of people or other legal entity (ies) that is responsible for ensuring that products meet and, if applicable, continue to meet the requirements on which the
certification is based.
Overfished

A stock is considered overfished when exploited beyond an explicit limit beyond which its abundance is considered "too low" to ensure safe reproduction. In many
fisheries fora the term is used when biomass has been estimated to be below a limit biological reference point that is used as the signpost defining an "overfished
condition". This sign post is often taken as being FMSY but the usage of the term may not always be consistent.
A stock is considered overfished when exploited beyond an explicit limit beyond which its abundance is considered "too low" to ensure safe reproduction. In many
fisheries fora the term is used when biomass has been estimated to be below a limit biological reference point that is used as the signpost defining an "overfished
condition". - Mace, P.M. 1998. The status of ICCAT species relative to optimum yield and overfishing criteria recently proposed in the United States, also with
consideration of the precautionary approach. ICCAT SCRS/97/074.
113
Term Definition
Overfishing
(including
recruitment
overfishing)

Overfishing A generic term used to refer to the state of a stock subject to a level of fishing effort or fishing mortality such that a reduction of effort would, in the
medium term, lead to an increase in the total catch. Often referred to as overexploitation and equated to biological overfishing, it results from a combination of growth
overfishing and recruitment overfishing and occurs often together with ecosystem overfishing and economic overfishing.
Biological Overfishing - Catching such a high proportion of one or all age classes in a fishery as to reduce yields and drive stock biomass, and spawning potential
below safe levels. Can involve both growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing. With reference to a surplus production model, biological overfishing occurs when
fishing levels are higher than those required for extracting the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of a resource.
Recruitment Overfishing A situation in which the rate of fishing is (or has been) such that annual recruitment to the exploitable stock has become significantly
reduced. The situation is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year
after year. If prolonged, recruitment overfishing can lead to stock collapse, particularly under unfavourable environmental conditions.
Recruitment Overfishing A situation in which the rate of fishing is (or has been) such that annual recruitment to the exploitable stock has become significantly
reduced. The situation is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year
after year. Restrepo, V. 1999. Annotated Glossary of Terms in Executive Summary Reports of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics SCRS). ICCAT, Madrid, Spain
Growth Overfishing Occurs when too many small fish are being harvested too early, through excessive fishing effort and poor selectivity (e.g. too small mesh sizes)
and the fish are not given enough time to grow to the size at which the maximum yield-per-recruit from the stock would be obtained. A reduction of fishing mortality on
juveniles, or their outright protection, would lead to an increase in yield from the fishery.
Economic Overfishing Occurs when a fishery is generating no economic rent, primarily because an excessive level of fishing effort is applied in the fishery and does
not always imply biological overfishing.
Ecosystem Overfishing Occurs when the historical species balance (composition and dominance) is significantly modified by fishing (e.g. with reductions of large,
long-lived, demersal predators and increases of small, short-lived species at lower trophic levels).
Ecosystem Overfishing A generic term used to refer to the state of a stock subject to a level of fishing effort or fishing mortality such that a reduction of effort would, in
the medium term, lead to an increase in the total catch. Often referred to as overexploitation and equated to biological overfishing, it results from a combination of
growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing and occurs often together with ecosystem overfishing and economic overfishing. - Garcia, S.M. (Comp.). 2009.
Glossary. In Cochrane, K. and S.M. Garcia. (Eds). A fishery managers handbook. FAO and Wiley-Blackwell:473-505
Participatory
approaches to
management
A participatory approach to fisheries management requires there to be an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the management process.
This does not mean that stakeholders are required to have specific decision rights in the fishery, but there should be a consultation process that regularly seeks and
accepts relevant information, including traditional, fisher or community knowledge and there is a transparent mechanism by which the management system
demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. Consultation processes must be inclusive and provide opportunities for interested and effected parties to be
involved. A participatory approach further requires that all major stakeholders have been identified and that the functions, roles and responsibilities of the key
organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood.
Pollution The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances, or energy into the aquatic environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such
deleterious effects as harm to living resources and aquatic life, hazards to human health, hindrance to aquatic activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses
of the aquatic environment and unacceptable impairment of local water quality. Adapted from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982).
Polyculture The rearing of two or more non-competitive species in the same culture unit.
Precautionary
approach
A set of agreed measures and actions, including future courses of action that ensures prudent foresight and reduces or avoids risk to the resource, the environment,
and the people, to the extent possible, taking into account existing uncertainties and the potential consequences of being wrong.
114
Term Definition
Precautionary
approach to
fisheries
management

The precautionary approach involves the application of prudent foresight, taking account of the uncertainties in fisheries systems and the need to take action with
incomplete knowledge. It requires, inter alia: (i) consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are not potentially reversible; (ii) prior
identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid them or correct them promptly; (iii) that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without
delay, and that they should achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades; (iv) that where the likely impact of resource use is
uncertain, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; (v) that harvesting and processing capacity should be commensurate with
estimated sustainable levels of resource, and that increases in capacity should be further contained when resource productivity is highly uncertain; (vi) all fishing
activities must have prior management authorization and be subject to periodic review; (viii) an established legal and institutional framework for fishery management,
within which management plans that implement the above points are instituted for each fishery, and (ix) appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the
requirements above (FAO, 1996, para 6).
Process A set of interrelated or interacting activities which result in an outcome.
Production system Concept identified by what is being cultured, giving also hints on how this is done, and possibly the aquaculture milieu in which it takes place, such as for example land-
based trout culture, suspended rope culture of mussel, intensive eel culture, pond culture of Nile tilapia and intensive catfish raceway culture.
Proxy A surrogate or substitute approach that results in equivalent outcomes to the primary approach. See also Reference Point (proxy).
Quarantine The facility and/or process by which live organisms and of their accompanying organisms can be held or reared in isolation from the surrounding environment.
Maintenance of a group of aquatic animals in isolation with no direct or indirect contact with other aquatic animals, in order to undergo observation for a specified length
of time and, if appropriate, testing and treatment, including proper treatment of the effluent waters.
Reasonable time
frames (for
restoration of
overfished stocks)
The time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding an overfished stock should be as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the overfished
stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations exercising jurisdiction over the overfished stock, and the interaction of the
overfished stock within the marine ecosystem. In any event is should not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental
conditions, or management measures under an applicable international agreement dictate otherwise.
Ordinarily, for stocks being considered for certification under an ecolabelling or other sustainability standard, the time period should not be longer than the duration of
the certification period.
Re-benchmarking The process of benchmarking a scheme that was previously recognised by the GSSI and that is seeking renewed recognition.
Recovery plan Need to define the required components of a Recovery Plan, including timeline, milestones, trajectory, monitoring, course corrections etc.
Recovery rate The percentage of the number of aquatic animals recovered at harvest divided by the number stocked. Intended as an indicator of mortality, incorporate both known
and unknown losses.
Reference point
(biological)
Biological Reference Point A biological benchmark against which the abundance of the stock or the fishing mortality rate can be measured in order to determine its
status. These reference points can be used as limits or targets, depending on their intended usage.
Reference point
(limit)

Limit Reference Point Indicates the limit beyond which the state of a fishery and / or a resource is not considered desirable. Fishery development should be stopped
before reaching it. If a LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop fishery development, as appropriate, and corrective action
should be taken. Stock rehabilitation programmes should consider and LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are
relaxed or the fishery is re-opened". If a LRP is well established, he probability to reach inadvertently is very low and indeed below a formally agreed level.
A value of a critical biological indicator (e.g. spawning biomass) considered as the limit below which the stock sustainability cannot be ensured, or below which the
probability of a negative outcome (e.g. stock collapse) is unacceptable.
Indicates the limit beyond which the state of a fishery and / or a resource is not considered desirable. Fishery development should be stopped before reaching it. If a
LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop fishery development, as appropriate, and corrective action should be taken. Stock
rehabilitation programmes should consider and LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are relaxed or the fishery is re-
opened". If a LRP is well established, the probability to reach inadvertently is very low and indeed below a formally agreed level. - Garcia S.M. (1996)The precautionary
approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 350.2: 1-76
The point where recruitment would be impaired. Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass limit reference points (LRPs)
should be no less than BMSY, or an appropriate target reference point such as B40%. LRPs below about B20% or BMSY require strong scientific rationale.
115
Term Definition
Reference point
(target)

Target Reference Point Corresponds to a state of a fishery and / or a resource which is considered desirable. Management action, whether during a fishery
development or a stock rebuilding process should aim at bringing and maintaining the fishery system at this level. In most cases a TRP will be expressed in a desired
level of output for the fishery (e.g. in terms of catch) or of fishing effort or capacity and will be reflected as an explicit management objective for the fishery.
Garcia S.M. (1996) The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fish. Tech.
Paper, 350.2: 1-76
Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass target reference points (TRPs) should generally not be lower than BMSY or
approximately B35B40%. TRPs below about B35% should require strong scientific rationale for harvesting at that level
Regional fisheries
management
organization (RFMO)
An institution or arrangement established (usually between two or more States) to be responsible for activities related to fisheries management, including consultation
between parties to the agreement or arrangement, formulation of the fishery regulations and their implementation, allocation of resources, collection of information,
stock assessment, as well as monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS).
RFMOs are generally established by two or more interested States to establish a common strategy for managing transboundary, shared or high seas fish stocks.
Examples include the five tuna RFMOs that manage highly migratory fish stocks (see for example http://www.tuna-org.org/).
Register of
benchmark
committee members
A document containing the names of experts selected by GSSI, who may carry out benchmarking activities on their behalf.
Remedial action A fisheries management measure intended to stop and/or reverse an adverse trend in stock status in response to an analysis indicating reference points are being
approached or exceeded or the desired directions are not being achieved (codified in one or more decision rules) (see also management measure).
Resilience Capacity of a natural system (fisheries community or ecosystem) to recover from heavy disturbance such as intensive fishing.
The ability to recover from or to resist being affected by some shock or disturbance
The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as still to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and
feedbacks.
Responsible
aquaculture
Aquaculture conducted according to the principles provided in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO 2010.
Review The systematic, documented process undertaken by GSSI to assess the compliance of a scheme against the requirements of the GSSI Framework Document.
Risk assessment The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or
phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for
adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs
Risk assessment/
Risk management
Risk Assessment is a component of risk management which comprises all processes concerned with identification, estimation and qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of risks. Risk assessment consists of hazard identification, hazard assessment, risk estimation and risk reduction.
Risk based
programme
A documented programme developed by a competent person(s) based on risk assessment principles.
Scheme A documented food safety scheme, which has specified requirements, specific rules and procedures.
Scheme owner An organisation, which is responsible for the development, management and maintenance of a scheme.
Scope The extent of the area or subject matter that a scheme applies to or to which it is relevant
Senior management A person or persons who have the authority and accountability to develop, implement or amend organisational policies and procedures
116
Term Definition
Serious adverse
impacts
The severity of adverse impacts is related to their potential reversibility. Serious adverse impacts can be regarded as those that are likely to be irreversible or very
slowly reversible. Serious adverse impacts of fisheries and any associated culture and stock enhancement activity on the ecosystem shall include at least any one of
the following effects of fisheries where such effects are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible:
i. Overfishing of the stock under consideration;
ii. Overfishing of the stocks forming incidental catch, unobserved catch;
iii. Unreported catch, unregulated catch or discards; reduction in abundance of dependent predators;
iv. Harmful impacts on essential habitat; or
v. Harmful impacts on any other part of the ecosystem.
Site A permanent location where an organisation carries out work or activity
Small scale fisheries This term tends to imply the use of a relatively small size gear and vessel. The term has sometimes the added connotation of low levels of technology and capital
investment per fisher although that may not always be the case. Small-scale fisheries are social units with porous boundaries that individual fishers can cross. In fact,
fishers can unconsciously or deliberately blur the boundaries between the various fisheries (see also data limited fisheries, although data limited is not the same as
small scale; large scale fisheries can also be data limited and not all small scale fisheries are data limited).
Producers operating at a small scale, used to distinguish from industrialized producers. In truth, the line separating small and large scale producers is arbitrary. What is
considered small scale in one country or region may be considered large scale in another
Similar to Artisanal fisheries: A term of Latin origin with a socio-economic foundation. It tends to imply a simple, individual (self-employed) or family type of enterprise
(as opposed to an industrial company), most often operated by the owner (even though the vessels may sometimes belong to the fishmonger or some external
investor), with the support of the household. The term has no obvious reference to size but tends to have the same connotation of relatively low levels of technology
and this may not always be the case
Small-scale
aquaculture
Aquaculture farms with small production volume, and/or relatively small surface area, mainly without permanent labour, and typically lacking technical and financial
capacity to support individual certification. Depending on the production systems used, other considerations include production technology; resources; number of
workers, including owner; economics, including annual income; relative importance of aquaculture as contributor to total income; ownership. Small-scale aquaculture
farms are typically:
i. family-sized operations;
ii. using family labour;
iii. based on the familys land; and
iv. owner-operated
v. Small-scale aquaculture may be diffused through a local area or district, or highly concentrated around specific resources (e.g. water supply or processing
plant).
Socially responsible
aquaculture
Aquaculture that is developed and operated in a responsible manner, i.e. that benefits the farm, the local communities and the country; that contributes effectively to
rural development, and particularly poverty alleviation; has employees who are treated fairly; maximizes benefits and equity; minimizes conflicts with local communities;
ensures worker welfare and fair working conditions; minimizes risks to smallholders; and provides training to workers in responsible aquaculture practices.
Stakeholder An individual or group of individuals, whether at institutional or personal level, who has an interest or claim that has the potential of being impacted by or having
an impact on a given activity. This interest or claim can be stated or implied and direct or indirect. Stakeholders and stakeholder groups can be at the
household, community, local, regional, national, or international levels.
Standard Document approved by a recognized organization or arrangement, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or
related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory under international trade rules. It may also include or deal exclusively with
terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
Stock The living resources in the community or population from which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the particular population is
more or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining. In a particular fishery, the fish stock may be one or several species of fish but
here is also intended to include commercial invertebrates and plants.
A group of individuals in a species occupying a well-defined spatial range independent of other stocks of the same species. Random dispersal and directed migrations
due to seasonal or reproductive activity can occur. Such a group can be regarded as an entity for management or assessment purposes.
117
Term Definition
Stock assessment The process of collecting and analysing biological and statistical information to determine the changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing, and, to
the extent possible, to predict future trends of stock abundance. Stock assessments are based on resource surveys; knowledge of the habitat requirements, life history,
and behaviour of the species; the use of environmental indices to determine impacts on stocks; and catch statistics. Stock assessments are used as a basis to assess
and specify the present and probable future condition of a fishery.
There are many ways in which state and trends in stocks may be evaluated, that fall short of the highly quantitative and data-demanding approaches to stock
assessment that are often used for large scale fisheries in developed countries.
The process of collecting and analysing biological and statistical information to determine the changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing, and, to
the extent possible, to predict future trends of stock abundance. Stock assessments are based on resource surveys; knowledge of the habitat requirements, life history,
and behaviour of the species; the use of environmental indices to determine impacts on stocks; and catch statistics. Stock assessments are used as a basis to assess
and specify the present and probable future condition of a fishery.
Stock enhancement See Fisheries Enhancement.
Stock recovery plan A strategy of selecting fishing mortality rates or equivalent catches that will increase the status measure (e.g. biomass) above some minimum standard threshold within
a specified period of time.
Stock structure and
composition
The (spatial) organisation of a species in terms of separate stocks genetic structure of the stock, (e.g., a species of large pelagic fish may be comprised of three
separate stocks in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea).
The structure of a particular stock, in terms of its size or age composition or in terms of its species composition (for a multispecies stock).
The genetic/ age /size /sex make up of a fish stock, measured on spatial and temporal bases.
Stock under
consideration
The stock under consideration exploited by this fishery (unit of certification) may be one or more biological stocks as specified by the stakeholders for certification.
The certification applies only to products derived from the stock under consideration (see paragraph 30). In assessing compliance with certification standards, the
impacts on the stock under consideration of all the fisheries utilizing that stock under consideration over its entire area of distribution are to be considered.
Subcontracting A firm, company or individual carrying out a process on products on the behalf of the site audited.
Supplier An organisation supplying food, feed or a service.
Surveillance Followup audit(s) to assess compliance with the specific requirements of a schemes standard and to verify the validity of an issued certificate.
Suspension The process by which a scheme is temporarily not recognised by GSSI.
Sustainability
indicators
A defined series of criteria which are quantifiable measurements relating to sustainability.
Systematic non-
compliance
Fishery regulations and/or controls are being regularly and repeatedly violated to an extent that threatens the effective implementation of the management strategy
(see Management Measures).
Non-compliance is closely related to the commonly used term illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. According to the FAO International Plan of Action to
Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (See Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing)
Technical committee A committee of competent technical persons who are representative of an area of work or activity.
Third party
certification
Procedure by which an accredited external, independent, certification body which is not involved in standards setting or has any other conflict of interest,
analyses the performance of involved parties, and reports on compliance. This is in contrast to first party certification (by which a single company or stakeholder
group develops its own standards, analyses its own performance, and reports on its compliance and second party certification (by which an industry or trade
association or NGO develops standards, analyses the performance of involved parties, and reports on compliance).
118
Term Definition
Traceability The ability to follow the movement of a product of aquaculture or inputs such as feed and seed, through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution
i. The ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications.
ii. The ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration.
iii. (NB: For both i) & ii) there is an additional clause which states that when relating to products, traceability specifically entails the origin of materials and parts,
the processing history, and the distribution and location of the product after delivery).
iv. Ability to follow the movement of feed or food through specified stage/s of production, processing and distribution
v. Property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each
contributing to the measurement uncertainty.
vi. The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed,
through all stages of production, processing and distribution.
vii. The ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution.
Traceability The ability to follow the movement of a product of aquaculture or inputs such as feed and seed, through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution.
Transfer The movement of individuals of a species or population of an aquatic organism from one location to another within its present range.
Transition period for
compliance
A defined period of time by which an organisation shall comply to a series of requirements or standard.
Trash fish Small fish species, damaged catch and juvenile fish are sometimes referred to as 'trash fish' because of its low market value. Usually part of a (shrimp) trawler's
bycatch. Often it is discarded at sea although an increasing proportion is used as human food or as feed in aquaculture and livestock feed.
Uncertainty /
uncertainties
Uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge.
The abundance of fish and their productivity is estimated always with some level of uncertainty, which may be considerable. Forecasting the abundance of fish in the
future and how the stock, fish community or fishers will respond to management actions introduces further uncertainty.
Sources of uncertainty in fisheries stock assessment and management can be summarised as follows:
i. process uncertainty, or random variability, in the biological and ecological processes themselves, such as in recruitment to a stock;
ii. observation uncertainty, from attempts to measure factors such as total catch, biomass (e.g. through a survey), or effective effort in a fishery;
iii. estimation uncertainty in our final estimates of quantities, such as the status of the stock or BMEY, arises from process and observation uncertainty above
and also because our models are usually simplifications of the true ecological processes;
iv. implementation uncertainty arising in the implementation of management measures, including how effective they will be and how well the fishers will comply
with them; and
v. institutional uncertainty which refers to the uncertainty in how well participants in the process can communicate with each other, to what extent people are
willing to compromise and how the scientific information is understood, all influencing how decisions will be made and therefore how good those decisions
will be.
Unit of certification The scale or extent of the aquaculture operation(s) assessed and monitored for compliance. The unit of certification could consist of a single farm, production unit or
other aquaculture facility. The certification unit could also consist of a group or cluster of farms that should be assessed and monitored collectively.
Unit of certification The fishery for which ecolabelling certification is sought, as specified by the stakeholders who are seeking certification.
A unit of certification comprises the stock(s) under consideration and the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel/s) targeting that/those stock(s).
The fishery on the stock under consideration may include more than one unit of certification
Unobserved
mortality
Mortality imposed on a species by the encounter with fishing gear that does not result in capture.
Unreported catches Unreported catches fall under the umbrella of unreported fishing. Unreported fishing is defined in the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. (See Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing)
Unscheduled
supplier audit
Audits planned within a defined programme, but without the allocation of a specified programme date.
119
Term Definition
Unwanted catch Unwanted catches are those that are discarded (returned to the sea) dead or alive, either because they are the wrong size (usually too small), the wrong species, the
fisherman has no quota, or keeping them violates other rules about catch composition.
Validation The application of methods, procedures, tests and other evaluations, in addition to monitoring to determine compliance with the standards or plan.
Validation An activity to obtain evidence that a requirement is controlled effectively.
Verification A confirmation, through the review of objective evidence that requirements have been fulfilled.
Veterinarian See Aquatic Animal Health Professional
Veterinary drugs Definitions of veterinary drugs vary from source-to-source. In this document veterinary drugs as considered to include antimicrobials, antibacterials, therapeutants,
antibiotics, and veterinary medicinal products, if misused, can result in food safety implications, including residues, as well environmental implications, such as the
spread of resistance to treatments in pathogenic organisms.
Vulnerable marine
ecosystem (VME)
The FAO Guidelines adopted a list of criteria for the identification of VMEs:
i. Uniqueness or rarity due to the species, communities or habitats they contain;
ii. Functional significance of the habitat necessary for the survival, function, spawning/reproduction or recovery of fish stocks, particular life history stages (e.g.
nursery grounds or rearing areas), or of rare, threatened or endangered marine species;
iii. Fragility;
iv. Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult; or
v. Structural complexity.
Water quality criteria Specific levels of water quality desired for identified uses, including drinking, recreation, farming, aquaculture production, propagation of other aquatic life, and
agricultural and industrial processes.
Wet-fish Unprocessed, uncooked whole or chopped fish. Sometimes referred to as trash fish.
Work program A defined series of activity to be carried out within a defined time period.

120
GSSI GLOBAL BENCHMARK
TOOL

PART III:
REFERENCE MATRIX TO
THE FAO GUIDELINES

Global Sustainable
Seafood Initiative
121
Part III: Reference Matrix to the FAO Guidelines
GSSI will publish a detailed reference matrix to the FAO Guidelines that enables readers of the Benchmark
Framework to track the linkages that exist between GSSI requirements and the paragraphs of the relevant
FAO Guidelines.
This matrix is included in the separate excel file distributed as part of the consultation documents to submit
comments. If you have not received the excel file, please contact the GSSI Secretariat at
comments@ourgssi.org and they will make sure you will be provided with a complete set of documents and
files.

GSSI Global Benchmark Tool - Draft For Consultation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GSSI Global Benchmark Tool - Draft For Consultation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Date: 16 June 2014

Вам также может понравиться