**Review of Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish**

**and Products from Capture Fisheries, and**

**Recommended Minimum Substantive Requirements**

**Report for the Expert Consultation on Ecolabelling Guidelines**

**for Fish and Fishery Products,**

**Rome, 3-5 March 2008**

**Keith Sainsbury**

**February 2008**

**CONTENTS**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [1. Introduction 1](#introduction)                                    |
|                                                                       |
| [2. Standards, requirements and practices for well managed and        |
| sustainable fisheries                                                 |
| 3](#standards-r                                                       |
| equirements-and-practices-for-well-managed-and-sustainable-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [2.1 International agreements and management arrangements             |
| 3](#international-agreements-and-management-arrangements)             |
|                                                                       |
| [2.2 National management arrangements                                 |
| 7](#national-management-arrangements)                                 |
|                                                                       |
| [2.2.1 Target or retained species 7](#target-or-retained-species)     |
|                                                                       |
| [2.2.2 Ecosystem considerations 10](#ecosystem-considerations)        |
|                                                                       |
| [2.2.3 Management System 11](#management-system)                      |
|                                                                       |
| [2.3 National and regional government based ecolabels                 |
| 12](#national-and-regional-government-based-ecolabels)                |
|                                                                       |
| [2.4 Non-government based ecolabels                                   |
| 14](#non-government-based-ecolabels)                                  |
|                                                                       |
| [2.5 Non-government seafood guides for consumers and                  |
| business-to-business procurement                                      |
| 19](#non-governme                                                     |
| nt-seafood-guides-for-consumers-and-business-to-business-procurement) |
|                                                                       |
| [3. Enhanced fisheries 21](#enhanced-fisheries)                       |
|                                                                       |
| [4. Small scale and developing State fisheries                        |
| 25](#small-scale-and-developing-state-fisheries)                      |
|                                                                       |
| [5. Summary comments on ecological requirements and assessment        |
| methods                                                               |
| 26]                                                                   |
| (#summary-comments-on-ecological-requirements-and-assessment-methods) |
|                                                                       |
| [6. Recommended Minimum Substantive Requirements for Capture          |
| Fisheries                                                             |
| 28]                                                                   |
| (#recommended-minimum-substantive-requirements-for-capture-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [6.1 Management Systems 29](#management-systems)                      |
|                                                                       |
| [6.2 Stocks under Consideration for capture fishery ecolabelling      |
| 30](#stocks-under-consideration-for-capture-fishery-ecolabelling)     |
|                                                                       |
| [6.3 Ecosystem Considerations for capture fishery ecolabelling        |
| 30](#ecosystem-considerations-for-capture-fishery-ecolabelling)       |
|                                                                       |
| [6.4 Additional points for consideration                              |
| 31](#additional-points-for-consideration)                             |
|                                                                       |
| [7. References 32](#references)                                       |
|                                                                       |
| [8. Tables 39](#tables)                                               |
|                                                                       |
| [8.1 Some examples of NGO seafood guides                              |
| 39](#some-examples-of-ngo-seafood-guides)                             |
|                                                                       |
| [9. Appendices 40](#appendices)                                       |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 1. Terms of Reference. A Review of the Guidelines for       |
| Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products                             |
| 40](#appendix-1.-terms-of-reference.-a-re                             |
| view-of-the-guidelines-for-ecolabelling-of-fish-and-fishery-products) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 2. Minimum Substantive Requirements for marine capture      |
| fisheries                                                             |
| 42](#appen                                                            |
| dix-2.-minimum-substantive-requirements-for-marine-capture-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 3. Proposed Minimum Substantive Requirements for inland     |
| capture fisheries                                                     |
| 44](#appendix-3.-pr                                                   |
| oposed-minimum-substantive-requirements-for-inland-capture-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 4. Best practices of Regional Fisheries Management          |
| Organisations in relation to target stocks, the ecosystem and fishery |
| management practices                                                  |
| 47](#appendix-4.-                                                     |
| best-practices-of-regional-fisheries-management-organisations-in-rela |
| tion-to-target-stocks-the-ecosystem-and-fishery-management-practices) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 5. The biological criteria for listing on Appendix I and II |
| of CITES                                                              |
| 51](#appendix-                                                        |
| 5.-the-biological-criteria-for-listing-on-appendix-i-and-ii-of-cites) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 6. Criteria for the certification of products from          |
| sustainable fishing as recommended by the Nordic Technical Working    |
| Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria                              |
| 55](#appendix-6.-criteria-for-the-c                                   |
| ertification-of-products-from-sustainable-fishing-as-recommended-by-t |
| he-nordic-technical-working-group-on-fisheries-ecolabelling-criteria) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 7. The Australian Department of Environment, Water,         |
| Heritage and the Arts guidelines for the ecological sustainable       |
| management of fisheries                                               |
| 58](#appendix-                                                        |
| 7.-the-australian-department-of-environment-water-heritage-and-the-ar |
| ts-guidelines-for-the-ecological-sustainable-management-of-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 8. Outline of the proposed Japanese ecolabel for capture    |
| fisheries, MEL.                                                       |
| 61](#appendix-8.-                                                     |
| outline-of-the-proposed-japanese-ecolabel-for-capture-fisheries-mel.) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 9. The Marine Stewardship Council principles and criteria   |
| for a sustainable fishing 64](#__RefHeading___Toc191452104)           |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 10. The criteria for the Friend of the Sea Mark ecolabel    |
| for capture fisheries                                                 |
| 67](#appendix-10.-the-cr                                              |
| iteria-for-the-friend-of-the-sea-mark-ecolabel-for-capture-fisheries) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 11. Criteria for the ecological assessment of sustainable   |
| capture fisheries for the Naturland Wildfish ecolabel                 |
| 70](#appendix-11.-criteria-for-the-ecological-assessment-             |
| of-sustainable-capture-fisheries-for-the-naturland-wildfish-ecolabel) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 12. The principles and criteria relating to the target      |
| species, ecosystem and management system used by the Marine Aquarium  |
| Council to certify fisheries for the aquarium trade                   |
| 71](#appendix-12.-the-principles-and-criteria-relat                   |
| ing-to-the-target-species-ecosystem-and-management-system-used-by-the |
| -marine-aquarium-council-to-certify-fisheries-for-the-aquarium-trade) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 13. The scoring used in the Blue Ocean Institute seafood    |
| guide                                                                 |
| 73](#app                                                              |
| endix-13.-the-scoring-used-in-the-blue-ocean-institute-seafood-guide) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 14. The scoring used by the Monterey Bay Aquarium seafood   |
| guide                                                                 |
| 76](#appe                                                             |
| ndix-14.-the-scoring-used-by-the-monterey-bay-aquarium-seafood-guide) |
|                                                                       |
| [Appendix 15. FishSource criteria for target species sustainability.  |
| 84](                                                                  |
| #appendix-15.-fishsource-criteria-for-target-species-sustainability.) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# Introduction

This review is part of an FAO process to develop comprehensive
guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and products from capture
fisheries (see Appendix 1 for the Terms of Reference). Ecolabelling
schemes in this context certify and promote labels of products from
well-managed marine capture fisheries and focus on issues related to the
sustainable use of fisheries resources. They are ISO Type I
environmental labels, and so are voluntary with certification based on
third party assessment of the environmental effects of the product (ISO
1999a, FAO 2001a).

In 2005 the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) adopted guidelines for
marine fishery ecolabelling (FAO 2005a). These guidelines provide
general considerations, definition of terms and principles, and the
requirements for institutional and accreditation arrangements so as to
ensure independent assessment, audit and verification in conformity with
international standards (e.g. the International Standards Organisation
and the World Trade Organisation). Ecolabels are required to be
voluntary, be market driven, be transparent, be non-discriminatory, not
create unnecessary obstacles to trade (e.g. Technical Barriers to Trade
under the WTO), and promote fair trade and competition.

FAO (2005a) also provides an outline of the operational requirements and
criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and an
ecolabel awarded. These are the Minimum Substantive Requirements and are
provided to ensure credibility of the ecolabel, and in particular that
the fishery is well-managed and sustainable. The Minimum Substantive
Requirements address each of three issues; these are the status of the
harvested stocks, the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and the
fishery management system. The Minimum Substantive Requirements in FAO
(2005a) are based on agreed international instruments addressing
fisheries, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
1982), the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA 1995) and the Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995a), as well as the 2001 Reykjavik
Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem and related
documents (FAO 2001b, 2003a) and recent UN General Assembly Resolutions
(UNGA 2005, 2006 and 2007).

In adopting the 2005 guidelines COFI recognised the need for further
consideration of the Minimum Substantive Requirements for fishery
ecolabelling, especially in relation to:

-   Review and further develop the Minimum Substantive Requirements
    provided in FAO (2005a) for marine capture fisheries and proposed in
    FAO (2006) for inland capture fisheries, particularly in relation to
    the stock under consideration and the impacts of the fishery on the
    ecosystem. Inland fisheries often include greater human enhancement
    or modification of the species (e.g. translocations, introductions,
    hatchery rearing), food and habitats than is usual in marine
    fisheries. The Minimum Substantive Requirements from FAO (2005a) and
    FAO (2006) are provided in Appendices 2 and 3 respectively. Both are
    well based on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.

-   The criteria used by existing or developing ecolabelling schemes to
    assess the status of stocks and the ecosystem impacts of fishing.

-   The elements of national, regional and international fishery
    management and management arrangements that are relevant to the
    Minimum Substantive Requirements for fishery ecolabelling, including
    the FAO Guidelines on Fisheries Management and implementation of the
    Ecosystem Approach to Fishing.

Third party ecolabelling for capture fisheries faces several challenges
and tensions in delivery of ecolabels that are genuinely transparent,
voluntary and non-discriminatory to all fisheries. The ecolabel must be
accessible to all fisheries that meet the sustainability standard, and
must not exclude some sustainable fisheries because of arbitrary
requirements or processes by the ecolabel. Examples of this might be a
requirement to prove sustainability in ways that are not feasible in
some situations, or to use management systems that are not appropriate
in some situations. So some flexibility is required. But the
ecolabelling also requires transparent and consistent demonstration of
sustainable performance of the fishery through the third party
assessment process. That demonstration is the basis of the credibility,
reliability, fairness and truthfulness of the ecolabel. The performance
must be transparently demonstrated for all participating fisheries. It
is not sufficient for a fishery, industry, government, NGO or
Certification Body to simply state that a fishery is sustainable in its
view, or for different levels of proof to be accepted from different
fisheries participating in the same ecolabelling scheme. Otherwise there
is scope for the ecolabel to become arbitrary and discriminatory in
trade and fair competition. And loose or general specification of the
criteria for assessment can result in arbitrary ecolabelling decisions
being applied to different fisheries or by different third party
Certification Bodies. So there is tension between the need for clear and
specific sustainability criteria, including the required evidence that
they are met, and the flexibility needed to encompass all the various
circumstances and approaches in fishery management that can deliver
responsible and sustainable utilisation. And in addressing these issues
it is important to ensure that the purpose and limitations of
ecolabelling are recognised. Ecolabelling is not responsible for the
management of fisheries --it is the role of governments and competent
international bodies to determine how fisheries are managed.
Ecolabelling identifies well managed fisheries on the basis of stated
criteria relating to sustainable use of the fisheries resources and
related marine ecosystems. For the credibility of the ecolabel the
criteria must have a high chance of identifying sustainable fisheries
and screening out unsustainable fisheries. The credibility of an
ecolabel, and fishery ecolabelling more generally, would rapidly suffer
if certified fisheries collapsed or in other important ways were found
to be unsustainable. The purpose is not to create an ecolabel that all
fisheries can achieve, but rather an ecolabel that all sustainably
managed fisheries can achieve. In this it is the sustainability outcome
and its transparent demonstration that is paramount to the credibility
and fairness of the ecolabel.

This report first reviews the standards, requirements and practices for
well managed and sustainable fisheries. The standards, requirements and
practices are reviewed for several different situations and
applications:

-   International agreements and management arrangements

-   National management arrangements

-   National and regional government based ecolabels

-   Non-government based ecolabels

-   Non-government seafood consumer and business procurement guides

The particular situations of enhanced fisheries, small-scale fisheries
and developing State fisheries are the specifically examined. And
recommended Minimum Substantive Requirements for fishery ecolabelling
are provided.

# Standards, requirements and practices for well managed and sustainable fisheries 

## International agreements and management arrangements

Over the past several decades, especially since the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) established the basis for
extended jurisdiction by coastal states and for the sustainable
exploitation of the high seas, there have been many changes in the
expectations of fishery management. Some of these changes have been
reflected in 'hard' law, for example UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA
1995). Other changes have been manifest in 'soft' law, examples of which
are the FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995a,
1997) and international guidance documents on the precautionary approach
to fisheries (FAO 1996) and the ecosystem approach to fisheries (FAO,
2003a). These reaffirm the goal of optimal utilization of fishery
resources, and promote the responsible fishing practices that have been
found to be necessary in order to achieve sustainable resources and
human benefits. The international impetus to achieve sustainable fishing
has also been strongly reinforced by the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002 (WSSD 2002) and by UN General Assembly Resolutions
(UNGA 2005, 2006, 2007). These call for responsible governments and
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) to prevent
overfishing and to restore and maintain stocks at the level producing
Maximum Sustainable Yield, to reduce or eliminate bycatch, to protect
endangered species, to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (e.g. some
seabed habitats) and to apply the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. The
UN General Assembly will review progress on WSSD and General Assembly
Resolutions in 2009.

UNFSA provides principles for the management of highly migratory and
straddling stocks beyond national jurisdiction. These principles are
wide-ranging and include use of the precautionary approach and
conservation and management measures. The Agreement also requires that
the principles relating to these measures should be applied consistently
and compatibly to highly migratory and straddling fish stocks under
national jurisdiction. Furthermore, the 2006 UNFSA Review Conference
agreed that these principles should apply to discrete stocks in the high
seas. Thus the principles of precaution, conservation and management
established by UNFSA have very wide applicability to fish stocks on the
high seas and within national jurisdiction. The principles provided by
UNFSA in relation to the precautionary approach and to conservation and
management measures stipulate the requirement to:

-   adopt measures to ensure long-term sustainability;

-   ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence
    available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels
    capable of producing maximum sustainable yield;

-   apply the precautionary approach;

-   assess the impacts of fishing on target stocks and species belonging
    to the same ecosystem;

-   adopt conservation and management measures for species belonging to
    the same ecosystem;

-   protect marine biodiversity;

-   ensure that levels of fishing capacity and fishing effort do not
    exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery
    resources;

-   collect and share in a timely manner complete and accurate data
    concerning fishing activities;

-   promote and conduct scientific research in support of conservation
    and management; and

-   implement and enforce conservation and management measures through
    effective monitoring, control and surveillance.

UNFSA also includes more detailed guidance on the implementation of the
precautionary approach and conservation and management measures:

-   Management shall be more cautious when information is uncertain,
    unreliable or inadequate.

-   Precautionary target and limit reference points shall be established
    for stocks. Fishery management strategies shall ensure that the risk
    of exceeding a limit is very low. A minimum standard for a limit
    reference point is the fishing mortality giving maximum sustainable
    yield, and the biomass giving maximum sustainable yield is an
    appropriate target for recovering overfished stocks.

-   When reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded; and
    if they are exceeded, there will be action without delay to restore
    the stocks.

-   New or exploratory fisheries shall use cautious conservation and
    management measures until there are sufficient data to allow the
    identification of measures for the long-term sustainability and
    gradual development of the fisheries.

-   If natural phenomena have a significant adverse impact on the
    stocks, conservation and management measures shall be adopted to
    ensure that fishing activity does not exacerbate that impact.

-   It will be ensured that fisheries do not have a harmful impact on
    living marine resources as a whole.

The changed expectations of fishery management in recent decades as
reflected by these 'hard' and 'soft' law agreements are very
significant, especially when compared with the previous simpler and
target species-focused objectives of most RFMOs and other international
fishery management arrangements. The more recent expectations have
changed the previously accepted level of depletion of the target
species. They extend management responsibility to the impacts of fishing
on the structure and processes of the broader ecosystem (e.g. the
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, FAO 2003a), and
require the application of a precautionary approach when information or
understanding is insufficient for scientific certainty about the effects
of fishing. In addition UNGA (2007) raised particular concerns about the
impact of bottom trawling on seabed habitats and called for assessment
of whether there were adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems,
and if so that the fishery be managed so as to prevent such impacts or
not be authorised to proceed. The ecosystem-based approach to fisheries
management emphasizes that a whole ecosystem perspective is needed, not
just a focus on the species directly utilized. This aims to maintain
healthy ecosystems so as to support fishery production and other human
activities, to minimize the risk of irreversible or very slowly
reversible change, to attain high long-term human benefits and to
maintain future options for use and sustainable development. This
approach is consistent with the goals of Sustainable Development more
generally (e.g. UNCED 1992), and in this context 'slowly reversible'
could be taken to mean not reversible on a human generation time and not
therefore limiting intergenerational equity and development options. It
is also consistent with scientific results on the importance of
ecosystem health, including genetic, species and community biodiversity,
in providing ecosystems that can continue to provide the full range of
ecosystem services and that are more resilient to natural variability
and anthropogenic change (e.g. Hughes 1994, Holling and Meffe 1996,
Rapport *et al.* 1998, Costanza *et al.* 1997, Hughes *et al.* 2005).

RFMOs have responded variously to the challenge of these changed
expectations. Mooney-Seus and Rosenberg (2007) provide an extensive
review of the way in which different RFMOs are addressing the UNFSA,
ecosystem-based management, and the precautionary approach to fishery
management. From these and other comparisons Lodge *et al.* (2007)
developed a summary of best practices by RFMOs (see Appendix 4). These
are measures that are in practical operation in at least one RFMO so as
to achieve the stock utilization and ecosystem conservation goals set
out in the Code of Conduct, the UNFSA and the Ecosystem Approach to
Fisheries. And these measures provide a good guide to the requirements
of a well managed and sustainable fishery. The points of particular
relevance to the Minimum Substantive Requirements for fishery
ecolabelling are:

-   Target and limit reference points are used for fishing mortality and
    population size of commercially targeted and retained stocks.

-   Target reference points are consistent with achieving long-term
    optimum utilization.

-   The limit reference point for fishing mortality is no greater than
    the mortality giving maximum long-term sustainable yield, as
    specified in UNFSA.

-   The limit reference point for stock size is the size below which it
    is known or expected that there is a much greater probability of
    significantly reduced recruitment but at which the probability of
    significantly reduced low recruitment is still small. This could be
    at a size that has been historically shown to be safe and/or below
    which stock dynamics are unknown.

-   Key prey species are identified and the reference points are
    modified to account for dependent predators.

-   There are identified limits of acceptable impact for non-target or
    bycatch species, and for habitats, with management measures to
    ensure these limits are not exceeded. These limits may be determined
    through risk-based considerations rather than direct assessment of
    the populations.

-   The management system includes agreed strategies or rules to vary
    the level of fishing depending on the state of the stock, and in
    particular to maintain the stock in the vicinity of the targets, to
    avoid the limits and to recover over-fished stocks in a defined
    period. Recovery of over-fished stocks is to the level that provides
    long term Maximum Sustainable Yield.

-   There are effective mechanisms for the collecting the information
    necessary for assessing and managing the fishery, recognising that
    information requirements can be very different for different
    management systems and measures.

-   All sources of mortality are accounted for in assessment of the
    status of the stocks.

-   The level of fishing capacity is commensurate with the level that
    gives long-term optimal and sustainable utilization.

These measures are generic, in that they can be applied to all stocks
and fisheries, although there may be a wide range of different ways to
achieve the intent. For example fishing mortality or stock size
reference points may be reformulated in terms of other more directly
measured quantities (e.g. catch rate, fish density, length distribution
in the population or catch, tag recovery rates, area of the fishery in
relation to the area of the stock) that are sometimes called empirical
indicators or empirical reference points (e.g. Hilborn *et al.* 2002,
Kelly and Codling 2006). Strategies and rules for varying the level of
fishing can be triggered by these empirical reference points in the same
way that they can be triggered by fishing mortality or biomass reference
points. The advantage of empirical indicators and reference points is
their simplicity. The disadvantage is that they may not provide reliable
guidance in the management of the quantities that are of fundamental
interest and concern, which are usually related to stock biomass and
fishing mortality, because the easily measured indicators for a fishery
are often difficult to interpret uniquely. This disadvantage may be
overcome by simulation testing (e.g. Sainsbury *et al*. 2000) or
observed real-world performance over a long period to demonstrate the
performance of a management strategy based on empirical reference points
and decision rules. A key requirement in the use of empirical reference
points and decision rules, particularly in a third party ecolabelling
context, is transparent demonstration that they have a good chance of
achieving the intended management outcomes despite the uncertainties of
fishery assessment and management.

Further guidance on the Minimum Substantive Requirements for a fisheries
ecolabel can be drawn from the criteria relating for listing under the
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). The aim of CITES is to ensure that
international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not
threaten their survival. It would be undesirable for a fishery or
fishery product to meet the criteria for an ecolabel and to also meet
the CITES Annex I or Annex II criteria. The criteria for listing (CITES
1994) are provided in Appendix 5, and further elaboration and
consideration of their application to fisheries is provided by Mace *et
al.* (2002). The CITES criteria provide a standard that is lower (i.e.
more depleted) than that appropriate for a fisheries ecolabel. So the
criteria for an ecolabel for sustainable fisheries must exceed the
requirements that:

-   Populations are not depleted below 5-20% of their historical levels
    (i.e. the levels prior to fishing or that would be expected in the
    absence of fishing). The range 5-10% is applicable to species with
    high productivity, 10-15% to species with medium productivity, and
    15-12% for species with low productivity. A natural mortality rate
    in the range 0.2-0.5 per year may indicate medium productivity.

-   The recent rate of decline of a population, if it is likely to
    continue or resume, is not projected to reduce the population below
    5-20% of its historical levels within a 10y period. The same
    productivity ranges as above apply to this range of depletion.

The CITES criteria are provided in generic terms, and specifically allow
for different kinds of empirical evidence to be used for their
evaluation (e.g. changes in spatial range, change in the quality or area
of habitat, general vulnerability because of the pattern of
exploitation, life history characteristics or ecological circumstances
of the species).

Further guidance on the international standards is likely to soon come
from Standards Organisation (ISO). In early 2007 the ISO announced
formation of Technical Committee number 234 to development standards for
sustainable fisheries and aquaculture (ISO 2007). The Technical
Committee has met but as yet there are no draft standards publicly
available from that process.

## National management arrangements

The national requirements for fishery management are based on national
laws, policies and plans, and they vary greatly (e.g. see OECD 2005 and
the related annual updated Country Notes on National Fishery Management
Systems, Schmidt 2003, Marco and Quesada 2005). Most express a similar
intent to that embodied in the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) and the Code
of Conduct (FAO 1995a). That is to achieve the social and financial
benefits of fishing, including the attaining the highest or otherwise
optimal level of long-term yield, and to maintain the productive
capacity of the fished stocks and their supporting ecosystems. Most
provide general and high level goals. But many do not provide specific
and detailed measures for the adequacy of performance against those
goals. That is, usually there is not a description of what is acceptable
or unacceptable performance that could be transparently and objectively
used as the Minimum Substantive Requirements in a third party assessment
for a fisheries ecolabel.

The operational (i.e. measurable) management requirements for
sustainable fisheries are very similar across all the jurisdictions
where detailed operational requirements are specified, such as the US
(NMFS 1998, 2005a,b), the EU (ICES 2003a,b), Namibia (Anon. 2004),
Mexico (Alvarez-Torres *et al.* 2002), Australia (Anon 2001, DAFF 2007)
and New Zealand (Anon 2003, 2007a). The US National Standards and
related provisions are probably the most comprehensive operational
description of the requirements of fishery management to address the
issues raised by recent agreements and guidelines (i.e. maintaining or
recovering fished stocks to provide an optimal yield not greater than
the biological maximum sustainable yield, protecting the productive
capacity of the ecosystem, minimising impacts on vulnerable elements of
the ecosystem and endangered species). These approaches were reviewed
recently by Sainsbury (2008). They all make use of reference points as
operational benchmarks to provide targets, limits and to trigger
management responses, as recommended by the Code of Conduct (FAO 1995,
e.g. the management system should determine stock specific target and
limit reference points, and, at the same time, the action to be taken if
they are exceeded). While the specifications are described in terms of
target and limit reference points for fishing mortality and stock
biomass they can be replaced by appropriate proxies of these quantities,
or different quantities entirely (e.g. empirical indicators and
reference points), that achieve the same intent.

Briefly summarising these requirements and approaches to the operational
specifications for a sustainable fishery:

### Target or retained species

The target fishing mortality, and consequent catch, should be chosen to
provide an optimum long-term yield. But a long-term view is taken. In
fisheries where more than one species is targeted or retained the
optimum will involve balancing the level of exploitation across these
species so as to give the best outcome. The exact interpretation of the
optimum in balancing economic, social and ecological issues is flexible
within the constraints provided by the limit reference points. It is
expected and accepted that the stock will vary through time above and
below the average stock size associated with the long-term optimal
yield. But the target fishing mortality is selected so as to result in a
low chance (i.e. a probability of less than 0.9 over 2 generation times)
of violating the limit reference points in the context of the
uncertainties, vulnerabilities and limitations of the particular
monitoring, assessment and management arrangements used in the fishery.
Other things being equal greater uncertainty in monitoring, assessment
and management implementation would require a greater safety margin
between the target fishing mortality and the limit fishing mortality.

The maximum or limit fishing mortality should be the fishing mortality
giving long-term Maximum Sustainable Yield (i.e. F~MSY~). Treating
F~MSY~ as a limit reference point is consistent with the UNFSA (1995)
recommendation and is now also implemented in many national management
arrangements. There are several proxies for F~MSY~ in common practice. A
proxy with a good scientific and practical basis (Clark 2002) is the
fishing mortality that reduces the 'spawners per recruit' to 40% of its
unfished level, or F~40%~ , and is calculated from life history
information alone.

This combination of targets and limits on fishing mortality is expected
to result in the average stock/population size or stock biomass being
greater than the average biomass giving the Maximum Sustainable Yield
(i.e. B~MSY~). Sustainability advantages are expected from maintaining a
high stock size because most of the ecological and fishery properties
that are of interest and concern to sustainable fisheries relate to
biomass. These include stock productivity, risk of serious or
irreversible harm to recruitment and genetic integrity, stock resilience
to natural and anthropogenic impacts, recovery time from overfishing,
role in ecosystem functions (e.g. food webs), and robustness to
uncertainty in fishery assessment and management implementation.
Economic efficiency and profitability advantages are also usually
expected from maintaining higher stock size.

The minimum or limit stock size, usually the spawning stock size, should
be above the level at which recruitment overfishing or other
irreversible or slowly reversible change is thought likely (i.e.
B~lim~). This limit is commonly set at 20% of the initial or unfished
biomass (about 30% for low productivity stocks) or 50% of the biomass
giving on average the long-term Maximum Sustainable Yield (B~MSY~).
Another common practice is to set this limit so that it represents the
state of the stock and fishery at some time in its history where
depletion had occurred but had not caused recruitment overfishing. In
some management contexts, especially ICES, a precautionary limit is used
(i.e. B~pa~) that is intended to trigger management measures to stop
further reduction and rebuild the stock. This precautionary limit is
B~lim~ plus a 'safety margin' that is based on the precision of the
estimation of stock size; in application B~pa~ is about 1.4 B~lim~.

In some situations there is sufficient information available to estimate
the level of fishing mortality and/or stock size periodically, to check
the status against the relevant targets and limits, and to trigger an
appropriate management response to maintain a desired status or correct
an undesirable one. This is the approach taken to many of the larger and
more valuable fisheries. But there are very many instances in both
developed and developing county fisheries where the information
necessary to do this is not available and/or could not be provided at a
cost commensurate with the scale of the fishery. Two approaches have
been developed and applied to achieve the outcomes specified by the
fishing mortality and stock size reference points in situations where
these quantities are not specifically measured or estimated.

(i) empirical or proxy indicators and reference points

> Empirical indicators are directly measurable aspects of the fishery
> (e.g. catch per unit effort or sex ratio, proportion mature, size
> distribution in the catch) in contrast to indicators such as fishing
> mortality that typically are not directly measurable and must be
> estimated through a population or other mathematical model. Particular
> values of the empirical indicators can be used to define empirical
> target or limit reference points and to trigger management
> interventions. A very simple and common application of this is to use
> catch as a proxy indicator and to fix a catch limit (i.e. an empirical
> target) at a level that has proved to be sustainable for a long period
> in the past. This can be successful. But it does not allow for change
> or variability in the stock abundance, and there must be high
> confidence that the chosen catch level is sustainable in all likely
> circumstances in the fishery (e.g. recruitment variability); constant
> catch strategies lead to rapid collapse if the catch is above the
> sustainable level. Use of several other empirical proxy indicators and
> reference points can address these problems. For example Starr *et
> al.* (1997) used catch rate and Tuck *et al.* (2001) used a
> combination of catch rate and tag return rate in lobster and toothfish
> fisheries respectively, while Scandol (2003) used catch rate combined
> with samples of length and age to develop reference points and
> management triggers for a wide variety of small-scale and mixed-gear
> coastal fisheries. Davies *et al.* (2007) provide a very good example
> of the use of empirical indicators and reference points in the
> management of a swordfish population, including the decision rules
> that link changes in the permitted catch to changes in the catch rate
> and weight composition of the catch. They use simulation testing to
> show that these decision rules based on empirical reference points
> meet the requirements the fishing mortality and stock size reference
> points listed above. This was despite earlier attempts using similar
> empirical indicators with different decision rules that gave poor
> performance (Punt *et al.* 2001), illustrating that it is the
> combination of rule and indicator that is important and not just the
> indicator. Downing *et al.* (2007) provide catch decision rules based
> solely or largely on empirical indicators for several small-scale and
> data deficient fisheries to meet the requirements the fishing
> mortality and stock size reference points listed above. And Sadovy *et
> al.* (2007) provide a good example of the use of spatial surveys to
> assess and set quotas for a small scale fishery in Indonesia to
> achieve fishing mortality outcomes without directly estimating fishing
> mortality. Also comparisons between sites with different levels of
> fishing pressure, including reference site without fishing, have been
> used or proposed as empirical reference points for fisheries
> management (e.g. Munro, 1979 for an early and effective example of
> using contrasting sites, Kaufman *et al.* 2004, Floeter *et al.*
> 2005). And several of the criteria for recognition of endangered
> species through CITES (Appendix 5) and national legislation use
> empirical proxies for population status.
>
> The simplicity of empirical proxy indicators and reference points
> makes them very attractive. But they can be difficult to uniquely
> interpret because there may be several different causes of change in
> the proxy indicator -- for example catch rate can change because of
> fishery targeting, gear efficiency and changed spatial distribution of
> the fish in addition to stock size. So a key requirement in the use of
> empirical proxy reference points and linked fishery management
> decision rules is transparent demonstration that there is a high
> chance that they will deliver the required management outcomes,
> despite uncertainty in interpreting the empirical indicators.
> Experience to date with these empirical proxies suggests that the way
> they are used in the management decision making is often critical to
> their performance -- that is the decision rules that are linked to the
> empirical reference points.

(ii) risk based methods

> Risk assessment and risk management is a very well developed formal
> methodology in many fields involving management of uncertainty, but
> most applications in fisheries (see Sumner *et al.* 2004) focus on
> relatively restricted sources of risk and pathways to impact. Hobday
> *et al.* (2004) and Smith *et al*. (2007) provide a series of
> indicators and reference points for use in fisheries ecological risk
> assessment. The qualitative and semi-quantitative levels of this risk
> assessment methodology do not require estimation of total catch, stock
> abundance or fishing mortality because they are based on the general
> characteristics of the species, the ecosystem and the fishing
> operations. The risk categorizations (e.g. low, medium, high) are
> intended to be equivalent across the qualitative, semi-quantitative
> and quantitative risk methodologies. Consequently the criteria
> defining each category contain implicit precautionary allowance for
> the increased uncertainty when assessment is based on generalisation
> or analogy from other situations rather than on observations from the
> assessed fishery. The qualitative and semi-quantitative levels of
> ecological risk assessment have been applied to all federally managed
> fisheries in Australia, including retained species and bycatch species
> and in many situations where there are no data on the fishery catch
> (AFMA 2007). The fishery management response to the ecological risk
> assessment focuses on using the most appropriate combination available
> measures to eliminate high risk situations, and the risk assessment
> categories are not linked to pre-defined decision rules.

### Ecosystem considerations

Focused recognition and management of the ecosystem impacts of fishing
is more recent in fisheries management than for retained species, and
the appropriate indicators and benchmarks for sustainable performance is
still under active development. Rapid change is to be expected in the
understanding and consensus about what comprises sustainable performance
in relation to ecosystem considerations. But currently the key
operational requirements are:

The bycatch of unwanted and subsequently discarded species should be
avoided as far as is feasible and there are measures to prevent
unmanaged targeting of bycatch species.

The main bycatch species should be within the biological limits, beyond
which they are likely to suffer irreversible or slowly reversible
impacts, or if they are beyond these limits there should be management
measures taken that will protect and recover the populations to above
the limits. These limits in principle are the same limits as for target
species, because the limits are biologically based rather than resulting
from human use of the catch. However the limited information available
for many bycatch species will result in the frequent use of proxies or
risk-based methods to select, monitor and assess limits and performance
measures.

The fishery should not cause species to be at high risk of extinction,
with the criteria for this risk being the CITES criteria reproduced in
Appendix 5 and relevant national legislation (i.e. reduction below 5-20%
of the unfished population size, with 10-15% being the range for fish
species of medium productivity). If the fishery interacts with a species
that is recognised as being at risk of extinction then to the extent
that the fishery contributes to that risk there should be fishery
management measures taken to allow recovery of the population, and
subsequent maintenance of the population, at levels that do not pose a
high risk of extinction. Catch limits are commonly used to limit the
impacts of the fishery on species at risk of extinction. The Potential
Biological Removal (PBR) and similar methods (Wade 1998, Maunder *et
al.* 2000, Fletcher 2004) can be used to determine the maximum catch
that will still allow recovery and maintenance of species at risk of
extinction, recognising that this is a maximum and that the desirable or
acceptable catch level in a particular circumstance may be lower.

If the target or bycatch species is a key prey or forage species in the
ecosystem then the fishery should ensure that the requirements of
dependent predator species are take into account so as to avoid
excessive depletion of these dependent predator species. In particular
the target and/or limit reference points should be altered so that the
excessive depletion of dependent predator species is avoided, with
excessive depletion being indicated by the limit reference points that
would be applied to that species if it were a target species or by the
criteria for listing as threatened or endangered. In some cases, such as
when the dependent predators are fishery targets or socially important
species, it may be appropriate to avoid or prevent the fishery from
targeting key prey species.

Impacts on seabed habitats that have very long recovery times should be
avoided, and more generally the impacts should be minimal on habitats
that are particularly important to key ecological processes and/or the
life history requirements of managed species (including target species,
major forage species, major bycatch species and species recognised as
threatened with extinction). The detailed national requirements in
relation to habitat impacts vary widely -- from no requirements, through
various forms of requirement for information and understanding of
impacts and the setting of precautionary limits of impact, to requiring
no adverse impact and a management response similar to that for an
endangered species if an adverse impact on the quality or quantity of
essential fish habitat is considered likely. There are no well
established operational limits established for the depletion of
habitats. However reduction of a habitat to below 20% of its unfished
extent would be expected to reduce habitat-forming species and dependent
species by a similar amount, even in the absence of fishery catch of the
dependent species, and so this appears to be one limit implied for
habitats from current practice for limit reference points. Similarly if
the habitat-forming species or dependent species had low productivity
the implied limit would be 30% to avoid overfishing of these species.

The risk-based methods described previously for the target or retained
species are particularly relevant for assessment of ecosystem effects.
The risks can be characterised by these methods on the basis of general
consideration of the ecosystem and the nature of the fishing operations,
augmented with appropriate quality assurance by the observations of
fishers, scientists and other interested parties. In particular these
methods can be used to relatively quickly identify low risk situations
that do not require further focused attention.

### Management System

The legal requirements for fishery management in the relevant
jurisdiction are applied.

The objectives should include achieving an optimum yield that does not
exceed the long-term Maximum Sustainable Yield (except in the specific
case of developing fisheries where the transient yield may exceed the
long-term sustainable yield, and in such cases there should be a plan
that ensures the successful transition from the transient to the
long-term regime).

The objectives should address the ecosystem effects of fishing (e.g.
avoid overfishing of bycatch species, minimise the catch of endangered
species and foster their recovery, maintain key ecosystem structure and
function such as food webs, habitats and biodiversity at genetic,
species and community levels).

There should be a program for monitoring and understanding the fishery
(including the target and retained species, the ecosystem effects of
fishing and the operation of the fishery) that is sufficient to meet the
management requirements of achieving a sustainable fishery. These
requirements can vary greatly with the form of monitoring, analysis and
decision making that is being used to manage the fishery. But they
invariably require at least monitoring of the implementation of previous
management decisions, the kind of fishing gear and number/intensity of
fishing operations, and the catch and bycatch at an appropriate level of
detail.

The program to monitor the operation of the fishery, including
implementation of previous management decisions, catch and bycatch,
should include quality assurance and quality control mechanisms.

There should be stock specific target and limit reference points, and
prior specification of the actions to be taken if limits are approached
or exceeded. The specification of actions are ideally in the form of
decision rules that relate the permitted fishing activity (e.g. catch,
effort, area) to the status of the fishery in relation to the reference
points. This includes specification of the actions to recover stocks
that are below limit reference points (i.e. are overfished).

The management regime that is applied should have a demonstrably high
chance of achieving the objectives of management the context of any
uncertainties, biases or ineffectiveness in monitoring, analysis and
management of the fishery. This applies to the objectives for retained
species, bycatch species, endangered species and the ecosystem more
generally (e.g. managing impacts on habitats and key prey species). For
stock specific reference points, and fishing mortality and catch in
particular, performance is measured by achieving the target and avoiding
the limits reference points.

All sources of mortality should be accounted for in assessing the status
of the stocks and catch level, including catches from fisheries other
than the one being assessed and estimates of illegal, unregulated or
unreported catches.

There should be specific arrangements to ensure that new fisheries, and
new target species within existing fisheries, are developed within
precautionary catch limits. These limits should be highly likely to be
sustainable for the species targeted and fishing operations planned,
with scope to increase these limits as further information becomes
available.

## National and regional government based ecolabels

In the last about 10y several national or regional fisheries ecolabels
have been developed, or are being developed, through arrangements that
are government-linked and/or that rely on government assessments of the
fishery. Development of fisheries ecolabeling schemes have been
seriously considered or started in Africa, the Nordic countries,
Australia and Japan. The initiatives of the Nordic countries, Australia
and Japan have progressed to the stage of publicly available guidelines
about the performance required of the fisheries for certification. And
so far only the Australian ecolabel has certified a fishery against its
standard but there are apparently well developed plans for
implementation of the Japanese and Nordic ecolabels.

In the African region there has been a wide-ranging review of the
various forms of ecolabelling, the ecolabels already in use by African
countries, and the benefits and challenges of ecolabelling in the region
(UNEP 2007a). The review was generally positive about the experience to
date, the benefits of ecolabeling and the feasibility of an African
regional ecolabel with fisheries as one of the target industries for
application (UNEP 2007b). A detailed workplan for further development of
the regional ecolabel has been drafted (UNEP 2007c). The described
structure and processes for the proposed ecolabel appears to meet the
FAO (2005a) guidelines, although there are some aspects that are not
fully described (e.g. dispute resolution). There are currently no
operational performance requirements available for the prospective
fisheries ecolabel.

The European Union (EU) has operated the voluntary Flower ecolabel since
1992 (EU 2007). This ecolabel applies to non-food products and aims to
reduce the environmental impact of products through their entire
life-cycle. A review of the ecolabel in 2000 agreed to extend the
ecolabel to services, but reiterated that the ecolabel did not apply to
food (EU 2000). The ecolabelling criteria for included product types are
developed by a technical panel and approved by the European Union
Eco-labelling Board, made up of 'competent bodies' identified by the
member states and representative of interested parties (i.e. consumers,
environmental NGOs, industry and commerce). Although the EU ecolabeling
program does not currently include to fishery products the Nordic region
has a long history of ecolabelling through the Nordic Swan ecolabel
(Anon 2008), and in 1996 the Nordic Council of Ministers established a
process to develop ecolabelling criteria for sustainable fisheries (Anon
2000). The recommended criteria are given in Appendix 6. Some key points
in relation to the Minimum Substantive Requirements for fisheries
ecolabelling are:

-   The 'unit of certification' is a combination of the fishing
    operations and the mix of species caught, not the species throughout
    their range or all the fisheries of a jurisdiction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There must be a management plan, in the sense of an agreement
    between the management authority and the interested parties. In the
    context of third party certification this must be transparently
    available for review and verification.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management plan provides objectives, management rules, limit
    reference points, pre-agreed management measures that come into
    force immediately when a precautionary limit reference point is
    reached, and requires cessation of target fishing if a limit
    reference point is reached.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system must have efficient monitoring and control
    mechanisms.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The inherent logic of the management plan and arrangements, and
    empirical observation of long-term stability of a fishery at
    expected catch levels, can be used as evidence of sustainability.
    The larger the pressure from fishing the greater the proof that is
    required of sustainability, and so fishing at a level that is
    'clearly safe' or low risk requires little further proof.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are no destructive fishing practices such as use of explosives
    or poisons

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discards are minimised and monitored.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management plan should address scientifically established issues
    relating to endangered species, seabirds, marine mammals, and
    sensitive biota or habitats.

The Australian Federal Environment Department is required to assess all
fisheries exporting fish products, and all federal fisheries, to ensure
that they are sustainably managed before an export permit can be issued
(DEWHA 2008). The guidelines for ecologically sustainable fishery
management (DEWHA 2007) are summarised in Appendix 7, and the most
recent assessments using these guidelines of all relevant Australian
fisheries are available at DEWHA (2008). A fisheries ecolabel "Clean
Green" was developed by the Australian Southern Rock Lobster industry in
which this government assessment of sustainability forms the
sustainability requirements of the ecolabel. Additional requirements
must also be met in relation to conformity with fisheries regulations,
food quality and safety, work place safety and animal welfare (Anon
2008). Fishery assessments are conducted by a third party Assessment
Body but is not clear from the information available whether the
ecolabel meets all of the FAO (2005a) requirements, especially in
relation to dispute resolution. So far one fishery has been assessed and
can carry the ecolabel -- the Australian southern rock lobster -- but
the ecolabel is available to other fisheries.

In 2007 the Japan Fisheries Association (JFA) announced development of a
fisheries ecolabel "MEL" -- Marine Eco-label Japan (Anon 2007b). The JFA
is an incorporated association of fishing industry groups and interests.
The institutional arrangements and principals against which fisheries
will be assessed for the ecolabel are provided by JFA (2007, and a
translation kindly made available from the MEL Secretariat, see Appendix
8), and the detailed criteria for assessment are still under
development. The fishery assessments will be conducted by third party
Certification Bodies that are accredited by the JFA. The Certification
Bodies provide recommendations to MEL Japan who will provide successful
fisheries with a certification certificate through the Certification
Body. MEL Japan consists of an Auditing Committee, and expert Advisory
Body on technical issues and a Council. The 10 person Council is
initially composed of 4 people from the wholesale and retail sectors, 3
from government agencies (the Fisheries Research Agency, Japanese
Fishery Agency) 2 from industry associations (Japan Fisheries
Association and Japan Fisheries Cooperative Zengyoren), and 2 from
scientific organisations. An objection procedure has not yet been
developed.

While the detailed criteria for assessment have not yet been fully
developed, the current draft requirements are:

\(1\) Fisheries should be conducted under an effective management
scheme;

\(2\) The target resource should be maintained at the level giving
sustainable use; and

\(3\) Appropriate measures should be taken for the conservation of the
ecosystem

In developing the criteria it is intended that co-operative or
co-management arrangements (i.e. in which decision making is
substantially made by co-operatives of fishery participants and relevant
interested parties) are recognised in assessment of the management
system, and that the MEL will positively reinforce the work of these
management arrangements. To avoid duplication the certification
assessments will utilize to the maximum extent possible the work and
management measures that have already been undertaken within these
management arrangements.

## Non-government based ecolabels

There are four fisheries ecolabels in operation or under development
that are non-government based; the Marine Stewardship Council, the
Friend of the Sea, Naturland and the Marine Aquarium Council.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was established in 1997 as a joint
project between the then largest seafood buyer Unilever and the
international conservation organisation WWF. MSC has operated as an
independent organisation since 1999 (MSC 2008a). MSC sets the standard
for the ecolabel through its Board, supported by a Technical Advisory
Board. Fishery assessments are conducted by third party Certification
Bodies, which are in turn accredited by an Accreditation Body that is
independent of both MSC and the Certification Bodies. There is an
independent dispute resolution process. MSC appears to meet the FAO
(2005a) guidelines. In late 2007 there were 22 certified fisheries and
30 further fisheries under full assessment, over 1000 MSC-labelled
seafood products being sold in 34 countries, and over 7% of the world's
edible wild-capture fisheries involved in the program (MSC 2008a). The
fisheries certified include large and small scale fisheries.

The MSC principles and criteria (MSC 2008b) are given in Appendix 9. The
operational performance benchmarks or requirements used in the
interpretation of the MSC principles and criteria for the individual
fisheries assessed for MSC certification are provided at MSC (2008c).
The unit of certification is a combination of species and fishing
operations that are specified by the fishery seeking certification, and
so certification can be sought for just a subset of the species targeted
in a multi-species fishery. Principle 1 is applied only to the species
nominated for certification and emphasises maintenance of the productive
capacity of the species. Principle 2 is applied to all other species
impacted by the fishery and emphasises limiting harm and avoiding
limits. The MSC principles and criteria are generic and key points in
relation to Minimum Substantive Requirements are:

-   Fishing levels maintain high and ongoing productivity of fish stocks
    (including reproductive capacity) within safety margins for error
    and uncertainty.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Depleted stocks are recovered within a specified timeframe to be
    able to provide and maintain high and ongoing productivity.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fishing does not threaten biodiversity (including genetic and
    species biodiversity), habitats or associated, dependent and
    ecologically related species. Fishing maintains functional
    relationships and should not lead to regime changes in ecosystem
    state or food-webs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fishing avoids or minimises capture of non-target species, adverse
    impacts on habitats, and mortality or injuries to threatened,
    endangered or protected species.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system has clear objectives consistent with the above
    requirements of fishing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system is consultative to all interested parties,
    including fishing interests, and includes appropriate dispute
    resolution mechanisms.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system is appropriate to the context, scale and
    intensity of the fishery.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system includes a research and monitoring program
    appropriate to the scale of the fishery, to provide the information
    necessary for management. The status of the fishery is periodically
    assessed; management acts in a timely fashion to effectively control
    the fishery to achieve the objectives; and there are appropriate
    compliance, monitoring and enforcement measures to ensure that
    limits are not exceeded and any necessary management measures are
    taken.

The operational benchmarks that have been used for the interpretation of
the MSC principles and criteria are generally quite similar to those
described above for internationally and nationally managed fisheries. In
particular for certified species the following benchmarks are typical:
the target is long-term high yield and associated stock size; the limit
reference points are F~MSY~ for fishing mortality and 0.5 B~MSY~ or
0.15-0.30 B~unfished~ for stock size; and there are agreed management
measures to achieve targets and to recover stocks that approach or
exceed limits. In relation to the ecosystem impacts the fishery
monitors, avoids and manages by-catch within biological or precautionary
limits; monitors and minimises the catch of threatened, endangered and
protected species; modifies fishing or reference points to avoid
excessive depletion of key prey species and dependent predators; and
considers habitat impacts.

There are two current developments of the MSC standard and methodology
that are relevant to the consideration of Minimum Substantive
Requirements - the development of an explicit and default operational
interpretation of the principles and criteria, and the development and
application of methods and operational interpretations for small scale
and 'data deficient' fisheries.

(i) Default operational interpretation of the MSC principles and
    criteria

> Concern about variability, including varying complexity, among
> Certification Bodies in their operational interpretation of the
> principles and criteria led MSC to develop a default operational
> interpretation through a 'quality and consistency' project (MSC
> 2008d). While not yet complete the draft default interpretation
> provides for fewer indicators and benchmarks, the inclusion of risk
> based options for assessments, and greater focus on the fishery
> outcomes rather than particular ways to achieve them.

(ii) Methods for small scale and data deficient fisheries

> While both large and small scale fisheries have been assessed for MSC
> certification, so far all have been relatively data-rich in that there
> have been sufficient data available to allow evaluation using
> 'classical' scientific analysis and assessment methods. But there are
> fisheries in both developed and developing nations for which the data
> and other resources to conduct such analysis are not available. To
> promote greater access to the ecolabel MSC has developed a risk-based
> methodology to assess fisheries against the principles and criteria
> (MSC 2008e). This methodology provides an alternative way to assess a
> fishery against the MSC standard, and not a different standard. It
> uses a methodology similar to that applied to Australian federally
> managed fisheries (Hobday *et al.* 2004, AFMA 2007, Smith *et al.*
> 2007), modified for the MSC assessment methodology. The qualitative
> and semi-quantitative risk assessments are based on the general
> characteristics of the species and fishing operations, rather than
> estimations of fishing mortality, exploitation rate or stock size, and
> the risk categorisations include precaution for increased uncertainty.
> This risk-based methodology is currently in trial through pilot
> assessments by third party certification Bodies on the fisheries for
> mahi mahi in Ecuador and Peru, mullet in Samborombon Bay (Argentina),
> sole in Gambia, mullet in Banc d-Arguin (Mauritania), Cornish sardine
> in England. Also the Vietnamese Ben Tre clam fishery is under
> assessment using both the conventional and the risk-based assessment
> methodology. The methodology that is being trialled is available on
> request from MSC.

The Friend of the Sea (FotS 2008a, b) provides an ecolabel, the Friend
of the Sea Mark, for both capture fisheries and aquaculture. The Friend
of the Sea has a 2 person Board, an Advisory Board and a Technical
Committee that includes governmental, non-governmental, industry and
scientific expertise. Candidate fisheries are first assessed by the
Friend of the Sea and may then be submitted to a third party
Certification Body to asses the fishery against the Friend of the Sea
principles and criteria. The Certification Body issues the ecolabel
certificate. Objections are reviewed by an Objections Panel that
consists of a coordinating chair (independent of Friend of the Sea) and
at least 3 appointed experts, the Certification Body and the fishing
industry. The Objections Panel provides a report to the objector and
Friend of the Sea, including any action that the Friend of the Sea
should take. The Friend of the Sea does not appear to be fully compliant
with the FAO (2005a) guidelines in relation to the involvement of the
standard setting organisation in both decisions about fisheries
approvals and the conduct of the objections procedure. The fishery
assessments make extensive use of public information, such as RFMO,
government or FAO reports, to screen fisheries and fishing operations
for consistency with the Friend of the Sea requirements. This provides
for both rapid assessment of candidate fisheries and for *a priori*
lists of fisheries or fish products that are likely to meet the
requirements (FotS 2008a). However these reports and assessments relate
to stocks and fisheries that are variously defined for reporting
purposes, and are sometimes ill-defined. It is not clear how the unit of
certification relates to these varying definitions, especially when the
certified stock or fishery is a subset of the reported stock or fishery.
Friend of the Sea lists 54 capture fisheries that have been certified to
carry the Sea Mark ecolabel, with certified products sold in 23
countries. Many of the certified fisheries are small scale.

The criteria of the Friend of the Sea for certification of capture
fisheries are given in Appendix 10. This ecolabel has a list of
requirements that categorically exclude a fishery from certification if
they are not met, and assessment efficiency is gained because most of
the requirements can be relatively easily determined from widely
available reports or simple enquiries. Fisheries are categorically
excluded from certification if they:

-   Have target or by-catch species that are overfished, depleted or
    recovering (an exception is made for traditional fisheries if less
    than 10% of the catch is made up of such overfished stocks and the
    fishery otherwise provides an example of a well managed fishery)

-   Have as target or by-catch species that are on the IUCN Redlist.

-   Are data deficient in relation to determining the stock status of
    target and bycatch species.

-   Use gears that impact the seabed unless the impact can be shown to
    be negligible.

-   Have a discard level higher than the average worldwide level
    reported by FAO (currently 8% of total catch).

-   Do not respect catch limits if they are set by the management
    authority.

-   Include any illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing, or Flag of
    Convenience vessels.

And in addition Friend of the Sea recommended that the fishery
management system use a precautionary approach and incorporate
monitoring and research. These are recommendations rather than
requirements because the key outcomes are expected to be covered by the
other criteria. That is a fishery exerting a very low fishing mortality
may not need monitoring or research in its management, but a fishery
exerting a high mortality would be categorised as data deficient without
monitoring or research.

Naturland was formed in 1982 and provides an ecolabel for wide range of
organic agriculture, including aquaculture. It has a well developed
process of certification-accreditation. This includes third party
Certification Bodies, Accreditation Bodies and objections procedures,
with frequent ISO audits to ensure the accreditation-certification
systems meet international requirements. In 2006 Naturland extended its
scope to include sustainable inland and marine capture fisheries
(Naturland 2008) with the ecolabel Naturland Wildfish. Based on the
general processes of Naturlant the Naturland Wildfish ecolabel appears
to meet the FAO (2005a) guidelines. The Naturland Wildfish assessment
includes social and economic sustainability in addition to ecological
sustainability. There have been no fisheries certified under this
ecolabel yet, but currently the Lake Victoria fishery for Nile perch is
being assessed (UNEP 2007b). It is anticipated that this first
assessment will result in further definition and refinement of the
Naturland Wildfish criteria and methodology.

The Naturland Wildfish ecological criteria for a sustainable capture
fishery are given in Appendix 11. Points of particular relevance to the
Minimum Substantive Requirements for fisheries ecolabelling are:

-   The fishery must maintain the long-term integrity of the economic
    species and the other components of the ecosystem.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All sources of impact and capture are accounted for in the
    assessment of fishery status.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The fishery does not catch marine mammals or turtles, catch sharks
    only for their fins, use poisons or explosives, damage to coral
    reefs (cold water and tropical), use trawl methods on highly
    structured sea-bed habitats, or used trawls without excluder devices
    to minimise bycatch.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The fishery management system controls (directly or indirectly) the
    minimum size of fish caught, the total catch, the fishing gear and
    techniques, closed seasons and sanctuaries, and avoidance or
    mitigation of bycatch.

The Marine Aquarium Council was established in 1998, and had adopted a
standard and certification process by 2001, to certify the wild capture
and subsequent treatment of fish for the ornamental aquarium trade (MAC
2008). In 2004 a standard for live fish for human consumption was
developed, because many of the operators and communities involved with
the aquarium trade are also involved in the trade of live fish for
consumption. However it was not formally adopted by the MAC and no
fisheries for this trade have been certified. The Marine Aquarium
Council has a Board of Directors representing global stakeholders, more
than half of which must be from conservation or public interest groups.
Ongoing development of the standard and processes are recommended to the
Board, after multi-stakeholder consultation, by a Standards Committee.
The Marine Aquarium Council accredits third party Certification Bodies
to assess the collection and supply chain for compliance with the
standard. The Marine Aquarium Council does not appear to be fully
compliant with the FAO (2005a) guidelines, but is currently revising the
certification standards, procedures and complaint resolution mechanisms
to meet ISEAL (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and
Labelling Alliance) requirements and this would be expected to also meet
FAO requirements. The revision is expected to further refine the
approach taken to the management system, so as to better deal with
situations where there is little or no management by government and to
encourage development of new management arrangements. Certification
applies to collectors and locations, and there are a large number of
entities certified, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Many of the
certified fisheries are small scale.

The Marine Aquarium Council principles and criteria for fishery
assessment are given in Appendix 12. Despite the very different scale of
fishing for the aquarium trade, the dominance of fisheries in developing
nations, and the highly multi-species nature of these fisheries, the
principles and criteria are very similar to those used for fisheries for
consumption. Points of particular relevance to the Minimum Substantive
Requirements for fisheries ecolabelling are:

-   Exploitation is at rates that maintains productivity and sustainable
    use of the target species over the long-term.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fishing is conducted in a manner that ensures sustainability of
    dependent and associated species, and maintains genetic, species and
    ecosystem biodiversity. It specifically maintains the potential of
    the ecosystem to meet the needs of present and future generations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Destructive fishing methods (e.g. poisons and explosives, dredging
    and methods causing physical damage to habitats) are not used.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is a written management plan that details the objectives of
    management for the target species and the ecosystem more broadly,
    the decision making process, agreed measures for management of the
    fishery (e.g. general and specific measures, precautionary measures,
    contingency plans, issues of particular concern and the actions to
    address them), and arrangements for monitoring, control,
    surveillance and enforcement.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management plan is periodically reviewed for effectiveness, and
    changes are made to address changed circumstances and audit results
    (e.g. correction of measures in the plan that are not achieving the
    intended outcomes).

## Non-government seafood guides for consumers and business-to-business procurement

These are not formally third party ecolabels, in that they are not based
on a formal certification procedure and they commonly identify fisheries
with poor practice as well as those with good practice. The IUCN Red
List (IUCN 2007) is used by several of these guides to identify fishery
species that are recommended to be avoided. These guides and claims are
mostly ISO Type II or Type III ecolabels (ISO 1999b, 2000 and FAO 2001)
that provide self declared claims or product descriptions against
pre-set indices respectively, but some also use the results of third
party assessments. In any event they are a major and rapidly growing
element in the public perception of sustainable fisheries and they can
include consumer-facing product labels. There are a very large number of
such schemes in operation. They range from seafood guides designed for
use by consumers in retail outlets and restaurants, through sourcing
guarantees that are provided by processor or retail companies and that
may include a product label, to 'business to business' guides on the
sustainability of seafood products from different procurement sources
(Table 1). Increasingly sophisticated methods are used for delivery of
the guides to the consumer; many individual NGOs provide cards or
websites that give their recommendations, several groups provide
consolidation of these recommendations or 'guides to the guides' on
integrated websites, and with the advent of web-enabled mobile phones
the information is increasingly available and convenient to consumers at
the point of purchase.

These seafood guides are considered here because they (i) are
increasingly widespread and available to the consumer and public, (ii)
provide one source of information on the issues and expectations for
sustainable fisheries and (iii) are being increasingly used by seafood
businesses, particularly retail outlets, for procurement, advertising,
public relations and corporate social responsibility. An exhaustive
review of these schemes is not provided here. Rather, for the purposes
of informing the Minimum Substantive Requirements, some examples are
provided of the criteria used by schemes that are widespread and have
well developed, publicly available, and operational criteria for their
fishery assessments.

Appendix 13 gives the scoring criteria for the Blue Ocean Institute
seafood guide, Appendix 14 gives the scoring criteria for the Monterey
Bay Aquarium seafood guide and appendix 15 gives the criteria for the
FishSource business to business product sustainability guide. Points of
particular relevance to the Minimum Substantive Requirements of fishery
ecolabelling from these and other NGO or business seafood guides are:

-   There is significant use made of proxy measures and indicators for
    sustainability, vulnerability and productivity/resilience, as well
    as more direct measures of fishing mortality and stock size. Many of
    the proxy measures are the same or similar to those used in
    risk-based approaches to ecological impact assessment and are
    informed by the general characteristics of the species, ecosystems
    and fishery operations. Also by trends in directly measures
    empirical indicators (e.g. catch rate, size composition, age
    composition).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A definition of limits (i.e. limit reference points) is either used
    by the seafood guide or required to be provided by the fishery
    management system. Limits are usually required for fishing
    mortality, above which overfishing is occurring, and stock size,
    below which the stock is overfished. A required minimum stock size
    is very common, with this often being 0.5B~MSY~. And a common limit
    for fishing mortality is F~MSY~.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A distinction is recognised between overfishing (i.e. fishing that
    will lead to the stock being overfished) and the stock being already
    overfished. Overfishing is regarded as undesirable and reflecting
    future prospects. Overfished stocks are usually regarded as an
    unacceptable failure.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In data deficient situations the fishery is scored neutrally by some
    systems (i.e. this contributes in neither positively or negatively
    to the score) and negatively by others. The vast majority of guides
    emphasis the need for precautionary where understanding is low, and
    score relevant measures highly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Bycatch and discards are given high prominence. Bycatch of
    threatened, endangered or protected species is required to be zero
    or low and occasional to achieve high scores. Mitigation plans and
    measures are required in situations where capture of such species is
    an issue.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Most score general bycatch on the basis of the weight or number of
    bycatch in relation to the retained catch. High scores require no or
    low bycatch rates, with 10% being the benchmark for a high score in
    several systems. About 100% bycatch gives medium scores in several
    systems. Mitigation plans and measures are strongly supported.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Habitat impacts are given high prominence. It is usually scored by
    some combination of intensity of impact and spatial extent of the
    impact. Large scale bottom trawling on hard bottom and biogenic
    habitats is usually scored low, alongside the use of explosives and
    poisons. Research and monitoring to allow habitat impacts to be
    understood is usually explicitly recognised with higher scores.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Foodweb considerations are mostly in relation to the effects on
    dependent predators, and key prey species (e.g. 'baitfish') are
    often required to be considered explicitly with high scores
    requiring their management so as not to deplete dependent predators.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Elements required of the management system to achieve high scores
    are commonly that there is a management plan that considers and
    establishes sustainability goals for both the target species and the
    ecosystem impacts; there is a plan with agreed actions to maintain
    sustainable fishing and to recovery overfished stocks; there is
    monitoring of the target species, bycatch and fishery operations;
    there are monitoring and research plans that are sufficient and
    appropriate for management of the fishery within sustainable limits;
    there is no or minimal illegal, unregulated or unreported fishing;
    all sources of mortality are estimated and accounted for in
    determining fishery status; there are plans and mitigation measures
    (if required) in relation to bycatch minimisation; that management
    is effectively implemented; and that the fishery is operating
    according to the relevant laws.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The management system is commonly evaluated for its past history of
    following scientific advice about sustainable catch levels and of
    successfully implementing the chosen management measures (especially
    catch or other limitations on fishing).

# Enhanced fisheries

One of the main differences in emphasis between the FAO ecolabelling
guidelines on Minimum Substantive Requirements provided for marine
capture fisheries (FAO 2005a and Appendix 2) and proposed for inland
capture fisheries (FAO 2006 and Appendix 3) is the greater recognition
and inclusion of enhanced fisheries in the latter. Enhanced fisheries
are supported by activities that aim to supplement recruitment or
increase production beyond the level that is available and/or
sustainable by natural processes. Enhancement (FAO 1998, 1999, Lorenzen
*et al.* 2001) can include one or more of:

-   the use of species that are not natural or native in the area (e.g.
    intentional or accidental introductions);

-   strains or races of a species that are not natural or native in the
    area (e.g. selective breeding of new strains from naturally
    occurring strains in the area or intentional or accidental
    translocations of strains from other areas within the natural range
    of a species);

-   rearing and release of young individuals into the wild for later
    capture (e.g. ranching and 'culture based' fisheries);

-   capture from the wild and artificial feeding (e.g. caging or
    grow-out);

-   creation of artificial habitat (e.g. spawning habitat or sites, rope
    culture of shellfish, artificial reefs);

-   control of competing, predating or 'weed' species in the fished
    system;

-   fertilization to increase production (e.g. addition of nitrogen and
    phosphorous to ponds and lakes through inorganic fertilisers or
    organic waste).

Enhancement is very widespread in inland fisheries, where introductions,
fertilization and culture based fisheries are both common (e.g. FAO
1990, 1998, 1995b) and responsible for about 20% of the capture fishery
catches (Lorenzen *et al.* 2001). But enhancement is also rapidly
expanding in marine fisheries, especially through the use of ranching
and caging of fish and the provision of habitat for invertebrates (FAO
2003b, 2004). In marine fisheries habitat traps (e.g. casitas for
lobsters, Arce *et al.* 1997) and Fish Attracting Devices (FADs) for
pelagic fish are usually regarded as changing the catchability in a
fishery rather than productivity, but under some circumstances they can
change the level of recruitment or population productivity. Ocean
fertilisation with micronutrients (e.g. iron) is a form of fishery
enhancement if one of the intended outcomes is increased fishery
production (e.g. Markels 1994, Coale *et al.* 1996, Boyd *et al.* 2000).

There are three aspects of enhancement of particular relevance to the
consideration of Minimum Substantive Requirements for the ecolabelling
of capture fisheries and their products.

(i) The boundary between capture fisheries and aquaculture

> The increasing use of enhancement results in a continuum between
> un-enhanced 'wild' capture fisheries (i.e. wild capture of fish with
> the natural genome and no intentional augmentation of reproduction,
> recruitment, habitats, food, carrying capacity or life history
> parameters) and 'pure' aquaculture (i.e. closed life cycle,
> artificially selected genetic strains, fully supplied food,
> artificially provided and contained habitat, husbandry practices for
> reproduction and disease, owned fish). At the two extremes different
> issues and criteria are relevant to evaluation for ecolabelling, and
> recognising this the organisations that offer both capture fishery and
> aquaculture ecolabels use different criteria for the two certification
> assessments (e.g. Monterey Bay Aquarium, WWF and Friend of the Sea;
> see Table 1). But without clarity about the scope and performance
> requirements of both the capture fishery and aquaculture ecolabels
> there is potential for confusion among consumers and inequity among
> producers in the 'middle ground' between wild fisheries and pure
> aquaculture. This would arise if there was not a clear and consistent
> dividing point between the scope of fisheries and aquaculture
> ecolabels, and if in any area of overlap between them the same or
> similar enhancement practices were treated differently. A capture
> fisheries ecolabel would need to treat the same practices equally in
> both marine and inland capture fisheries. Among present ecolabels
> there is not a clear and consistent dividing point between capture
> fisheries and aquaculture. For organisations offering both capture and
> aquaculture ecolabels it is not clear what kinds or intensities of
> enhancement practice would be assessed under the capture fishery or
> aquaculture criteria, and consequently whether the same practice would
> be assessed consistently across fisheries either within a single
> ecolabelling scheme or (particularly) between ecolabelling schemes.
> And similarly for organisations that offer only capture fishery or
> aquaculture ecolabels it is not clear what enhancement practices are
> 'in scope' for the ecolabel, and so it is not clear that the same
> enhancement practices will be treated equally in different
> ecolabelling schemes that purport to be addressing the same kind of
> fishery product (i.e. either aquaculture or capture fishery product).
>
> The FAO Code of Conduct (FAO 1995a) culture-based fisheries are
> considered an element of aquaculture, and from that it would follow
> that culture-based fisheries would be appropriately assessed under the
> criteria for aquaculture ecolabels. But in the proposed guidelines for
> ecolabelling of inland fisheries (FAO 2006) culture-based fisheries
> are treated as capture fisheries in which management of the supporting
> aquaculture production/rearing system is required to be linked to the
> fishery management system but is not a part of the capture fishery for
> ecolabelling assessment purposes (FAO 2006 and Appendix 3 paras 21c
> and 29.7). This is one approach to separating the aquaculture and
> capture activities. But if the production system is not assessed as a
> part of the capture fishery certification then that certification can
> provide no assurance about the sustainability of the production system
> and ultimately the sustainability of the dependent capture fishery.
>
> To avoid market confusion and the potential for the same practice to
> be treated differently it is necessary to clearly identify the scope
> of capture fishery certification and to differentiate it from
> aquaculture or other certifications (e.g. if there was a separate
> certification system for enhanced fisheries). In the present context
> this specifically requires clarity about the enhancements that are
> within scope for a capture fishery ecolabel and consistent application
> of these across both marine and inland capture fisheries.

(ii) The inherent difference in environmental intent between capture
     fisheries and some enhanced fisheries

> Unenhanced 'wild' capture fisheries are controlled hunting. The space
> within which fishing occurs is not usually owned privately. Modern
> fishery management practice is based on maintaining harvested
> populations at levels that are both naturally productive and within
> ecological limits of reversibility, with impacts on non-target species
> and the ecosystem being minimised or managed so as to maintain
> productivity, biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Fishing impacts
> beyond the target species are incidental and not the intention of
> fishing. Aquaculture is farming and has a quite different intent with
> respect to modification and use of the environment. The intention is
> to use the most appropriate species and strains of species that are
> available, and to create and maintain a situation, habitat or
> environment in which those species will flourish. Alteration of the
> genome of the species and conversion of natural habitats and
> environments to controlled ones is usually both intended and accepted.
> While there is a gradation and continuum in the kinds and scale of
> fishery enhancements, most enhancements are based on intentions and
> methods that are more similar to aquaculture than they are to wild
> capture fisheries.
>
> Both fisheries and aquaculture can deliver large human benefits and be
> sustainable. But the practices, issues and criteria for
> sustainability, and hence ecolabelling, are different. This is
> especially so in the treatment of species introductions or
> translocations, modification of the habitat and maintenance of
> biodiversity at genetic, species and community levels. If the
> objectives of modern fishery management in relation to ecosystem
> impacts are maintained (i.e. UNCLOS UNFSA, Code of Conduct and the
> Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine
> Ecosystem) then it would be expected that relatively few of the
> features of aquaculture could be accommodated in the performance
> requirements of a capture fishery ecolabel. And this limits the extent
> to which enhanced fisheries can be accommodated in a capture fishery
> ecolabel.
>
> From this the practices and criteria for fishery enhancements to meet
> the requirements of modern fisheries management and a capture
> fisheries ecolabel include:

-   The capture activities of the enhanced fishery meet all the
    requirements of capture fisheries in general.

-   Ranching and culture-based fisheries use the natural or native
    genome in the area. The impact of increased populations of the
    released species meet the same requirements as an un-enhanced
    fishery in relation to the effects on dependent and associated
    species, species threatened with extinction, habitats and trophic
    interactions, and biodiversity at the genetic, species and community
    levels.

-   Caging is assessed and labelled at the point of capture from the
    wild. Subsequent grow-out is treated as aquaculture and not within
    the scope of a capture fisheries ecolabel.

-   Habitat conversion is limited and/or local. The impacts on habitats
    meet the same requirements as an un-enhanced fishery in relation to
    the effects on dependent and associated species, species threatened
    with extinction, habitats and trophic interactions, and biodiversity
    at the genetic, species and community levels. Assessment is in
    relation to the full extent of the habitat type in the relevant
    ecosystem.

(iii) Intentional introductions of species or genetic strains

> Intentional species introductions are made for a variety of reasons,
> including restoration of degraded ecosystems and replacement of
> globally or locally extinct species, but the majority of freshwater
> species introductions have been made for aquaculture or fishery
> purposes (e.g. FAO 1988). Strictly the intentional introduction,
> translocation or genetic alteration (e.g. artificially selective
> breeding or genetically modified organisms) of species for the
> purposes of fishery enhancement is not consistent with the
> requirements of fisheries management and a capture fisheries ecolabel.
> The FAO (1996) guidelines on the precautionary approach in relation to
> species introductions reports that "Because of the high probability
> that impacts of species introduction \[and transfers are\]
> irreversible and unpredictable, many species introductions are not
> precautionary. Therefore, a strictly precautionary approach would not
> permit deliberate introductions and would take strong measures to
> prevent unintentional introductions." Serious concern about the
> introduction of alien species, and the desirability of avoiding
> introductions, is also expressed in the guidelines on the ecosystem
> approach to fisheries (FAO 2003a) and by the UN General Assembly (e.g.
> UNGA 2006).
>
> The FAO (1996) guidelines on the precautionary approach recognise the
> considerable benefits that can be achieved by some introductions. In
> relation to intentional introductions for fishery or aquaculture
> purposes the FAO (1996) guidelines on the precautionary approach
> recognise that "experience has shown that animals will usually escape
> \[so\] introductions \... for aquaculture should be considered as a
> purposeful introduction into the wild" and that "the difficulty in
> reversing an introduction and its adverse effects should figure
> prominently in the decision process on whether to allow an
> introduction". FAO (1996) recommends that a formal protocol be applied
> to the introduction decision, the introduction process, and the
> subsequent monitoring and management. FAO (1996) recommends and
> reproduces the ICES (1994) Code of Practice on the Introduction and
> Transfer of Marine Organisms, which built upon the EIFAC, 1988, Codes
> of Practice and Manual. The FAO Committee on Aquaculture is currently
> developing a revised code and guidance for evaluation and management
> of intentional introductions, with increased focus on the nature of
> the risk assessment to be performed and the possible use of zoning
> (FAO 2005b).
>
> The proposed Minimum Substantive Requirements for ecolabelling of
> capture fisheries from inland fisheries (FAO 2006 and Appendix 3)
> allows for ecolabelling of introduced or translocated stocks that have
> been introduced historically and that have subsequently become
> established as part of the 'natural' ecosystem and/or have been
> introduced in accordance with international guidelines (paras 30a,b).
>
> Because introduction of species or genetic strains is frequently
> irreversible, and the consequences are highly uncertain and poorly
> predictable, it is not desirable at present to include new intentional
> introductions for fishery purposes in the Minimum Substantive
> Requirements of a capture fishery ecolabel. This could be
> re-considered after further development of guidelines for the
> evaluation and management of intentional introductions, which is
> under-way through the FAO Committee on Aquaculture. The current
> guidelines for risk assessment and the decision criteria for
> intentional introductions are relatively poorly developed, and there
> is a need for greater operational clarity in this critical process so
> as to adequately apply the precautionary approach and avoid
> inappropriate incentives for introductions. Also the elaborate
> requirements for capture fisheries to avoid, manage and recover even
> incidental (i.e. unintended) impacts on species, habitats and
> biodiversity that are irreversible or slowly reversible are somewhat
> incongruous with the acceptance of intentional species introductions
> within the same capture fishery ecolabel -- the level of risk and
> required management are not consistent. So it is suggested that at
> this time:

-   Capture fishery ecolabels should be restricted to introduced species
    or genetic strains that have been introduced historically and that
    have subsequently become established as part of the 'natural'
    ecosystem.

-   New and comprehensive methods and guidelines should be developed for
    risk assessment and decision criteria, consistent with the
    requirements of modern fisheries management for un-enhanced capture
    fisheries, for the acceptable introduction of species for the
    purposes of a capture fishery.

# Small scale and developing State fisheries

Small scale fisheries are very common in both developed and developing
countries. The primary difficulty in relation to ecolabelling is also
the primary difficulty with their management more generally - that the
cost of meeting the requirements for management (i.e. monitoring,
assessment, decision making and implementation of management measures)
can be out of proportion to the value of the fishery. This is
particularly true if management is required to provide high levels of
detailed and formal scientific proof to justify stock status and
management actions.

For developing State fisheries the challenges are sometimes more
profound, and much has been written about these challenges (e.g. SEAFDEC
1999, 2001 and 2006, FAO 1998 and 2001a, Gardner and Viswanathan 2004,
Jacquet and Pauly 2007 and contained references). The fisheries are
often very multi-species, with overlapping multiple gears and multiple
landing sites. They often contain a mixture of subsistence and various
forms of commercial fishing, with a wide range of catch distribution
pathways and a wide range of motivations/incentives on fishers and
distributors. For example catch distribution from a fishery or fishing
community can simultaneously deliver into local cooperative or barter
supply, local markets and animal feeds, regional and national markets,
and export markets (including in some cases markets requiring
sophisticated transport and organisation such as the live fish trade).
The fisheries range from small scale to very large scale in terms of the
total fishing capacity and fishing mortality exerted. Compounding this
ecological and management complexity there is sometimes also a lack of
human and material capacity to address monitoring, assessment and
management (including compliance) of fisheries.

While there are particular challenges in ensuring that sustainable
fisheries that are small scale and/or are located in developing states
have full access to ecolabelling schemes, there are good indications
that this is achievable and indeed is being achieved in some fisheries.
In particular:

-   Although there are relatively few fishery ecolabels currently in
    operation there are already many examples of certified fisheries
    from developing states. The Marine Stewardship Council has certified
    fisheries in Mexico and Argentina, and has assessments underway in
    Ecuador, Peru, Gambia, Mauritania and Vietnam. There are 8 MSC
    certified fisheries that could be regarded as small scale. The
    Friend of the Sea has certified capture fishery products from
    Senegal, Morocco, Mauritius and the Azore Is, and at least 10
    fisheries that could be regarded as small scale. The Marine Aquarium
    Council has numerous certified fisheries in Fiji, Indonesia and the
    Philippines, and all are small scale.

-   There is good international consensus on the general requirements of
    sustainable fisheries and there is a great deal of convergence in
    the operational interpretation of these requirements through good
    practice in international management, national management and
    various fishery ecolabelling schemes (see Section 5). These are
    generic requirements that can be implemented through the use of
    proxies, empirical indicators (with related reference points and
    triggered management responses) and risk-based methods so that the
    need for comprehensive data and modelling analysis is reduced. The
    methods to develop, test and apply proxies, empirical indicators and
    risk-based assessments are available and have been applied in both
    small scale and developing state fisheries. Specifically, they allow
    transparent demonstration of fishery performance in circumstances
    where formal (statistical) estimation of stock condition is not
    possible. And local knowledge, provided it can be verified, can be
    used in these assessments.

-   Assessment for ecolabelling is focused on the outcomes -- that is a
    sustainable fishery and a management system capable of maintaining
    sustainable use -- and is not prescriptive about the type of
    management system used. Provided the case can be made for
    effectiveness the management system could use traditional community
    management, various forms of co-management between industry, the
    community and government, or government management. And the scale of
    the management system required is appropriate to the scale and
    impacts of the fishery, with existing ecolabelled fisheries already
    ranging from local management (e.g. reef-scale in the aquarium
    trade) through to national and regional management.

While there are practical examples demonstrating that ecolabelling can
be used in small-scale fisheries and developing state contexts, it must
also be recognised that key enabling methodologies (especially use
empirical indicators, risk-based methods and related decision rules,
assessment and verification of local knowledge, assessment of
traditional management systems) are still relatively poorly developed.
And the capacity to implement these approaches is limited in many
circumstances.

Accelerated improvement in this situation could be achieved through
focused support and capacity building. This is a well established
obligation in international fishery agreements, including UNCLOS
(especially Articles 144, 202 and 203), UNFSA (especially Articles 24,
25 and 26) and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (especially
Article 5). In the context of ecolabelling there are several topics that
would benefit from focused investment and development:

-   Further development of methods to assess sustainable use of fishery
    resources and related marine ecosystems using proxies, empirical
    indicators and risk-based methods. And specifically to develop these
    methods for the kinds of empirical indicators that could be measured
    for small scale fisheries and in developing countries.

-   Further development of management decision rules that can be
    triggered by empirical indicators and reference points. These
    methods should be shown to be capable of providing reliable
    assessment and management guidance when used in conjunction with
    appropriate management responses, so as to achieve the same outcomes
    as the fishing mortality and stock size requirements even if fishing
    mortality and stock size is not directly measured or estimated.

-   Further development of performance measures for the management
    system that are appropriate for a wide range of management
    approaches, including various types of cooperative management.

-   Development of protocols and methods for cost-effective monitoring
    and surveillance of small scale and developing state fisheries,
    including the use and verification of local knowledge and
    observations in assessing the status and trends in the stock and
    fishery.

-   Specific funding to support ecolabel certification in developing
    States, especially improvements to fisheries practices, fishery
    management systems and appropriate fishery documentation.

# Summary comments on ecological requirements and assessment methods

There is remarkably good agreement across international management,
national management and existing ecolabels about the issues that should
be addressed for a capture fishery to be regarded as well managed in
relation to the sustainable use of fishery resources. These are the
target species, bycatch (including dependent and associated species),
threatened and protected species, habitats and feeding interactions.

There is also good agreement on the operational performance requirements
for the target species, and for species in general, but there is
considerably more variation in the requirements used for the broader
ecosystem issues. This reflects the much longer period of focus,
monitoring and experience with target species and other species of
management concern within fishery management and research. There is
currently considerable management and research focus of the broader
ecosystem aspects of fishing, and rapid change in understanding and
operational performance requirements for ecosystem considerations can be
expected in future.

Current understanding and usage of operational performance requirements
for target species and the associate ecosystem are:

-   Target species have is a target reference point that is no greater
    than the average stock size that is provides the Maximum Sustainable
    Yield. MSY is well established as an objective in UNCLOS, UNFSA and
    the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The stock size giving
    MSY is an average and fluctuations around this level are both
    expected and accepted. This outcome for stock size could be achieved
    through directly setting a limit reference point for fishing
    mortality at the level giving MSY on average, as identified in the
    UNFSA, or by many other empirical indicators or risk-based
    management measures.

-   Target species have a limit reference point that prevents
    irreversible or slowly reversible impacts, and that specifically
    protects against recruitment overfishing. Avoiding long-term or
    irreversible impacts is well established in UNCLOS, UNFSA and UNCED.
    Commonly this limit is half of the average stock size that is
    provides the Maximum Sustainable Yield or 20% of the potential
    unfished stock size (recognising that these are not usually the
    same).

-   In multi-species fisheries, where there are several or many target
    species, the target reference points may be modified so that the
    optimum benefits can be obtained from the group of species as a
    whole. But this flexibility does not extend below the limit
    reference point.

-   The timeframe for recovery of overfished stocks is related to the
    time that the stock is expected to recover in the absence of
    fishing, and if possible is less than the typical human generation
    time (20-30y) so as to provide for human intergenerational equity
    for sustainable development. One appropriate timeframe is the time
    to recover in the absence of fishing plus 10y, and another is
    between one and two times the time to recover in the absence of
    fishing.

-   Bycatch is monitored and minimised. The aim is to prevent
    irreversible or slowly reversible impacts to fishery productivity,
    ecosystem function and biodiversity. Specifically there are limits
    or measures to prevent overfishing of bycatch species, to ensure the
    fishery does not cause species to meet the criteria for serious
    threat of extinction, and to support the recovery of species that
    are overfished or that do meet the threat of extinction criteria.

-   Key prey species are recognised and if they are target species the
    target reference points are modified as necessary to avoid excessive
    depletion of dependent predators.

-   Key habitats are identified and the impacts examined. The definition
    of habitat is at a level of resolution that is appropriate for the
    fishery circumstance, including the critical habitats used by the
    target, dependent and associated species and the general habitats
    that provide regional ecosystem and community biodiversity. Impacts
    on habitats are minimised and impacts on habitats that are
    vulnerable or very slow to recover habitats are avoided. Explosives
    are not used as a fishing method. The aim is to prevent irreversible
    or slowly reversible impacts to fishery productivity, ecosystem
    function and biodiversity. This is addressed by different
    requirements in different management and ecolabelling systems. The
    minimum requirement is knowledge of the habitats and fishery
    impacts, most require that impacts be within specified acceptable
    limits, and some require no impact or negligible impact. In
    assessing fishery impacts it is the consequence to the extent and
    function of the habitat type in the context of then relevant
    ecosystem that is of interest. Consequently the full spatial range
    of the relevant habitat is considered, not just that part of the
    spatial range that is potentially affected by fishing. And similarly
    the local impact of individual fishing activities and operations on
    elements or patches of habitat is considered in the full spatial
    range of the habitat.

There has been very useful and recent development of fishery assessment
methods that can be applied to fisheries that are small scale or
otherwise data deficient (in the sense that there is insufficient data
to allow application of statistical estimation and modelling of
parameters such as fishing mortality and stock size). These methods
include use of empirical indicators and reference points, risk-based
assessment methods that can be applied based on general information
about the fishery, and management decision rules that are triggered by
empirical reference points. Importantly these approaches can allow a
fishery to demonstrate that management is likely to meet fishing
mortality and stock size requirements even if these quantities are not
measured or estimated. The methods can be generic and can be generically
tested by simulation or other scientific procedures to establish that
they are likely to deliver the required outcomes in data deficient
situations. Consequently these methods and approaches can be used by
small scale and data deficient fisheries without them having to be
developed for each fishery specifically. In general it is expected that
uncertainty in the assessment of a fishery would be greater if it is
based on analogy with similar fisheries rather than on information on
the species, ecosystem, fishing methods and management system from the
particular fishery seeking certification. And so a greater level of
precaution is necessary when using these indirect assessment methods and
indicators.

There is widespread recognition that local knowledge (e.g. fisher or
coastal community observations) can be used to assess the state of the
fishery and fishery performance. But that this information, like other
information used in third party assessments, must be verifiable,
verified and documented.

There is widespread recognition that the kind and scale of the
management system be appropriate for the context, scale and intensity of
the fishery. Specifically is would be possible for fisheries to be
assessed as sustainable if they clearly pose low risk to the harvested
species and ecosystem based on general arguments about the nature of the
species, ecosystem, gear and intensity of fishing. Several of the
non-government ecolabels focus on management performance and a past
record of good management rather than the details of the methods used to
achieve that performance. All evaluation systems require some level of
monitoring, at least to determine the effectiveness of past management,
and an objective and documented basis for judgement.

# Recommended Minimum Substantive Requirements for Capture Fisheries

With this background on the operational criteria and available methods,
the following Minimum Substantive Requirements are recommended for
capture fisheries.

## Management Systems

a)  The legal requirements for fishery management in the relevant
    jurisdiction(s) are met.

b)  For Stocks Under Consideration there are identified management
    targets consistent with achieving long-term MSY, or less if that is
    optimal in the circumstances of the fishery (e.g. multi-species
    fisheries) or necessary to avoid over-depletion of dependent species
    (e.g. for key prey species).

c)  For Stocks Under Consideration there are identified limits
    consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing and other impacts
    that are irreversible or very slowly reversible.

d)  For Stocks Under Consideration there is a recovery plan, including a
    pre-agreed timeframe, to rebuild stocks to the target if limits are
    approached or exceeded.

e)  For Stocks Under Consideration there are pre-agreed management
    measures to ensure that targets are achieved on average and limits
    not exceeded, with a well based expectation that the measures will
    be successful in the context of uncertainties in the management
    system (e.g. monitoring, assessment, decision making and
    implementation of management measures).

f)  There are objectives, and as necessary limits or other management
    measures, to address the ecosystem effects of fishing. Depending on
    the relevance to the fishery concerned this includes:

    -   Preventing bycatch species from becoming overfished or meeting
        the criteria for high risk of extinction.

    -   Minimising or avoiding bycatch, especially so as to foster
        recovery of species that are caught in the fishery and that meet
        the criteria for high risk of extinction.

    -   Maintaining biodiversity at species and community levels,
        including maintaining habitats and trophic functions or
        dependencies.

g)  There is collection of information from the fishery that is adequate
    to assess and manage the fishery by the chosen management regime and
    measures, and to monitor the implementation of previous management
    decisions. This can include relevant traditional knowledge and
    fisher or coastal community observations, provided these are
    verifiable, verified and documented.

h)  All sources of mortality are accounted for in assessing the state of
    the Stocks Under Consideration, including estimates of unreported
    catches and catches in other relevant jurisdictions.

i)  There are pre-agreed management measures for development of target
    fishing on species that were not previously targeted, with a
    well-based expectation that under these measures fishery development
    will not exceed the ability of the management system to ensure
    sustainability.

j)  Management decisions are based on the best scientific advice and
    evidence available.

k)  There is effective implementation of agreed management measures.

l)  These elements of the management system, at least, are documented.

## Stocks under Consideration for capture fishery ecolabelling

a)  The species or strain has not been introduced, or has been
    introduced historically and has subsequently become established as
    part of the 'natural' ecosystem.

b)  For enhanced fisheries (i) ranching and culture-based fisheries use
    the natural genome and the production of released organisms meet the
    relevant provisions of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for
    Responsible Fisheries (ii) caging is assessed and ecolabelled at the
    point of capture and (iii) habitat conversion is limited and/or
    local. Enhanced fisheries meet the same requirements as un-enhanced
    fisheries in all other respects.

c)  The species stock size(s) fluctuate around the management targets,
    taking into account the long-term variability due to natural changes
    in productivity and ecosystems and the effects of human impacts
    other than fishing.

d)  The species are not over-fished (i.e. stocks are above the limit
    reference points).

e)  If overfishing is occurring or is predicted to occur under the
    current management measures then new measures are being implemented
    that are predicted to end overfishing and avoid the stock becoming
    overfished.

f)  The genetic diversity of the species, including sub-stocks and
    breeding aggregations, is maintained.

## Ecosystem Considerations for capture fishery ecolabelling

a)  Potential impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem are considered,
    and any impacts posing high risk to fishery production and
    resilience, or to irreversible of slowly reversible change to
    biodiversity at species and community levels, are identified and
    being addressed. Addressing these risks can include immediate
    management measures and/or action to develop and implement
    appropriate management measures within a stated timeframe that is
    sufficiently short to be likely to avoid occurrence of the high risk
    event.

b)  Bycatch is monitored and minimised, including through measures that
    prevent overfishing of bycatch species, ensure the fishery does not
    cause species to meet the criteria for serious threat of extinction,
    and support the recovery and maintenance of species that are
    overfished or that are threatened, endangered or protected. Poisons
    are not used as a fishing method.

c)  The general role of the Species Under Consideration in the food-web
    is recognised, and if it is a key prey species in the ecosystem then
    the management target for that species is altered in a manner so as
    to avoid excessive depletion of dependent predators.

d)  There is knowledge of the key habitats and potential fishery impacts
    on them. Impacts on key habitats are minimised including:

-   Identification, as appropriate, of acceptable limits of change to
    habitats and management measures to ensure these limits are not
    exceeded.

-   Avoiding impacts on habitats that are at high risk (e.g. habitats
    that are especially vulnerable to damage by the fishing gear
    involved or are very slow to recover).

-   Explosives are not used as a fishing method.

> In assessing fishery impacts the full spatial range of the relevant
> habitat can be considered, not just that part of the spatial range
> that is potentially affected by fishing.

e)  The precautionary approach is specifically applied in the context of
    relatively poorly understood Ecosystem Considerations. This
    includes:

    -   Absence of scientific information is not used as a reason for
        postponing or failing to take management measures to avoid or
        recover serious impacts.

    -   Suitable risk-based methods can be used to assess impacts and
        guide management actions.

    -   Generic evidence based on similar fishery situations can be
        adequate for fisheries with low risk but specific information
        from the fishery would be required for fisheries with higher
        risk. In general the greater the risk the more evidence is
        necessary to support the adequacy of the mitigating management
        measures.

## Additional points for consideration

There are two issues central to ecolabelling of capture fisheries that
are not currently addressed in the FAO (2005a, 2006) guidelines. These
are:

*Minimum Substantive Requirements for the Chain of Custody
certification.*

Chain of Custody certification provides the assurance that products
bearing the ecolabel do indeed come from the certified fishery and that
there has not been mixing or substitution of uncertified fish into the
ecolabelled product. Failure in this chain is recognised as a major
contributor to IUU fishing and to have under-mined fishery management
measures in both developed and developing countries (e.g. Anon 2006,
Jacquet and Pauly 2007). Effective Chain of Custody is essential to the
credibility of an ecolabelling scheme. Although the FAO guidelines
include the requirement for Chain of Custody certification there are no
Minimum Substantive Requirements provided for the this certification.
There is a need to develop Minimum Substantive Requirements for the
Chain of Custody certification.

*Assessment and monitoring of ecolabels for compliance with the FAO
requirements.*

As the FAO develops and adopts guidelines for the operation of ecolabels
for capture fisheries, and the number and diversity of ecolabels
increases, there will be a need for assessment, monitoring and reporting
of compliance with these guidelines. This especially applies to
ecolabels that claim FAO compliance as a part of their credibility so as
to maintain the credibility of FAO, ensure that ecolabels do not
unnecessarily confuse consumers, the ensure that requirements of the FAO
are being met. This could be achieved by a periodic FAO report similar
to the status of fisheries report or performance could be assessed and
reported by an independent body.

# References

AFMA (2007) Ecological Risk Assessment for Commonwealth Fisheries
(ERACF). Fishery Assessments.
<http://www.afma.gov.au/environment/eco_based/eras/assessments.htm> and
<http://www.afma.gov.au/environment/eco_based/eras/default.htm>

Alvarez-Torres, P, A. Díaz-de-León-Corral, O. Ramírez-Flores and E.
Bermúdez-Rodríguez (2002) National fisheries chart 2000: a new
instrument for fisheries management in inland waters. *Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries* 12: 317-326.

Anon (2000) An arrangement for the voluntary certification of products
of sustainable fishing. Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries
Ecolabelling Criteria. <http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2000-841.pdf>

Anon (2001) Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of
fisheries. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra. ISBN 0642547777.
<http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/assessment/guidelines.html>

Anon (2003) Guide to biological reference points for the 1998-99 Fishery
Assessment meetings.
[www.fish.govt.nz/sustainabilitYPResearch/stock/guide.html](http://www.fish.govt.nz/sustainabilitYPResearch/stock/guide.html)

Anon (2004) Namibia's Marine Resources Policy 2004.
<http://www.mfmr.gov.na/>

Anon. (2006) Closing the net; stopping illegal fishing on the high seas.
Report of the OECD Ministerially-led Task Force on IUU Fishing on the
High Seas. Governments of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand
and the United Kingdom. Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
London, United Kingdom. [www.high-seas.org](http://www.high-seas.org/)

Anon (2007a) Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2007:
stock assessments and yield estimates. Ministry of Fisheries,
Wellington, New Zealand. 1015pp

Anon (2007b) Japan Fishery products report 2007
<http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200709/146292521.pdf> and MEL Japan
<http://www.suisankai.or.jp/topics_e/isaribi/isaribi_56.pdf>

Anon (2008a) The Nordic Swan ecolabel. <http://www.svanen.nu/>

Anon (2008b) Australian Rock Lobster Clean Green Program.
<http://www.southernrocklobster.com/cleangreen/default.aspx>.

Arce, A.M., W. Aguilar-Dávila, E. Sosa-Cordero and J.F. Caddy (1997).
Artificial shelters (casitas) as habitats for juvenile spiny lobsters
*Panulirus argus* in the Mexican Caribbean. *Marine Ecology*
*Progr.Ser.*, 158:217-24

Boyd, P. W., A. J. Watson, C. S. Law, E. R. Abraham, T. Trull, R.
Murdoch, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, A. R. Bowie, K. O. Buesseler, H. Chang,
M. Charette, P. Croot, K. Downing, R. Frew, M. Gall, M. Hadfield, J.
Hall, M. Harvey, G. Jameson, J. LaRoche, M. Liddicoat, R. Ling, M. T.
Maldonado, R. M. McKay, S. Nodder, S. Pickmere, R. Pridmore, S. Rintoul,
K. Safi, P. Sutton, R. Strzepek, K. Tanneberger, S. Turner, A. Waite and
J. Zeldis (2000) A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern
Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization. *Nature* 407: 695-702

Coale, K H., K. S. Johnson, S. E. Fitzwater, R. M. Gordon, S. Tanner, F.
P. Chavez, L. Ferioli, C. Sakamoto, P. Rogers, F. Millero, P. Steinberg,
P. Nightingale, D. Cooper, W. P. Cochlan, M. R. Landry, J. Constantinou,
G. Rollwagen, A. Trasvina & R. Kudela (1996). A massive phytoplankton
bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the
Equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 383: 495-501.

CITES (1994) Conference of the Parties Resolution 9.25, Criteria for
Amendment of Appendices I and II. Fort Lauderdale, USA.
<http://www.cites.org/eng/res/all/09/E09-24R14.pdf>

Clark, W.G. (2002) F~35%~ revisited ten years later. *North American
Journal of Fisheries Management* 22(1): 251-257.

Costanza, R., R. d\'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon,
S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J. Paruelo, R.V. O\'Neill, R. Raskin, P. Sutton,
and M. van den Belt (1997) The value of the world\'s ecosystem services
and natural capital. *Nature* 387:253-260.

DAFF (2007) Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and
Guidelines. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry. Canberra, Australia. ISBN 978-0-98037 14-4-4
[www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy](http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy)

Davies, C., R. Campbell, J. Prince, N. Dowling, D. Kolody, M. Basson, K.
McLoughlin, P. Ward, I. Freeman and A. Bodsworth (2007) Development and
preliminary testing of the harvest strategy framework for the Eastern
and Western Tuna and Billfish Fisheries. Australian Fisheries Management
Authority. Canberra, Australia. 70pp.

DEWHA (2008) Fisheries and environment. Australian Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
<http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/index.html>

DEWHA (2007) Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of
fisheries. Australian Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Canberra
<http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/publications/pubs/guidelines.pdf>

Downing, N.A., D.C. Smith and A.D.M. Smith (2007) Finalisation of
harvest strategies for AFMA's small scale fisheries. Final report of
Project 2007/834 to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority,
Canberra.

EU (2000) European Union Eco-label.
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/index_en.htm>

EU (2007) Regulation (EC) N0 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme.
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/pdf/regulation/001980­en.pdf](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/pdf/regulation/001980%1Fen.pdf)

FAO (1988) International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 294. FAO, Rome.

FAO (1990) Inland capture fisheries of the USSR. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper 311. FAO, Rome.

FAO (1995a) Code of Conduct for responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome.
<http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm>

FAO (1995b) Reservoir fisheries of India. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
345. FAO, Rome.

FAO (1996) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No 2.
Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/W3592e/W3592e00.pdf>

FAO (1997) Fisheries Management. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No. 4. Rome, FAO.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w4230e/w4230e00.htm>

FAO (1998) Inland fishery enhancements. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
374, FAO, Rome. <http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/W8514E/W8514E00.HTM>

FAO (1999) Global characterisation of inland fishery enhancements and
associated environmental impacts. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 945. FAO,
Rome. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/x4186e/X4186E00.pdf>

FAO (2001a) Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries
sustainability. Fisheries Technical Paper 422. FAO, Rome.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2789e/y2789e00.htm>

FAO (2001b) The Reykjavik Declaration on responsible fisheries in the
marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/reykjavik/y2198t00_dec.pdf>

FAO (2003a) The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4 (Suppl.2). Rome, FAO.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4470e/y4470e00.pdf>

FAO (2003b) Enhancing or restoring the productivity of natural
populations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. *FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper.* No. 448. Rome, FAO.

FAO(2004) Marine ranching. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 429. FAO, Rome.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y4783e/y4783e00.pdf>

FAO (2005a) Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products
from Marine Capture Fisheries. Rome, FAO. 2005. 90p.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5889t/y5889t00.pdf>

FAO (2005b) Second meeting of the Working Group on Aquaculture, Muscat,
Oman, 29--30 November 2005.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0386e/a0386e00.pdf>

FAO (2006) Report of the Expert Consultation on the Development of
International Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products
from Inland Capture Fisheries. Rome, 23-26 May 2006.

FAO Fisheries Reports R804.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0741e/a0741e00.pdf>

Fletcher, D. (2004) Review of Modelling Approaches for the New Zealand
Sea Lion PMP. Unpublished report.
<http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/Marine-and-Coastal/Fishing/010~Conservation-services-programme/pdf/review-modelling-appr-PMP.pdf>

Floeter, S.R., B.S. Halpern and C.E.L. Ferreira (2005) Effects of
fishing and protection on Brazilian reef fishes. *Biological
Conservation* 3: 291-402.

FotS (2008a) Friend of the Sea. <http://www.friendofthesea.org/>

FotS (2008a) Friend of the Sea sustainable fisheries and aquaculture
criteria. <http://www.friendofthesea.org/news.php?viewStory=18>

Gardner, P.R and K.K. Viswanathan (2004) Ecolabelling and fisheries
management. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews No. 27. WorldFish
Center, Penang, Malaysia.
<http://www.worldfishcenter.org/cms/list_article.aspx?catID=39&ddlID=114>

Hilborn, R., A.M. Parma and M. Maunder. (2002) Exploitation rate
reference points for west coast rockfish: are they robust and are there
better alternatives? *North American Journal of Fisheries Management*
22(1): 365-375.

Hobday, A., A. Smith and I. Stobutzki. (2004) *Ecological Risk
Assessment for Australian Commonwealth Fisheries*. Final Report Stage 1.
Australian Fisheries Management Authority Report No R01/0934, Canberra,
Australia. 72pp.
<http://www.afma.gov.au/research/reports/2004/r01_0934.pdf>

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe (1996) Command and control, and the
pathology of natural resource management. *Conservation Biology* 10:
328-337.

Hughes, T.P. (1994) Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large scale
degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. *Science* 265: 1547-1551.

Hughes, T.P, D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R. Steneck and J. Wilson (2005)
New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems.
*Trends in Ecology and Evolution* 20: 230-385.

ICES. 1994. Code of Practice on the Introduction and Transfer of Marine
Organisms. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on the Marine
Environment, 1994, Annex 3. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 204.
122 pp.

ICES (2003a) Report of the study group on the further development of the
precautionary approach to fishery management. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:09

ICES (2003b) Report of the study group on precautionary reference points
for advice on fishery management. ICES CM 2003/ACFM: 15

ICLARM (2001) Sustainable management of coastal fish stocks in Asia.
Final Report of Project ADB RETA 5766 to the Asia Development Bank.
ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia. 34pp.

ISO (1999a) Environmental labels and declarations -- Type I
environmental labelling -- Principles and procedures. ISO/DIS 14024.
Geneva.

ISO (1999b) Environmental labels and declarations -- Self-declared
environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling). ISO/DIS 14021.
Geneva.

ISO (2000) Environmental labels and declarations -- Type III
environmental declarations. ISO/WD/TR/14025. Geneva.

ISO (2007) ISO standards will promote sustainable development of
fisheries and aquaculture.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2007/Ref1057.html>

IUCN (2007) 2007 IUCN Red List of threatened species.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org/>

Jacquet, J.L. and D. Pauly (2007) The rise of seafood awareness
campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy 31: 308-313.

JFA (2007) Japan Fisheries Association. Marine eco-label Japan - MEL.
<http://www.suisankai.or.jp/topics/topics07/pdf/topics024.pdf>

Kaufman, L., B. Heneman, J.T. Baranes and R. Fujita (2004) From low to
high data richness: an experiment in ecosystem-based fishery management
from California. *Bulletin of Marine Science* 74:693-708.

Kelly, C.J. and E.D. Codling (2006) 'Cheap and dirty' fisheries science
and management in the North Atlantic. *Fisheries Research* 79: 233-238.

Lodge, M.W., D. Anderson, T. Lobach, G. Munro, K. Sainsbury and A.
Willock (2007) Recommended best practices for Regional Fisheries
Management Organisations. Report of the Independent High Level Panel for
Promoting Better High Seas Governance Through a Model for Improved High
Seas Governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. Chatham
House, London.
<http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/research/eedp/current_projects/rfmo/> or
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/32/39374762.pdf>

Lorenzen, K., U.S. Amarasinghe, D.M. Bartley, J.D. Bell, M. Bilio, S. S.
de Silva, C. J. Garaway, W. D. Hartmann, J. M. Kapetsky, P. Laleye, J.
Moreau, V. V. Sugunan and. D.B. Swar. (2001) Strategic Review of
enhancements and culture-based fisheries. *In* R.P. Subasinghe, P.
Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, & S.E. McGladdery (Eds). *Aquaculture in
the Third Millennium*. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on
Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February
2000. pp. 221-237.

MAC (2001) Marine Aquarium Council. Core ecosystem and fishery
management international performance standard for the marine aquarium
trade. <http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/pdffiles/mac_efm_standard.pdf>

MAC (2008) Marine Aquarium Council. <http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/>

Mace, P.M., A.W. Bruckner, N.K. Daves, J.D. Field, J.R. Hunter, N.E
Kohler, R.G. Kope, S.S. Lieberman, M.W. Miller, J.W. Orr, R.S. Otto,
T.D. Smith and N.B. Thompson (2002) NMFS/Interagency Working Group
evaluation of the CITES criteria and guidelines. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-58.70pp.

Marco, A. and A. Quesada (2005) Participation and fisheries management
in Costa Rica: From theory to practice Marine Policy 30:641-650.

Markels, M. (1994) Method of increasing seafood production in the ocean.
US Patent No. 5535701.
<http://www.google.com.au/patents?id=4g4oAAAAEBAJ>

Maunder, M.N., P.J. Starr and R. Hilborn (2000) A Bayesian analysis to
estimate loss in squid catch due to the implementation of a sea lion
population management plan. *Marine Mammal Science* 16: 413-426.

Mooney-Seuss, M.L. and A. A. Rosenberg (2007) Regional Fisheries
Management Organisations (RFMOs): Progress in adopting Precautionary
Approach and Ecosystem-Based Management. Report commissioned by the
Independent High Level Panel for Promoting Better High Seas Governance
Through a Model for Improved High Seas Governance by Regional Fisheries
Management Organisations.
<http://www.illegal-fishing.info/item_single.php?item=document&item_id=171&approach_id=8>

MSC (2008a) Marine Stewardship Council. <http://www.msc.org/>

MSC (2008b) Marine Stewardship Council, Principles and Criteria.
<http://www.msc.org/htm/content_504.htm>

MSC (2008c) Marine Stewardship Council, fisheries.
<http://www.msc.org/htm/content_463.htm>

MSC (2008d) Quality and consistency.
<http://www.msc.org/htm/content_1297.htm> and
<http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/Q_C/QC_Tree_Structure_update_Jan08.pdf>

MSC (2008e) Pilot assessments. Guidance for the assessment of
small-scale and data-deficient fisheries.
<http://www.msc.org/htm/content_1426.htm>

Munro, J.L. (1979) Stock assessment models: applicability and utility in
tropical small-scale fisheries. Pp35-47 *In* P.M. Roedel an S.B. Salia
(eds) *Stock Assessment for Tropical Small-Scale Fisheries*, Proceedings
of an International Workshop, 19-21 September 1979, University of Rhode
Island, Rohd Island, USA. International Center for Marine Resource
Development, University of Rhode Island, USA.

Naturland (2008) Naturland "Wildfish".
<http://www.naturland.de/naturlandwildfish.html>

NMFS (1998). Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions, National Standards
Guidelines: Final Rule. Code of Federal Regulations. 50CFR Part 600, May
1 1998. National Marine Fisheries Service, US Department of Commerce. pp
24212-37. <http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/stocks/nsgfinal.pdf>

NMFS (2005a) Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions, National Standard
Guidelines: Proposed Rule. Code of Federal Regulations. 50CFR Part 600,
June 22 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service, US Department of
Commerce. pp 36240-59.
[www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/stocks/nsgfinal.pdf](http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/stocks/nsgfinal.pdf)

NMFS (2005b) Essential Fish Habitat requirements under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
[www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index.htm](http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index.htm)

OECD (2005) Review of Fisheries in OECD Countries: Volume 1: Policies
and summary statistics. OECD, Paris. <http://www.oecd.org/>

Punt, A.E., R.A. Campbell and A.D.M. Smith (2001) Evaluating empirical
indicators and reference points for fisheries management: application to
the broadbill swordfish fishery off eastern Australia. *Marine and
Freshwater Research* 52: 819-832.

Rapport, D. J., R. Costanza, and A. J. McMichael (1998) Assessing
ecosystem health: challenges at the interface of social, natural and
health sciences. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution* 13:397-402.

Sadovy, Y, A. E. Punt, W. Cheung, M, Vasconcellos, S. Suharti, B. D.
Mapstone (2007) Stock assessment approach for the Napoleon fish,
Cheilinus undulatus, in Indonesia. A tool for quota setting for
data-poor fisheries under CITES Appendix II Non-Detriment Finding
requirements. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1023. Rome, FAO. 2007. 71pp.

Sainsbury, K.J. (2008) Best practice reference points for Australian
Fisheries. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra,
Australia. 156pp.

Sainsbury, K.J., A. E. Punt, and A. D. M. Smith. (2000) Design of
operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem
objectives. *ICES J. Mar. Sci.* 57: 731-741.

Scandol, J. (2003) Use of Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) control charts of
landed catch in the management of fisheries. *Fisheries Management* 64:
19-36.

Schmidt, C-C. (2003) Fisheries in Japan: a case of multiple roles? OECD,
Paris.

SEAFDEC (1999) Regional guidelines for responsible fishing operations in
Southeast Asia. Regionalisation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fishing, 24025 May 1999. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre,
Bangkok, Thailand.

SEAFDEC (2001) Eco-labelling. ASIAN-SEAFDEC Conference. Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Centre, Bangkok, Thailand.

SEAFDEC (2006) Study on eco-labelling of aquatic products: general view
and future considerations for the ASEAN region. WP05, Regional Technical
Consultation on International Fish Trade related Issues, Bangkok,
Thailand, 20-22 February 2006. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Centre, Bangkok, Thailand.

Smith, A.D.M., E.J. Fulton, A.J. Hobday, D.C. Smith and P. Shoulder
(2007) Scientific tools to support the practical implementation of
ecosystem-based fisheries management. *ICES J. Mar. Sci.* 64: 633--639.

Starr, P.J., P.A. Breen, R. Hilborn and T.H. Kendrick (1997) Evaluation
of a management decision rule for a New Zealand rock lobster substock.
*Marine and Freshwater Research* 48: 1093-1101.

Sumner, J, T. Ross and L. Ababouch (2004) Application of risk assessment
in the fishing industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 442, FAO,
Rome.78pp. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y4722e/y4722e03.pdf>

Tuck, G., T. Smith, A. Constable, X. He, S. Kuikka and N. Klaer (2001)
Initial evaluation of management strategies for the Macquarie Island
toothfish fishery. pp 162-218 *In* 'Ecologically sustainable development
of the fishery for Patagonian toothfish (*Dissostichus eleginoides*)
around Macquarie Island: population parameters, population assessment
and ecological interactions'. X. He, A. Constable, K. Sainsbury and W.
de la Mare (eds). Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Report
97/122, Canberra, Australia.

UNCED (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm>

UNCLOS (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm>

UNEP (2007a) Development of an African ecolebeling mechanism. Outcome of
the Regional Consultation Process, African Union Commission, United
Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa, 11-13 June 2007, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
<http://www.unep.org/roa/Projects_Programmes/African_Ecolabelling_Mechanism/index.asp>

UNEP (2007b) Background assessment and survey of existing initiatives
relating to ecolabelling in the African region.
<http://www.unep.org/roa/docs/pdf/RegionalAssessmentReport.pdf>

UNEP (2007c) Structure and function of The African Eco-labelling
Mechanism.
[http://www.unep.org/roa/docs/pdf/StructureEcoLabelling%20Mechanism.pdf](http://www.unep.org/roa/docs/pdf/StructureEcoLabelling Mechanism.pdf)

UNFSA (1995) UN Fish Stocks Agreement (Agreement for the Implementation
of the Provisions of the United Nations Law of the Sea). UN Doc.
A/Conf./164/37
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm>

UNGA (2005) Resolution A/RES/59/25
<http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/477/70/PDF/N0447770.pdf?OpenElement>

UNGA (2006) Resolution A/RES/60/31
<http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/489/40/PDF/N0548940.pdf?OpenElement>

UNGA (2007) Resolution A/RES/61/105
<http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/500/73/PDF/N0650073.pdf?OpenElement>

Wade, P. R. (1998) Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused
mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. *Marine Mammal Science* 14: 1-37.

WSSD (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002.
<http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/aconf199d20&c1_en.pdf>

# Tables

##  Some examples of NGO seafood guides

1\. Seafood guides for use by consumers by individual NGOs

> Monteray Bay Aquarium :
> [www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp](http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp)
>
> WWF international and various regional offices:
> [www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/seafood_guides/index.cfm](http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/seafood_guides/index.cfm)
>
> Environmental Defence:
> [www.environmentaldefense.org](http://www.environmentaldefense.org/)

Blue Ocean Institute:
[www.blueocean.org/Seafood/](http://www.blueocean.org/Seafood/)

Audubon: [www.seafood.audubon.org](http://www.seafood.audubon.org/)

Forest and Bird Society:
[www.forestandbird.org.nz](http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/)

IUCN: [www.iucnredlist.org/](http://www.iucnredlist.org/)

2\. Seafood guides for use by consumers consolidated across several NGO
schemes

> FishOnLine:
> [www.fishonline.org/information/](http://www.fishonline.org/information/)
>
> Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences:
> [www.seafoodguide.org](http://www.seafoodguide.org/)
>
> INCOFISH:
> [www.incofish.org/ISFG.php](http://www.incofish.org/ISFG.php)
>
> Seafood Choices Alliance:
> [www.seafoodchoices.com](http://www.seafoodchoices.com/)

3\. Sourcing guarantees by processor or retail companies

> Young's Seafood 'Fish for Life':
> [www.youngsseafood.co.uk/web/ffl_policies.asp](http://www.youngsseafood.co.uk/web/ffl_policies.asp)
>
> Unilever: 'Fishing for the Future':
> [www.unilever.com/Images/es_Unilever_FSI_brochureII_tcm13-13238.pdf](http://www.unilever.com/Images/es_Unilever_FSI_brochureII_tcm13-13238.pdf)
>
> Wal-Mart:
> [walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=665](http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=665)
>
> McDonalds:
> [www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/purchasing/supply_initiative/sustainable_fisheries.html](http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/purchasing/supply_initiative/sustainable_fisheries.html)

4\. 'Business to business' procurement guides on the sustainability of
seafood products from different fisheries

> EcoFish: [www.ecofish.com](http://www.ecofish.com/)
>
> FishSource: [www.fishsource.org](http://www.fishsource.org/)

# Appendices

## Appendix 1. Terms of Reference. A Review of the Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products {#appendix-1.-terms-of-reference.-a-review-of-the-guidelines-for-ecolabelling-of-fish-and-fishery-products .unnumbered}

In 2005, after a number of years of difficult discussions, including
Technical Consultations in 2004 and 2005, FAO produced technical
guidelines on the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine
capture fisheries[^1]. Those guidelines were adopted by the 26^th^
Session of COFI in 2005, but with some additional considerations (see
below). In 2006, FAO held an Expert Consultation on the development of
similar guidelines for inland capture fisheries.[^2]

The progress made in developing international guidelines has been
welcomed by FAO Members who recognise the benefits to fisheries
managers, producers, consumers and other stakeholders of voluntary
international guidelines that are widely accepted and applied in order
to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of voluntary ecolabelling
schemes for fish and fishery products. They have also noted that such
schemes needed to be transparent, market-driven, accessible (in terms of
costs) to operators irrespective of their size and economic contexts,
non-discriminatory based on best available scientific evidence, and
fully consistent with WTO rules so as not to create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade and to allow for fair competition and
respect the sovereign rights of States. It has also been stressed that
an additional benefit of the guidelines would be an increase in
legitimacy of ecolabels as well as the prevention of proliferation of
non-credible ecolabels (see Report of COFI, 2005).

However, in adopting the guidelines, the 26^th^ Session of COFI
recommended that "FAO should review and further develop general criteria
in relation to "stock under consideration" and to serious impacts of the
fishery on the ecosystem (see paragraph 27 of the Guidelines)". This
recommendation was subsequently endorsed by the 27^th^ Session of COFI
in March 2007, where it was agreed that:

> "Regarding the draft International Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of
> Fish and Fishery Product from Inland Capture Fisheries, the Committee
> recommended that FAO undertake further work in relation to the minimum
> substantive requirements and criteria for inland capture fisheries
> ecolabels. This work should be combined with similar outstanding work
> relating to the minimum substantive criteria laid down in the
> guidelines for marine capture fisheries ecolabels." (para 36).

It should be noted that, in the development of both documents, the
participants deliberated the level of detail that would be appropriate
for the guidelines. In the view of those Consultations, the level of
detail agreed upon was considered optimal for generic guidelines. The
Consultations were of the view that the nature and contents of more
detailed criteria would vary from case to case and therefore could not
be specified in generic guidelines. Nevertheless, this must be
reconsidered in the light of COFI's concerns and recommendations. To
this end, the FAO Fisheries Department will be convening an Expert
Consultation early in 2008 to review the existing marine guidelines and
the report on inland capture fisheries and to formulate recommendations
to COFI to address these concerns. These Terms of Reference address the
preparation of the primary background paper for the information of that
Expert Consultation.

[Terms of Reference]{.underline}

Under the direct supervision of the designated technical officer in
FIMF, and advised by the FI Ecolabelling Guidelines Task Force, the
consultant will undertake the following in relation to both marine and
inland capture fisheries:

1)  Study the FAO Guidelines on ecolabelling of products from marine
    capture fisheries and the report of the expert consultation on the
    development of such guidelines for inland capture fisheries in their
    entirety, but with particular emphasis on the sections dealing with
    minimum substantive requirements.

2)  Review and evaluate the criteria used, where available, that address
    status of stocks and ecosystem impacts in any other relevant
    ecolabelling schemes, including schemes already in operation and
    schemes under development.

3)  Consider any other sources of relevant information, for example:
    national and regional management plans; FAO Guidelines on fisheries
    management, implementation of EAF; and others that could provide
    valuable information and approaches for consideration in the further
    development of the sections on minimum substantive requirements in
    the FAO guidelines and report on the ecolabelling of fish and
    fishery products from marine and inland fisheries. Compile a list of
    all sources of relevant information used.

4)  Formulate recommendations, to be considered by the Expert
    Consultation, on any changes and additions to the minimum
    substantive requirements in the existing FAO Guidelines and report
    as requested by the 26^th^ Session of COFI.

5)  Finalise, to the satisfaction of the designated technical officer,
    and deliver to FAO a report to serve as a background document for
    the Expert Consultation.

In formulating recommendations, the consultant should take into account
the special circumstances, conditions and concerns applying to
developing countries and countries in transition, and the feasibility
and implications of the recommendations for such countries. As far as
possible, recommended criteria should be equally applicable to countries
in all stages of development and should not unfairly disadvantage any or
preclude them from participating in, and benefiting from, voluntary
ecolabelling schemes. Consideration should also be given to the
applicability of the guidelines and criteria to small-scale fisheries.

## Appendix 2. Minimum Substantive Requirements for marine capture fisheries {#appendix-2.-minimum-substantive-requirements-for-marine-capture-fisheries .unnumbered}

**(from FAO (2005)**

26\. The following sets forth the minimum substantive requirements and
criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and an
ecolabel awarded to a fishery. Ecolabelling schemes may apply additional
or more stringent requirements and criteria related to sustainable use
of the resources. The requirements and criteria presented below are to
be based on and interpreted in accordance with the current suite of
agreed international instruments addressing fisheries, in particular the
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement and the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as
well as related documentation including the 2001 Reykjavik Declaration
on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem.

27\. Requirements are specified for each of three areas: management
systems, the stock or stocks for which certification is being sought
(subsequently referred to as "stock under consideration"), and
consideration of serious impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem**.**
Criteria and related measurable performance indicators and a
corresponding monitoring system should be established in order to assess
the conformity of the fishery concerned with the requirements and the
criteria of the ecolabelling scheme. In developing and applying the
criteria and assessing the conformity of the fishery with the standard
of certification, the views and opinions of States, RFMOs and FAO should
be fully considered.

**Management systems**

28\. Requirement: The fishery is conducted under a management system
which is based upon good practice and that ensures the satisfaction of
the requirements and criteria described in Paragraph 29. The management
system and the fishery operate in compliance with the requirements of
local, national and international law and regulations, including the
requirements of any regional fisheries management organization that
manages the target stocks.

29\. The following criteria will apply to management systems for any
fisheries, but it must be recognized that special consideration needs to
be given to small-scale fisheries with respect to the availability of
data and with respect to the fact that management systems can differ
substantially for different types and scales of fisheries (e.g. small
scale through to large scale commercial fisheries).

29.1 Adequate data and/or information are collected, maintained and
assessed in accordance with applicable international standards and
practices for evaluation of the current state and trends of the
stocks^4^ (see below: Methodological aspects).

29.2 In determining suitable conservation and management measures, the
best scientific evidence available is taken into account by the
designated authority, as well as consideration of relevant traditional
knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified, in order
to evaluate the current state of the "stock under consideration"^5^ in
relation to, where appropriate, stock specific target and limit
reference points^6^.

29.3 Similarly, data and information, including relevant traditional
knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified, are used
to identify adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and timely
scientific advice is provided on the likelihood and magnitude of
identified impacts (see Paragraph 31).

29.4 The designated authorities adopt appropriate measures for the
conservation and sustainable use of the "stock under consideration"
based on the data, information and scientific advice referred to in the
preceding bullets^7^. Short-term considerations should not compromise
the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources.

29.5 An effective legal and administrative framework at the local,
national or regional level, as appropriate, is established for the
fishery^8^ and compliance is ensured through effective mechanisms for
monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement (see Paragraph 6)^9^.

29.6 In accordance with the Code of Conduct Article 7.5, the
precautionary approach is being implemented to protect the "stock under
consideration" and to preserve the aquatic environment. *Inter alia*
this will require that the absence of adequate scientific information
should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take
conservation and management measures^10^. Further, relevant
uncertainties are being taken into account through a suitable method of
risk assessment. Appropriate reference points are determined and
remedial actions to be taken if reference points are approached or
exceeded are specified^11^.

**"Stocks under consideration"**

30\. Requirement: 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^12^, taking into account that longer term changes in
productivity can occur due to natural variability and/or impacts other
than fishing. In the event that biomass drops well below such target
levels, management measures (Code of Conduct Article 7.6) should allow
for restoration within reasonable time frames of the stocks to such
levels.

**Ecosystem considerations**

31\. Requirement: Adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem should
be appropriately assessed and effectively addressed^13^. Much greater
scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse
ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target
stocks. This issue can be addressed by taking a "risk assessment/risk
management approach". For the purpose of development of ecolabelling
schemes, the most probable adverse impacts should be considered, taking
into account available scientific information, and local knowledge
provided that its validity can be objectively verified. Those impacts
that are likely to have serious consequences should be addressed. This
may take the form of an immediate management response or further
analysis of the identified risk. In this context, full recognition
should be given to the special circumstances and requirements in
developing countries and countries in transition, including financial
and technical assistance, technology transfer, and training and
scientific cooperation.

4 After Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.4.4.

5 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Articles 6.4 and 7.4.1.

6 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.3.

7 Based on Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.1.

8 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.7.1.

9 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.7.

10 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.1.

11 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.2.

12 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.1.

13 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.2.

## Appendix 3. Proposed Minimum Substantive Requirements for inland capture fisheries {#appendix-3.-proposed-minimum-substantive-requirements-for-inland-capture-fisheries .unnumbered}

**(from FAO (2006)**

26\. The following sets forth the minimum substantive requirements and
criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and an
ecolabel awarded to a fishery. Ecolabelling schemes may apply additional
or more stringent requirements and criteria related to sustainable use
of the resources. The requirements and criteria presented below are to
be based on and interpreted in accordance with the current suite of
agreed international instruments including the 1995 Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, as well as provisions of relevance for the
management of inland capture fisheries contained in the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

27\. Requirements are specified for each of three areas: management
systems, the stock or stocks for which certification is being sought
(subsequently referred to as "stock under consideration"), and
consideration of serious impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
including stock enhancement activities. Criteria and related measurable
performance indicators and a corresponding monitoring system should be
established in order to assess the conformity of the fishery concerned
with the requirements and the criteria of the ecolabelling scheme. In
developing and applying the criteria and assessing the conformity of the
fishery with the standard of certification, the views and opinions of
States, RFBs and FAO should be fully considered.

Management systems

28\. Requirement: The fishery is conducted under a management system
which is based upon good practice and that ensures the satisfaction of
the requirements and criteria described in Paragraph 29. The management
system and the fishery operate in compliance with the requirements of
local, national and international laws and regulations, including the
requirements of any regional fisheries management agreement that directs
the management of the target stocks.

29\. The following criteria will apply to management systems for any
fisheries, but it must be recognized that special consideration needs to
be given to small-scale fisheries, which are prevalent in inland capture
fisheries, with respect to the availability of data and with respect to
the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different
types and scales of fisheries.

29.1 Adequate and reliable data and/or information are collected,
maintained and assessed in accordance with applicable international
standards and practices for evaluation of the current state and trends
of the stocks^4^ (see below: Methodological aspects).

29.2 In determining suitable conservation and management measures, the
best scientific evidence available is taken into account by the
designated authority, as well as consideration of relevant traditional
knowledge, provided its \[their\] validity can be objectively verified,
in order to evaluate the current state of the "stock under
consideration"^5^ in relation to, where appropriate, stock specific
target and limit reference points.^6^

29.3 Similarly, data and information, including relevant traditional
knowledge, provided its \[their\] validity can be objectively verified,
are used to identify adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem,
and timely scientific advice is provided on the likelihood and magnitude
of identified impacts (see Paragraph 31).

29.4 The designated authorities adopt appropriate measures# for the
conservation and sustainable use of the "stock under consideration"
based on the data, information, and scientific advice referred to in the
preceding bullets.^7^ Short-term considerations should not compromise
the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources.

29.5 An effective legal and administrative framework at the local,
national or regional level, as appropriate, is established for the
fishery^8^ and compliance is ensured through suitable mechanisms for
monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement (see also Paragraph
6).^9^

29.6 In accordance with the Code of Conduct Article 7.5, the
precautionary approach is being implemented to protect the "stock under
consideration" and the aquatic environment. This should take due account
of stock enhancement procedures. *Inter alia* this will require that the
absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a
reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management
measures.^10^ Further, relevant uncertainties are being taken into
account through a suitable method of risk assessment, including those
associated with the use of introduced or translocated species.^11^
Appropriate reference points are determined and remedial actions to be
taken if reference points are approached or exceeded are specified.^12^

29.7 In the case of culture based and enhanced fisheries, an effective
framework should be established to link the fishery management system
with its supporting aquaculture production system (see also 30b).

29.8 In the case of enhanced fisheries, the fishery management system
should take due regard of the natural production and other components of
the aquatic ecosystem.

"Stocks under consideration"

30a. Requirement: 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,^13^ taking into account that longer term changes in
productivity can occur due to natural variability and/or impacts other
than fishing. In the event that biomass drops well below such target
levels, management measures (Code of Conduct Article 7.6), including
measures to favourably enhance the environment, should allow for
restoration within reasonable time frames of the stocks to such levels.
This requirement also pertains to species introductions or
translocations that have occurred historically or in accordance with
international guidelines,^14^ which become established as part of the
natural ecosystem.

30b. In case of enhanced and culture based fisheries, the cultured
component of the "stock under consideration" is managed and developed
according to relevant provisions of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, especially in relation to the protection of the
environment,^15^ the conservation of genetic diversity, disease control,
and quality (fitness for survival) of stocking material,^16^ and managed
to achieve optimal production.

30c. In the case of enhanced fisheries, natural production components of
the "stock under consideration" is managed in accordance with Article 7
of the Code of Conduct and maintained at a level that promotes the
objective of optimal utilization.

Ecosystem considerations

31\. Requirement: Adverse impacts of the fishery and any associated
culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem should be
appropriately assessed and effectively addressed. Enhanced and
culture-based fisheries will be managed to ensure biodiversity of
aquatic habitats and ecosystems are conserved and endangered species
protected.^17^ Significant scientific uncertainty is to be expected in
assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries, including
culture and enhancement activities. This issue can be addressed by
taking a "risk assessment/risk management approach". For the purpose of
development of ecolabelling schemes, the most probable adverse impacts
should be considered, taking into account available scientific
information, and local knowledge provided that its \[their\] validity
can be objectively verified. Those impacts that are likely to have
serious consequences should be addressed. This may take the form of an
immediate management response or further analysis of the identified
risk. In this context, full recognition should be given to the special
circumstances and requirements in developing countries and countries in
transition, including financial and technical assistance, technology
transfer, and training and scientific cooperation.

Methodological aspects

*Assessing current state and trends in target stocks*

32a. 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 fish stock assessment that are often used in developed
countries. Use of less elaborate methods for stock assessment frequently
used for inland capture fisheries should not preclude them from possible
certification for ecolabelling. However it should be noted that, to the
extent that the application of such methods may result in greater
uncertainty about the state of the "stock under consideration", more
precautionary approaches to managing such resources could be required
which may necessitate lower levels of utilization of the resource. There
is a variety of management measures commonly used in small scale or low
value fisheries that nonetheless can achieve quite adequate levels of
protection for stocks in the face of uncertainty about the state of the
resource.

32b. Stock assessment of enhanced or culture-based fisheries should not
focus on the hatchery output but more on the recruitment of hatchery
fish to the fishery and on the contribution of natural reproduction.

4After Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.4.4.

5Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Articles 6.4 and 7.4.1.

6Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.3.

7Based on Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.1.

8Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.7.1.

9Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.7.

10Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.1.

11FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 2 --
Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions.

12Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.5.2.

13Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.1.1.

14See for example EIFAC/ICES codes of practice.

15Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 9.1.5

16Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 9.3

17Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 7.2

## Appendix 4. Best practices of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations in relation to target stocks, the ecosystem and fishery management practices {#appendix-4.-best-practices-of-regional-fisheries-management-organisations-in-relation-to-target-stocks-the-ecosystem-and-fishery-management-practices .unnumbered}

**(from Lodge *et al.* 2007)**

1\. The *overarching objective* of the RFMO includes optimal and
sustainable long-term utilization, subject to the control of fishing
capacity and fishing effort commensurate with these objectives. This
control is informed by adequate data collection and sharing, use of the
best available science and application of the precautionary approach and
ecosystem considerations in decision-making, including the recovery of
overfished stocks

2\. There are *target and limit reference points* for fishing mortality
and population size for all target and commercially retained species and
stocks (where stocks are known or are reasonably expected to exist).

3\. Assessments and predictions of the status of species or groups of
species *include all sources* *of mortality*, taking in non-fishery
mortality and fishing mortality owing to retained catch, discarded catch
and deaths that do not involve capture. Fishing mortality is from all
fisheries, including those managed under other jurisdictions and
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

4\. *Target reference points* are consistent with achieving long-term
optimal utilization and with the ecological properties and role of the
target species (for example, a key prey species), and that they have a
low probability of violating the limit reference point in the context of
the information available and the management arrangements in place.

5\. *Key prey species* affected by fishing are identified and the
reference points are modified to take account of the needs of dependent
predators as well as those of the fishery. In the absence of detailed
understanding of feeding dependencies and for animals low in the food
chain the target biomass reference point should be greater than B~MSY~,
consistent with a precautionary approach (for instance, it might be 75
per cent of the unfished level).

6\. The *limit reference point for fishing mortality* is no greater than
the mortality giving maximum long-term sustainable yield, as specified
in UNFSA.

7\. The *limit reference point for stock size* is the size below which
it is known or expected that there is a much greater probability of
significantly reduced recruitment but at which the probability of
significantly reduced low recruitment is still small. The limit
reference point for stock size could be at a size that has been
historically shown to be safe and/or below which stock dynamics are
unknown.

8\. There are agreed *management strategies or decision rules* to
determine the catch, the level of fishing or other management measures
that will be applied, depending on the status of the stock and the
information available.

> • The management strategy is demonstrated to deliver, in the long
> term, a balanced probability of the stock being above or below the
> target and a very low probability of the stock violating the limit
> reference point.
>
> • The strategy has a high chance of success both in view of the
> information that is realistically expected to be available to assess
> stock status and for a reasonable range of stock and ecosystem
> productivity and variability.
>
> • The fishing mortality caused by the strategy decreases with
> increasing uncertainty about the present or predicted stock status and
> decreases as a limit reference point is approached.

9\. As a part of the overall management strategy, there is a pre-agreed
*rebuilding plan* that is triggered for stocks at or below a biomass
limit reference point. The rebuilding plan has a very high chance of
rebuilding the stock to a rebuilding target in a specified timeframe,
for example, 10--30 years or one to two fish generation times. The
recovery target is the stock size giving the maximum long-term yield, as
specified in UNFSA. Targeted fishing is very low or ceases below a
biomass limit reference point and any catches permitted for monitoring
below the limit reference point do not significantly reduce recovery
time.

10\. As a part of the general management strategy there is pre-agreement
on *fishing mortality reduction* to be triggered if fishing mortality is
greater than its limit reference point. Fishing mortality may be higher
than the limit reference point for an agreed period if it is a part of a
planned reduction of biomass in order to attain the target biomass.

11\. There is an agreed strategy for the *development of new or
exploratory fisheries* that impact on species or ecosystems in ways that
have not been fully assessed previously -- for example, fisheries that
target new species, use significantly modified gear or operate in new
areas. These strategies ensure that fishery expansion does not outpace
the information needed to determine the management measures for optimal
and sustainable use. The strategy provides cautious conservation and
management measures until there is sufficient information to allow
identification of appropriate measures for incremental development
and/or long-term utilization. The strategy includes, *inter alia:*

> • notification of new or exploratory fisheries;
>
> • precautionary limits on the catch, the fishing effort and the number
> of operators, further defined for particular sub-areas as appropriate;
>
> • requirements for information collection and assessment; and
>
> • specification of how this information and assessment is used to
> trigger decisions about subsequent fishery development.

12\. There are identified limits for the acceptable impact on key
non-target species (both fish and non-fish species), including
associated or dependent species and especially protected or endangered
species, and for bycatch of any non-target species as a whole. These
limits are intended to ensure that populations and stocks are not
excessively depleted, that wastage is avoided, that there is minimal
impact on protected or endangered species and that the functional
ecosystem of which fisheries are a part is maintained. The FAO
international plans of action for relevant bycatch should be
implemented. Measures to ensure that limits are not exceeded, and to
minimize bycatch generally, are:

> • risk-based impact assessment of the effect of fishing activities on
> non-target species, followed by explicit analytical assessments and/or
> action when risk is determined to be high;
>
> • bycatch limits or caps for species and species groups;
>
> • shifting fishing from times or areas with high and/or significant
> bycatch;
>
> • preference for use of fishing gears including mesh sizes and types,
> that reduces bycatch;
>
> • use of practices and equipment to reduce interactions and bycatch
> (for example, night fishing, tori poles, hook design, excluder
> devices, controlled or zero offal discharge and acoustic deterrents);
> and
>
> • release of captured animals alive and unharmed whenever possible.

13\. *Habitats* that are important to fishery production or for
non-target species including associated or dependent species, and/or
that are affected by fishing are recognized and that limits of
acceptable impact are identified. Management measures to limit the
impacts can include:

> • risk-based impact assessment of the effect of fishing activities on
> habitats, followed by explicit analytical assessments and/or action
> when risk is determined to be high;
>
> • restrictions on fishing in certain areas and/or at certain times
> (time/area closures);
>
> • restrictions on gear types that could affect the habitat;
>
> • establishment of other area-based management measures such as marine
> protected areas in order to protect and conserve habitats of special
> concern;
>
> • moratoria on new fisheries in sensitive habitats until adequate
> management measures can be identified; and
>
> • appropriate engagement in the management of land-based pollution and
> coastal development.

14\. There is an identified level of *fishing capacity* that is
commensurate with long-term optimal and sustainable utilization and that
the capacity operating in the fishery is monitored. Authorization and
other management measures should be used to limit capacity to the
desired level.

15\. There are effective provisions and mechanisms for the *collection
and reporting of data* to the RFMO that are necessary for the monitoring
and management of fishery operations and for tracking the status of the
resources and ecosystems.

> • There are quality assurance and verification mechanisms to ensure
> that the data are sufficiently accurate and reliable to ensure optimal
> and sustainable utilization of the resources and ecosystem.
>
> • Economic and social information is collected that is relevant to
> allocation decisions, to measuring economic efficiency and to
> management for optimal utilization.
>
> • The provisions and mechanisms meet the requirements of UNFSA Annex
> I.
>
> • Scientific observer programmes are used as appropriate and
> particularly to gather information about the impact on the fishery
> non-target species and habitats.
>
> • There is coordinated data collection and sharing between RFMOs and
> coastal States, and among RFMOs, with management responsibility for
> relevant shared fisheries and/or ecosystem elements.
>
> • Data are shared through recognized international data management
> arrangements.

16\. There are robust methods for measuring and monitoring so as to
account for IUU fishing and catch, including bycatch.

17\. There is a *scientific body* with appropriate technical expertise
to assess issues related to the target species, the broader ecosystem
and, as appropriate, the socio-economic impacts of fishing.

> • The advice of the scientific body includes management options and
> risks in relation to target and limit reference points. Fishery data
> are assessed on a timely basis consistent with the life history of
> affected species and the management strategy. The advice is publicly
> available.
>
> • When the advice of the scientific body is not followed by the RFMO's
> decision-making body, the reasons are given and are made publicly
> available.
>
> • There is periodic independent advice and peer review of the
> assessments, reference points and management strategies. The advice
> and review are made publicly available.

## Appendix 5. The biological criteria for listing on Appendix I and II of CITES  {#appendix-5.-the-biological-criteria-for-listing-on-appendix-i-and-ii-of-cites .unnumbered}

**(from CITES 1994, Resolution 9.25)**

Appendix I listing includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in
specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional
circumstances. Appendix II listing includes species not necessarily
threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in
order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.

**Appendix I**

The following criteria must be read in conjunction with the definitions,
explanations and guidelines listed in Annex 5, including the footnote
with respect to application of the definition of 'decline' for
commercially exploited aquatic species. A species is considered to be
threatened with extinction if it meets, or is likely to meet, **at
least** **one** of the following criteria.

A. The wild population is small, and is characterized by **at least
one** of the following:

> i\) an observed, inferred or projected decline in the number of
> individuals or the area and quality of habitat; or
>
> ii\) each subpopulation being very small; or
>
> iii\) a majority of individuals being concentrated geographically
> during one or more life history phases; or
>
> iv\) large short-term fluctuations in population size; or
>
> v\) a high vulnerability to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors.

B. The wild population has a restricted area of distribution and is
characterized by **at least one** of the following:

> i\) fragmentation or occurrence at very few locations; or
>
> ii\) large fluctuations in the area of distribution or the number of
> subpopulations; or
>
> iii\) a high vulnerability to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors;
> or
>
> iv\) an observed, inferred or projected decrease in any one of the
> following:
>
> -- the area of distribution; or
>
> -- the area of habitat; or
>
> -- the number of subpopulations; or
>
> -- the number of individuals; or
>
> -- the quality of habitat; or
>
> -- the recruitment.

C. A marked decline in the population size in the wild, which has been
**either**:

> i\) observed as ongoing or as having occurred in the past (but with a
> potential to resume); or
>
> ii\) inferred or projected on the basis of any one of the following:
>
> -- a decrease in area of habitat; or
>
> -- a decrease in quality of habitat; or
>
> -- levels or patterns of exploitation; or
>
> -- a high vulnerability to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors; or
>
> -- a decreasing recruitment.

**Appendix II**

The following criteria must be read in conjunction with the definitions,
explanations and guidelines listed in Annex 5, including the footnote
with respect to application of the definition of 'decline' for
commercially exploited aquatic species.

A species should be included in Appendix II when, on the basis of
available trade data and information on the status and trends of the
wild population(s), **at least one** of the following criteria is met:

> A. It is known, or can be inferred or projected, that the regulation
> of trade in the species is necessary to avoid it becoming eligible for
> inclusion in Appendix I in the near future; or
>
> B. It is known, or can be inferred or projected, that regulation of
> trade in the species is required to ensure that the harvest of
> specimens from the wild is not reducing the wild population to a level
> at which its survival might be threatened by continued harvesting or
> other influences.

**Extract from Annex 5**

***Decline***

A 'decline' is a reduction in the abundance, or area of distribution, or
area of habitat of a species. The assessment of decline by reference to
area of habitat may be more appropriate where there are intrinsic
difficulties in measuring the number of individuals. Decline can be
expressed in two different ways: (i) the overall long-term extent of
decline; or (ii) the recent rate of decline. The long-term extent of
decline is the total estimated or inferred percentage reduction from a
baseline level of abundance or area of distribution. The recent rate of
decline is the percentage change in abundance or area of distribution
over a recent time period. The data used to estimate or infer a baseline
for extent of decline should extend as far back into the past as
possible.

The judgement that a decline is marked is taxon-specific and can be
justified by a number of considerations for example, the population
dynamics of a related taxonomic group. A general guideline for a marked
historical extent of decline is a percentage decline to 5%-30% of the
baseline, depending on the biology and productivity of the species.

Productivity is the maximum percentage growth rate of a population. It
is a complex function of reproductive biology, fecundity, individual
growth rates, natural mortality, age at maturity and longevity. More
productive species tend to have high fecundity, rapid individual growth
rates and high turnover of generations.

The extremes of 5% and 30% will be applicable to only a relatively small
number of species, but some species may even fall outside of these
extremes. However, both these figures are presented only as examples,
since it is impossible to give numerical values that are applicable to
all taxa because of differences in their biology (^1^see footnote with
respect to application of decline to commercially exploited aquatic
species).

A general guideline for a marked recent rate of decline is a percentage
decline of 50% or more in the last 10 years or three generations,
whichever is the longer. If the population is small, a percentage
decline of 20% or more in the last 5 years or 2 generations (whichever
is the longer) may be more appropriate. However, these figures are
presented only as examples, since it is impossible to give numerical
values that are applicable to all taxa because of differences in their
biology.

The historical extent of decline and the recent rate of decline should
be considered in conjunction with one another. In general, the higher
the historical extent of decline, and the lower the productivity of the
species, the more important a given recent rate of decline is. In
estimating or inferring the historical extent of decline or the recent
rate of decline, all relevant data should be taken into account. A
decline need not necessarily be ongoing. If data are available only for
a short period and the extent or rate of decline based on these data are
cause for concern, the guidelines above (extrapolated as necessary or
relevant) should still apply. However, natural fluctuations should not
normally count as part of a decline, but an observed decline should not
necessarily be considered part of a natural fluctuation unless there is
evidence for this. A decline that is the result of legal activities
carried out pursuant to a scientifically based harvesting programme that
reduces the population to a planned level, not detrimental to the
survival of the species, would not normally be covered by the term
'decline'.

> *^1^* **Application of 'decline' for commercially exploited aquatic
> species**
>
> *In marine and large freshwater bodies, a narrower range of 5-20% is
> deemed to be more appropriate in most cases, with a range of 5-10%
> being applicable for species with high productivity, 10-15% for
> species with medium productivity and 15-20% for species with low
> productivity. Nevertheless some species may fall outside this range.
> Low productivity is correlated with low mortality rate and high
> productivity with high mortality. One possible guideline for indexing
> productivity is the natural mortality rate, with the range 0.2-0.5 per
> year indicating medium productivity.*
>
> *In general, historical extent of decline should be the primary
> criterion for consideration of listing in Appendix I.*
>
> *However, in circumstances where information to estimate
> extent-of-decline is limited, rate-of-decline over a recent period
> could itself still provide some information on extent-of-decline.*
>
> *For listing in Appendix II, the historical extent of decline and the
> recent rate of decline should be considered in conjunction with one
> another. The higher the historical extent of decline, and the lower
> the productivity of the species, the more important a given recent
> rate of decline is.*
>
> *A general guideline for a marked recent rate of decline is the rate
> of decline that would drive a population down within approximately a
> 10-year period from the current population level to the historical
> extent of decline guideline (i.e. 5-20% of baseline for exploited fish
> species). There should rarely be a need for concern for populations
> that have exhibited an historical extent of decline of less than 50%,
> unless the recent rate of decline has been extremely high.*
>
> *Even if a population is not declining appreciably, it could be
> considered for listing in Appendix II if it is near the
> extent-of-decline guidelines recommended above for consideration for
> Appendix-I-listing. A range of between 5% and 10% above the relevant
> extent-of-decline might be considered as a definition of 'near',
> taking due account of the productivity of the species.*
>
> *A recent rate-of-decline is important only if it is still occurring,
> or may resume, and is projected to lead to the species reaching the
> applicable point for that species in the Appendix-I extent-of-decline
> guidelines within approximately a 10-year period. Otherwise the
> overall extent-of-decline is what is important. When sufficient data
> are available, the recent rate-of-decline should be calculated over
> approximately a 10-year period. If fewer data are available, annual
> rates over a shorter period could be used. If there is evidence of a
> change in the trend, greater weight should be given to the more recent
> consistent trend. In most cases, listing would only be considered if
> the decline were projected to continue.*
>
> *In considering the percentages indicated above, account needs to be
> taken of taxon- and case-specific biological and other factors that
> are likely to affect extinction risk. Depending on the biology,
> patterns of exploitation and area of distribution of the taxon,
> vulnerability factors (as listed in this Annex) may increase this
> risk, whereas mitigating factors (e.g. large absolute numbers or
> refugia) may reduce it.*

***Vulnerability factors***

'Vulnerability' can be defined as the susceptibility to intrinsic or
external effects which increase the risk of extinction (even when
mitigating factors are taken into account). There are a number of taxon-
or case-specific biological and other factors that may affect the
extinction risk associated with a given percentage decline, small
population size or restricted area of distribution. These can be, but
are not limited to, aspects of any of the following:

[Intrinsic factors]{.underline}

-- Life history (e.g. low fecundity, slow growth rate of the individual,
high age at first maturity, long generation time)

-- Low absolute numbers or biomass or restricted area of distribution

-- Population structure (age/size structure, sex ratio)

-- Behavioural factors (e.g. social structure, migration, aggregating
behaviour)

-- Density (for sessile or semi-sessile species)

-- Specialized niche requirements (e.g. diet, habitat)

-- Species associations such as symbiosis and other forms of
co-dependency

-- Reduced genetic diversity

-- Depensation (prone to continuing decline even in the absence of
exploitation)

-- Endemism

-- Seed dispersal mechanism

-- Specialized pollinators

[Extrinsic factors]{.underline}

-- Selectivity of removals (that may compromise recruitment)

-- Threats from alien invasive species (hybridization, disease
transmission, depredation, etc.)

-- Habitat degradation (contamination, soil erosion, alteration by alien
invasive species, etc.)

-- Habitat loss/destruction

-- Habitat fragmentation

-- Harsh environmental conditions

-- Threats from disease

-- Rapid environmental change (e.g. climate regime shifts)

-- Stochastic events.

## Appendix 6. Criteria for the certification of products from sustainable fishing as recommended by the Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria {#appendix-6.-criteria-for-the-certification-of-products-from-sustainable-fishing-as-recommended-by-the-nordic-technical-working-group-on-fisheries-ecolabelling-criteria .unnumbered}

**(from Anon 2000)**

**Proposed Criteria**

The primary requirement for labelling is that the fishery be conducted
in a sustainable manner. In this context, a fishery is defined as a
fishing operation using a certain technology, catching fish of a certain
species or a mix of species which may vary from trip to trip but focuses
on a certain group of target species, and operates within a specific
area. The certification unit is thus not simply individual fish stocks,
viewed in isolation, nor is it all the fisheries of a nation.

The proposed criteria relate to the North-eastern Atlantic region and
may therefore not be directly applicable to other regions. It is,
however, understood that the criteria presented here are not in
contradiction to globally acceptable criteria. Further work on the
adaptation and elaboration of criteria should be undertaken in each
region.

The proposed criteria will be discussed under two headings below: *Stock
aspects* covering the sustainability of the fisheries in relation to the
fish stocks being targeted, and *ecosystem effects* covering the effects
of fisheries on the marine ecosystem beyond the impacts on targeted fish
stocks.

*Stock aspects*

The main objective is verification that a precautionary approach has
been adopted to the management of the fishery.

It is proposed that stock criteria consist of four (4) elements:

1.1. The fishery must follow a fisheries management plan. A fisheries
management plan is an administrative instrument for long-term strategic
management of fishery resources. According to FAO Technical Guidelines,
a fisheries management plan is an arrangement between a fishery
management authority and interested parties which identifies the
partners in the fishery and their respective roles, the objectives for
the fishery and specifies the management rules. The management plan will
serve as a reference, summarizing the current state of knowledge on the
resource, its environment and the fishery.

1.2. The fisheries management plan must be based on regular (e.g.
annual) scientific advice on the state of fish stocks and
recommendations for their sustainable exploitation. The advice should be
based on the best available science. In the case of nationally managed
fisheries, the advice should come from a creditable research
organisation. In the case of internationally managed fisheries, advice
should be given by the competent international organisation (e.g. ICES
in the NE-Atlantic, NAFO in the NW-Atlantic, etc.).

1.3. The fisheries management plan must include pre-agreed management
measures that come into force immediately when relevant *precautionary
reference points* are reached. A variety of management measures can be
considered, including reductions in TAC, reductions in effort, fleet
reductions, etc. The measures must be chosen based on scientific study
and have a high likelihood of improving the stock situation beyond
precautionary reference points. In addition, pre-agreed *limit reference
point* must be defined and, if these are reached, fishing targeted on
the stock must cease.

1.4. Efficient monitoring and control mechanisms must be in place.

The first three of these elements are easily verifiable; namely, whether
there is a fisheries management plan, whether there is scientific
advice, and whether there are pre-agreed measures. The fourth element
should be verified by independent review, e.g. by certifying
organisations.

Taken together, these elements give assurance that ecolabelled fish
products derive from fish stocks that are harvested in a sustainable
way.

It should be emphasised that the establishment of a fisheries management
plan (see FAO 1997) and precautionary reference points need not under
all circumstances involve great complexity or cost, especially in cases
where stocks are lightly exploited.

This scheme places the emphasis on the logic inherent in the fisheries
management process and not just on the state of the fish stock at any
given time. The need for considering the management process as a whole
stems in part from the fact that fish stocks undergo natural
fluctuations that can occur independently of any impact from fisheries.
The important consideration is that the process be a self-correcting one
such that the sustainability is not subject to unacceptable risk.

Note that even stocks which have been over-fished in the past can be
included in the scheme, provided current and future exploitation is set
on a precautionary course^1^. This property reinforces the incentive
structure of the proposed scheme and enhances its chances of being
widely adopted.

Products from mixed fisheries targeting several stocks simultaneously
can only be labelled if the criteria are fulfilled for the individual
target stocks simultaneously.

Cases of mixed fisheries where limited data exist on some or all the
separate target stocks, at the present state of knowledge, present
difficulties and require particular attention. However, if it can be
shown that a) both effort and catches have been relatively stable for at
least a decade and b) catch levels can safely be assumed to constitute a
small fraction of total stocks relative to production capacity, then
ecolabelling could be favourably considered, provided that a fisheries
management plan exists including pre-agreed measures if effort or catch
levels change.

*Ecosystem effects*

Requests for assurances against ecosystem effects can easily develop
into demands on information and predictability which will be insatiable,
either in principle or for cost reasons. Furthermore, the problem that
poorer countries will be at a disadvantage *a priori* is important here
-- research and monitoring regarding the ecological effects of fisheries
is costly and can hardly be afforded by countries that are just moving
into basic resource management.

The precautionary approach can be used to get around this problem. The
larger the pressure put on the system, the larger the demands that
should be put on documentation of impacts as a condition for continued
exploitation at that level. It is thus in principle possible to exploit
an ecosystem at an exploitation level which is considered 'safe' without
the need for extensive documentation.

This will not necessarily lead to a situation where less economic
benefits are produced from the resource system: maximal production and
economic yields are generally achieved at considerably lower
exploitation levels than those currently prevailing in most situations.
Lower exploitation levels will thus work in the same direction in
economic and ecological terms.

Avoidance of overfishing will go a long way towards eliminating negative
ecological impact associated with fishing.

In discussing criteria to deal with ecosystem effects, it must be kept
in mind that it is impossible *a priori* to list all possible effects at
the ecosystem level. It is therefore proposed that general criteria are
defined for those effects which are found most critical or which are
pertinent to many fisheries and that all other possible (and today even
largely unknown) effects are dealt with by a requirement for a
management plan to address any issues being raised and substantiated by
scientific advice.

To aid in avoiding negative ecosystem effects and to help conserve
biodiversity, the following three criteria are proposed:

2.1. Destructive fishing practices, such as the use of explosives or
poisons to kill fish, are not used.

2.2. Discards of fish, crustaceans and molluscs are minimised through
the use of the best available technology for selective fishing
methods^2^. Discards are monitored through a sampling program.

2.3. Management plans should exist for any other ecosystem issues
properly identified, based on scientific advice, as being of serious
concern in the fishery in question. These issues could involve bycatches
of red listed species, seabirds and marine mammals and local effects of
fishing in relation to sensitive biota or habitats (seabird breeding,
coral reefs etc).

^1^ This is explained in the following quote from ICES (1999) p.6: "Note
that if a stock is regarded as being in a depleted state, or even if
overfishing is taking place, the development and effective
implementation of a plan which is regarded as sufficient to reduce
fishing mortality to no higher than F~pa~ and to rebuild SSB to above
B~pa~, within a "reasonable" period, would satisfy the condition that
management were consistent with a precautionary approach."

^2^'Best available technology' is here understood as that technology
which at any point in time utilises the best available knowledge about
the selectivity of fishing gear while not jeopardising the economic
viability of the fisheries.

## Appendix 7. The Australian Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts guidelines for the ecological sustainable management of fisheries {#appendix-7.-the-australian-department-of-environment-water-heritage-and-the-arts-guidelines-for-the-ecological-sustainable-management-of-fisheries .unnumbered}

**(from DEWHA 2007).**

**PRINCIPLE 1.**

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to
over-fishing, or for those stocks that are over-fished, the fishery must
be conducted such that there is a high degree of probability the
stock(s) will recover**.**

**Objective 1.** The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that
maintain ecologically viable^1^ stock levels at an agreed point or
range, with acceptable levels of probability.

***Information requirements***

***1.1.1*** There is a reliable information collection system in place
appropriate to the scale of the fishery. The level of data collection
should be based upon an appropriate mix of fishery independent and
dependent research and monitoring.

***Assessment***

***1.1.2*** There is a robust assessment of the dynamics and status of
the species/fishery and periodic review of the process and the data
collected. Assessment should include a process to identify any reduction
in biological diversity and /or reproductive capacity. Review should
take place at regular intervals but at least every three years.^2^

***1.1.3*** The distribution and spatial structure of the stock(s) has
been established and factored into management responses*.*

***1.1.4*** There are reliable estimates of all removals, including
commercial (landings and discards), recreational and indigenous, from
the fished stock. These estimates have been factored into stock
assessments and target species catch levels.

***1.1.5*** There is a sound estimate of the potential productivity of
the fished stock/s and the proportion that could be harvested.

***Management responses***

***1.1.6*** There are reference points (target and/or limit), that
trigger management actions including a biological bottom line and/or a
catch or effort upper limit beyond which the stock should not be
taken.^3^

***1.1.7*** There are management strategies in place capable of
controlling the level of take.

***1.1.8*** Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not threaten
stocks of by-product species. (Guidelines 1.1.1 to 1.1.7 should be
applied to by-product species to an appropriate level)

***1.1.9*** The management response, considering uncertainties in the
assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of
achieving the objective.

**Objective 2.** Where the fished stock(s) are below a defined reference
point, the fishery will be managed to promote recovery to ecologically
viable stock levels within nominated timeframes.

***Management responses***

***1.2.1*** A precautionary recovery strategy is in place specifying
management actions, or staged management responses, which are linked to
reference points. The recovery strategy should apply until the stock
recovers, and should aim for recovery within a specific time period
appropriate to the biology of the stock. ^4^

***1.2.2*** If the stock is estimated as being at or below the
biological and / or effort bottom line, management responses such as a
zero targeted catch, temporary fishery closure or a 'whole of fishery'
effort or quota reduction are implemented.

**PRINCIPLE 2.**

Fishing operations should be managed to minimise their impact on the
structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the
ecosystem.^5^

**Objective 1.** The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not
threaten bycatch species.

***Information requirements***

***2.1.1*** Reliable information, appropriate to the scale of the
fishery, is collected on the composition and abundance of bycatch.

***Assessments***

***2.1.2*** There is a risk analysis of the bycatch with respect to its
vulnerability to fishing.^6^

***Management responses***

***2.1.3*** Measures are in place to avoid capture and mortality of
bycatch species unless it is determined that the level of catch is
sustainable (except in relation to endangered, threatened or protected
species). Steps must be taken to develop suitable technology if none is
available.

***2.1.4*** An indicator group of bycatch species is monitored.

***2.1.5*** There are decision rules that trigger additional management
measures when there are significant perturbations in the indicator
species numbers*.*

***2.1.6*** The management response, considering uncertainties in the
assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of
achieving the objective.

**Objective 2.** The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids
mortality of, or injuries to, endangered, threatened or protected
species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological
communities. ^7^

***Information requirements***

***2.2.1*** Reliable information is collected on the interaction with
endangered, threatened or protected species and threatened ecological
communities.

***Assessments***

***2.2.2*** There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on
endangered, threatened or protected species.

***2.2.3*** There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on
threatened ecological communities.

***Management responses***

***2.2.4*** There are measures in place to avoid capture and/or
mortality of endangered, threatened or protected species.

***2.2.5*** There are measures in place to avoid impact on threatened
ecological communities.

***2.2.6*** The management response, considering uncertainties in the
assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of
achieving the objective.

**Objective 3.** The fishery is conducted, in a manner that minimises
the impact of fishing operations on the ecosystem generally.

***Information requirements***

***2.3.1*** Information appropriate for the analysis in 2.3.2 is
collated and/or collected covering the fisheries impact on the ecosystem
and environment generally.

***Assessment***

**2.3.2** Information is collected and a risk analysis, appropriate to
the scale of the fishery and its potential impacts, is conducted into
the susceptibility of each of the following ecosystem components to the
fishery.

> 1\. Impacts on ecological communities
>
> • Benthic communities
>
> • Ecologically related, associated or dependent species
>
> • Water column communities
>
> 2\. Impacts on food chains
>
> • Structure
>
> • Productivity/flows
>
> 3\. Impacts on the physical environment
>
> • Physical habitat
>
> • Water quality

***Management responses***

***2.3.3*** Management actions are in place to ensure significant damage
to ecosystems does not arise from the impacts described in 2.3.1.

***2.3.4*** There are decision rules that trigger further management
responses when monitoring detects impacts on selected ecosystem
indicators beyond a predetermined level, or where action is indicated by
application of the precautionary approach.

***2.3.5*** The management response, considering uncertainties in the
assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of
achieving the objective.

^1^ Ecological viable stock has a general rather than a specific
meaning. It refers to the maintenance of the exploited population at
high levels of abundance designed to maintain productivity, provide
margins of safety for error and uncertainty and maintain yields over the
long term in a way that conserves the stocks role and function in the
ecosystem.

^2^ Review should be undertaken by the relevant management authority in
a transparent way.

^3^ Reference points can allow for seasonal fluctuations in stock
recruitment and other areas of uncertainty.

^4^ Strategies require that recovery should take place within specified
times with certain degrees of probability.

^5^ The issues addressed under the principle are those that define
components of ecosystem integrity.

^6^ The vulnerability of a bycatch species may be its vulnerability to
fishing technology (e.g. its catchability), or its vulnerability in
terms of ecological impact (e.g. loss of predators or prey).

^7^ "Protected" species are those which warrant a higher degree of
conservation and for which explicit legislative or other mechanisms
exist, e.g. they may be categorised under separate legislation as
"endangered", "threatened", "protected".

## Appendix 8. Outline of the proposed Japanese ecolabel for capture fisheries, MEL. {#appendix-8.-outline-of-the-proposed-japanese-ecolabel-for-capture-fisheries-mel. .unnumbered}

**(from MEL Japan Secretariat)**

2\. Basic principles

\(1\) Promotion of the conservation and sustainable use of marine
resources and the conservation of marine ecosystems.

Marine Eco-label Japan (MEL Japan) \"is intended to make provision for
informed decisions of purchasers whose choice can be relied upon to
promote and stimulate the sustainable use of fishery resources,\" as
stipulated in the FAO Guidelines.

\(2\) Co-management

MEL Japan pursues utilizing the merits of co-management which have been
practiced in order to ensure the sustainable use of aquatic resources in
Japan and Asia from olden times. The idea of co-management is that
fishermen share in the role of fisheries management and resource
enhancement. In fishing communities in Japan, fishers have developed the
idea of managing local fishery resources jointly and on their own will
in order to ensure subsistence of their communities. As a result,
practical and effective resource management-oriented fisheries,
incomparable in other parts of the world, have developed and expanded in
Japan. In the background of this development, one can point out the
presence of many small-scale fishers and fishing boats as well as a
variety of target fish species in fisheries. A framework has functioned
that encourages fishers and others related to fisheries, who are users
of the resources, to fulfill their role in resource management
voluntarily and individually. Fishers and regional and central
governments are united in participating in the current framework for
resource recovery as well. MEL Japan, therefore, effectively applies the
concept of co-management to certification as a means to facilitate and
reinforce the work of the scheme. MEL Japan aims to create a positive
cycle in which fishers, through ecolabel certification, give closer
attention to resource management, reinforce cooperation with scientists
and administrators, and contribute to the accumulation of scientific
data and the improvement of information through fishing activities.

\(3\) Scientific and objective certification

MEL Japan is structured by a council, a board and committees that
include representatives of fisheries management authorities, the fishing
industry, fishworkers organizations, the scientific community,
environmental interest groups, fish processors, traders and retailers as
well as consumers, which realize balanced and fair participation by all
interested parties. MEL Japan also ensures scientific and objective
certification by independent certification bodies which form a
certification team comprising scientists and other experts with a
profound understanding of the Japanese fisheries and marine environment.

3\. Affordable costs of certification

For the ecolabelling scheme to be accepted widely, it is crucial that it
contribute~~s~~ to the sustainability of fisheries. What MEL Japan
pursues is a practicable framework in which diverse fishers\--large and
small-scale alike---proactively engaged in sustainable fisheries can
obtain certification at low costs.

To that end, the scheme of MEL Japan is being developed into a system
that requires recovery of actual costs only and avoids duplication of
work, by utilizing to the maximum extent existing data acquired through
the management efforts that have already been undertaken. Furthermore,
the system is non-commercial and non-profit in nature, and MEL Japan
itself and a third party Certification Body require the minimum
necessary fees for maintenance of the project. Needless to say,
minimizing certification costs does not mean compromising the
sustainability requirements, and sustainability of the examined
fisheries is the prerequisite for certification.

4\. Present goal

The goal of MEL Japan at the moment is to promote its recognition in the
Japanese market, with the aim to gain wider acceptance. MEL Japan also
aims to respond to the needs of foreign markets to promote the export of
sustainable Japanese seafood.

Annex (Provisional Document)

Outline of MEL Japan

1\. Administration of the system

The system will be administered provisionally by MEL Japan established
in the Japan Fisheries Association (JFA), and the JFA\'s Operations
Division will serve as the Secretariat.

2\. Organization of the system

MEL Japan's Council administers the entire scheme, accredits the
Certification Bodies, registers industry organizations, and makes
decisions on the certification standard and procedural rules with the
aim to ensure fairness and objectivity. Under the Council, the Technical
Committee oversees the development and application of the certification
standard, the Public Relations Committee publicizes the system in Japan
and overseas, and the Audit Committee supervises the requirements of the
Certification Bodies and administration of the system. Furthermore, the
Board, composed mainly of experts and academics from various areas, is
established in order to make the objectives of MEL Japan widely
acceptable. The Board examines the basic administrative matters and
advises MEL Japan.

3\. Certification Body

The Certification Body is an entity having the staff with certain
technical knowledge and expertise by type of certification (Fisheries
Certification and Chain of Custody Certification) in order to exercise
fair and neutral judgment independent from the applicants and ensure
highly precise inspections. MEL Japan accredits the body on the basis of
its compliance with the objectives of MEL Japan. The effective
accreditation period shall be five years unless special reasons exist.
The Certification Body conducts inspection activities for certification
based on the application from the applicant, reports the results to MEL
Japan, and carries out regular management inspections regarding the
contents of certification.

4\. Industry organizations, etc.

Industry organizations by sector consenting to the activities of MEL
Japan shall be recruited to positively participate in, propagate the
system and engage in exchanges of views.

Industry organizations shall advise or act as proxy in the application
for certification by their members for registration in MEL Japan.

5\. Certification methods

Certification consists of two types: certification in the production
stage and certification in the distribution and processing stage. In the
production stage, producers (including fisheries cooperative
associations and fisheries organizations) will apply for certification
to an accredited Certification Body as classified by target species
using the identical fishing method. In the distribution and processing
stage, application will be made to a Certification Body by operators as
classified by target catch and product. Where necessary, a unified
application can be made for both certification in the production stage
and distribution and processing stage. Certification standard and
guidelines shall be determined by the Council after discussion at the
Technical Committee on the basis of the following requirements.

(Certification standard in the production stage)

\(1\) Fisheries should be conducted under an effective management
scheme;

\(2\) The target resource should maintain the level of being used
sustainably; and

\(3\) Appropriate measures should be taken for the conservation of the
ecosystem

(Certification standard in the distribution and processing stage)

\(1\) A management system should be in place, such as the appointment of
persons in charge and custody of related documents;

\(2\) Traceability should be secured through (1), etc. and the mixture
of seafood other than the target seafood should not occur.

MEL Japan shall conduct certification after consultations at the Audit
Committee upon receipt of the certification report of the Certification
Body, and issue certificates to the applicants through the Certification
Body. Certification shall be effective for five years or less for the
production stage and for three years or less for the distribution and
processing stage, but regular examinations by the Certification Body may
be conducted even in the course of the effective period.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc191452104 .anchor}**Appendix 9. The Marine
Stewardship Council principles and criteria for a sustainable fishing**

**(from MSC 2008b)**

**PRINCIPLE 1:**

**A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to
over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those
populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner
that demonstrably leads to their recovery.** ^2^**:**

[Intent]{.underline}: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the
productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are
not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited
populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to
retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and
uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the
long term.

[Criteria]{.underline}:

1.  The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually
    maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and
    associated ecological community relative to its potential
    productivity.

2.  Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be
    executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a
    specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the
    ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields
    within a specified time frame.

3.  Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or
    genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs
    reproductive capacity.

**PRINCIPLE 2:**

**Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure,
productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat
and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the
fishery depends.**

[Intent]{.underline}: The intent of this principle is to encourage the
management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system
designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the
ecosystem.

[Criteria]{.underline}:

1.  The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional
    relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades
    or ecosystem state changes.

2.  The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten
    biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels
    and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered,
    threatened or protected species.

3.  Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be
    executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a
    specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the
    precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population
    to produce long-term potential yields.

**PRINCIPLE 3:**

**The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects
local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates
institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the
resource to be responsible and sustainable.**

[Intent]{.underline}: The intent of this principle is to ensure that
there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing
Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

[A. Management System Criteria]{.underline}:

1.  The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral
    exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall:

2.  demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC
    Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is
    transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as
    to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The
    impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on
    the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to
    subsistence, artisinal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be
    addressed as part of this process;

3.  be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the
    fishery -- reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational
    criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for
    monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings;

4.  observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of
    people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner
    consistent with ecological sustainability;

5.  incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes
    arising within the system[^3];

6.  provide economic and social incentives that contribute to
    sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that
    contribute to unsustainable fishing;

7.  act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best
    available information using a precautionary approach particularly
    when dealing with scientific uncertainty;

8.  incorporate a research plan -- appropriate to the scale and
    intensity of the fishery -- that addresses the information needs of
    management and provides for the dissemination of research results to
    all interested parties in a timely fashion;

9.  require that assessments of the biological status of the resource
    and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted;

10. specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree
    of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and
    ecological community's high productivity relative to its potential
    productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age,
    sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence
    of, fishing for target species;

b)  identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse
    impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such
    as spawning and nursery areas;

c)  providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish
    populations to specified levels within specified time frames;

d)  mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated
    catch limits are reached;

e)  establishing no-take zones where appropriate;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance,
    monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that
    established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies
    corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

    [B. Operational Criteria]{.underline}

    Fishing operation shall:

12. make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture
    of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the
    target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be
    avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive;

13. implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse
    impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such
    as spawning and nursery areas;

14. not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons
    or explosives;

15. minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills,
    on-board spoilage of catch, etc.;

16. be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and
    all legal and administrative requirements; and

17. assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection
    of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective
    management of the resources and the fishery.

^2^ The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not
represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to
provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The
criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be
reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new
information, technologies and additional consultations

^3^ Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a
significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from
certification.

## Appendix 10. The criteria for the Friend of the Sea Mark ecolabel for capture fisheries {#appendix-10.-the-criteria-for-the-friend-of-the-sea-mark-ecolabel-for-capture-fisheries .unnumbered}

**(from FotS 2008b)**

[Essential Requirements]{.underline}: Compliance of 100% of Essential
applicable requirements is needed for the Organization to be recommended
for certification. Any deficiency against one of these requirements is
considered as Major Non Conformity and the relevant Corrective Actions
must be implemented by the Organization in a maximum time of 3 months
since the date the Major Non Conformity was raised. The Organization
must provide Certification Body with satisfactory evidence of all Major
Con Conformities having been rectified.

[Important Requirements]{.underline}: compliance of 100% of important
applicable requirements is needed for the Organization to be recommended
for certification. Any deficiency against one of these requirements is
considered as a Minor Non Conformity and the relevant proposal of
Corrective Action (state of intent & action plan) must be submitted by
the Organization to Certification Body within a maximum period of 3
weeks since the date the Non Conformity was raised. In the proposal the
Organization must define the timescale to implement every Corrective
Action (maximum time to full implementation: 1 year since the date the
Minor Non Conformity was raised).

[Recommended requirements]{.underline}: it's not strictly necessary to
comply with this kind of requirement in order to be granted the
certificate. Nevertheless all the applicable requirements will be
inspected and any gap will be always reported in the Audit Report as a
recommendation. In case of recommendation the Organization has to
evaluate if corrective actions are needed and, by the next surveillance
audit, has to inform Certification Body about its decision and about any
Corrective Actions applied.

Friend of the Sea Criteria are categorical in nature and based on the
most restrictive and worldwide acknowledged and accepted definition of
'sustainable fisheries'. On this matter Friend of the Sea has taken in
due consideration requests from stakeholders, such as NGOs and
traditional and artisanal fisheries, for a more limitative definition of
'sustainable fisheries'.

A Sustainable Fishery, in the strictest sense, is indeed one that:

> 1\. Does not insist on an overexploited, depleted or data deficient
> stock;
>
> 2\. Has no impact on the seabed;
>
> 3\. Has lower than average discard level;
>
> 4\. Complies with all local national and international legislation
>
> 5\. Apply a management system that assures the respect of above
> mentioned requirements.

**1 - SPECIES AND STOCK STATUS CRITERIA: fisheries targeting not
overexploited stocks**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **n°**   **Requirement**                                        **Level**
  -------- ------------------------------------------------------ -----------
           The targeted and by-caught species CANNOT BE:          

  1.1      Included in the IUCN Redlist of endangered species     Essential

  1.2      Overexploited nor Depleted nor Recovering, based on    Essential
           the most recent FAO and Regional Fishery Bodies        
           assessment. An exception is made for those traditional 
           fisheries which a) respect all other criteria; b)      
           represent not more than 10% of the total catch of the  
           overexploited stock; c) should be taken as a positive  
           example of well managed low impact fisheries and thus  
           be promoted.                                           

  1.3      Data Deficient                                         Essential
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This criterion allows for the approval of only those fisheries insisting
on currently not overexploited stocks for which there is sufficient
available data for assessment. It is the most restrictive criteria
conceivable for sustainable fisheries. It allows for a fast, categorical
and updatable assessment. The criteria also equally considers the health
of the stock of occurring by-catch species, further requesting that none
of the caught species be among those included in the IUCN Redlist of
endangered species. This criterion has allowed Friend of the Sea to
generate a list of Sustainable and a list of Unsustainable Fisheries. By
referring to FAO and Regional Fishery Bodies assessments, Friend of the
Sea takes into consideration the most reliable, complete, official and
widely accepted opinions on stocks status.

**~~2 -- SEABED IMPACT CRITERIA: respect of benthic habitat~~**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **n°**   **Requirement**                                        **Level**
  -------- ------------------------------------------------------ -----------
  2.1      The targeted species CANNOT be fished by gears which   Essential
           impact the seabed unless evidence is provided that the 
           impact on the seabed is negligible.                    

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This criteria acknowledges NGOs and other stakeholders' request for a
ban on use of Bottom Trawlers and Dredges, considering the unsustainable
impact on the seafloor evidenced by the greatest majority of the
published scientific reports.

**3 -- SELECTIVITY CRITERIA: fishing methods with lower than average
discard levels**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **n°**   **Requirement**                                        **Level**
  -------- ------------------------------------------------------ -----------
  3.1      The targeted species CANNOT be fished by gears which   Essential
           have discard levels higher than 8%, considered by FAO  
           2005 to be the average discard level worldwide.        

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most updated and official information about discards levels per
fishing gear is used, in order to assess products against this criteria.

**4 -- LEGAL CRITERIA: TAC, IUU, FOC and legislation**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **n°**   **Requirement**                                        **Level**
  -------- ------------------------------------------------------ -----------
           The fleet fishing the audited product must :           

  4.1      Respect Total Allowable Catches (TACs), if in place    Essential

  4.2      Include NO IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated)      Essential
           fishing vessels in order to allow companies and        
           stakeholders to monitor their suppliers and the origin 
           of their raw material                                  

  4.3      Include NO FOC (Flag Of Convenience) fishing vessels   Essential
           in order to allow companies and stakeholders to        
           monitor their suppliers and the origin of their raw    
           material                                               

  4.4      Respect national and international legislation         Essential
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The criteria focuses on legal aspects which are often given for granted
but which can standalone represent a relevant barrier to approval, as
the IUU and FOC evidence is beginning to surface and as several
fisheries do not respect TACs. Friend of the Sea maintains a list of IUU
and FOC in order to allow companies and stakeholders to monitor their
suppliers and the origin of their raw material.

**5 -- MANAGEMENT CRITERIA**: **Monitoring and Precautionary Approach**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **n°**   **Requirement**                                        **Level**
  -------- ------------------------------------------------------ -----------
           The Organization should:                               

  1.1      be managed accordingly to its size and cultural        Recomm.
           context                                                

  1.2      Operate following the Precautionary Principle          Recomm.

  1.3      Incorporate a monitoring and research process          Recomm.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differently from criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 criteria 5 is not categorical
nor as stringent. On the field experience has shown that fulfilment of
Criteria 5 is a direct consequence of fulfilment of criteria 1, 2, 3 and
4. As an example, a Fishery whose stock is considered as Fully Exploited
by FAO, must necessarily have incorporated a monitoring and research
process (otherwise it would be data deficient).

## Appendix 11. Criteria for the ecological assessment of sustainable capture fisheries for the Naturland Wildfish ecolabel  {#appendix-11.-criteria-for-the-ecological-assessment-of-sustainable-capture-fisheries-for-the-naturland-wildfish-ecolabel .unnumbered}

**(from Naturland 2008)**

**Note:** This ecolabel includes further criteria for the assessment of
social and economic sustainability

2\. Ecology

2.1 The project performs its fishing activities in such a way that
integrity of the ecosystem is maintained long-term, concerning both the
stocks of the economically relevant species as well as the other
components of the ecosystem.

2.2 Subject of the evaluation is the geographical catchment area of the
respective fishery project or the project's share in the total
exploitation of a certain species.

2.3 In the case of species which only occur temporarily in the catchment
area of the project, or which do not spend their whole life cycle there,
an evaluation is made of whether the management form of the project were
compatible with maintaining the total stock volume if this management
form were adopted by all the enterprises involved in fishing this
species in this way (exemplary character).

2.4 Even if the fishery project is proven to be managed in an exemplary
sustainable manner, Naturland reserves the right not to certify the
project, or to defer certification, if the total stock of a species
should be critically jeopardised by other factors.

2.5 If no exclusively used geographic area can be attributed to the
project (e.g. in deep-sea fishery), the evaluation is made based not
only on the fishing practices of the project but also on the total
situation of the stocks in question.

2.6 Practices which are generally deemed as detrimental or critical from
an ecological point of view are prohibited. These include the following
regulations in addition to the project-specific management conditions
defined:

-   catching marine mammals and ocean turtles

-   catching sharks for their fins ("finning")

-   the use of poisons and explosives in fishing

-   damage to coral reefs (including cold-water corals)

-   beam trawl fishing as well as demersal trawling on highly structured
    sea beds

-   demersal trawling without suitable escape hatches to keep bycatches
    to a minimum.

2.7 The project-specific management conditions govern the following in
particular:

-   minimum size and maximum quantities

-   equipment and techniques employed

-   close seasons and sanctuaries

-   avoidance or minimisation of bycatches

-   other measures which help to protect the aquatic ecosystem and/or
    individual species (e.g. protection of breeding colonies)

-   protocols for monitoring of relevant pollutants, determination of
    specific alert/reporting values and threshold values.

## Appendix 12. The principles and criteria relating to the target species, ecosystem and management system used by the Marine Aquarium Council to certify fisheries for the aquarium trade  {#appendix-12.-the-principles-and-criteria-relating-to-the-target-species-ecosystem-and-management-system-used-by-the-marine-aquarium-council-to-certify-fisheries-for-the-aquarium-trade .unnumbered}

**(after MAC 2001)**

*Purpose*

To verify that the collection area is managed according to principles of
ecosystem management^1^ in order to ensure ecosystem integrity^2^ and
the sustainable use^3^ of the marine aquarium fishery.

1 *Management Principles*

1.1 Marine aquarium organism collection and fishing shall be managed so
that

> 1.1.1 the collection and fishing of target marine aquarium organisms
> are undertaken according to the principles of sustainable use^3^;
>
> 1.1.2 destructive collection and fishing practices^4^ are prohibited;
>
> 1.1.3 collection and fishing activities within the collection area
> support the conservation of biological diversity^5^ in the collection
> area;
>
> 1.1.4 basic principles of environmental management^6^ and ecosystem
> management are applied in the collection area; and
>
> 1.1.5 collection and fishing are undertaken in a planned and organized
> manner^7^.

2 *Collection Area Management Plan*

2.1 Those managing the fishery shall produce and implement a Collection
Area Management Plan^8^ consistent with the above management principles.

2.2 The Collection Area Management Plan shall be consistent with any
management plans that encompass the collection area and/or fishery
produced by the appropriate authority.

3 *Components of a Collection Area Management Plan*

3.1 The Collection Area Management Plan shall include the following
significant components (see Annex 1 for full description)

> 3.1.1 geographical boundaries of the collection area;
>
> 3.1.2 ownership and political boundaries of the collection area;
>
> 3.1.3 identification and listing of all stakeholders relevant to the
> collection area;
>
> 3.1.4 basic annual catch data for the marine aquarium organisms
> collected or fished in the collection area;
>
> 3.1.5 collection and fishing history of the collection area;
>
> 3.1.6 listing of significant organisms not collected or fished in the
> collection area;
>
> 3.1.7 a process for monitoring the collection area including the
> detection and reporting, to the appropriate legal authorities, of the
> use of destructive collection and fishing practices; and
>
> 3.1.8 a process for ensuring no collection and fishing of unsuitable
> species^9^.

4 *Effectiveness of a Collection Area Management Plan*

4.1 Periodic audit of the Collection Area Management Plan

> 4.1.1 Those managing the fishery shall have periodic audits of the
> Collection Area Management Plan undertaken by the appropriate
> authority on the timeframe specified in the plan to ensure its proper
> implementation.

4.2 Review of the Collection Area Management Plan

> 4.2.1 Those managing the fishery shall at regular intervals review the
> Collection Area Management Plan on the timeframe specified in the plan
> to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. The
> review shall address the need and amendments to the plan resulting
> from changing circumstances and audit results.

5 *Communication*

5.1 Stakeholder Communication

> 5.1.1 Clear lines of communication between stakeholders in the
> collection area shall be demonstrated.

1.  ecosystem management: means management taking due account of all
    living organisms and their environment in the management area. In
    practice, this means ensuring sustainability of target, dependent,
    and associated species.

2.  ecosystem integrity: means the ability to support and maintain a
    balanced, integrated, adaptive biological community having a species
    composition, biological diversity, and functional organisation
    comparable to that of the natural habitat in the region.

3.  sustainable use: means the use of components of biodiversity in a
    way and at a rate that does not lead to long-term decline of
    biological diversity, thereby maintaining the potential of the
    components to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future
    generations.

4.  destructive collection and fishing practices: means the collection
    and fishing of live marine aquarium organisms through methods that
    are environmentally destructive or harmful, including but not
    limited to practices such as the use of poisons/toxins, other
    deleterious materials, and explosives; reef dredging; and physical
    damage to non-target organisms, especially corals and other sessile
    invertebrates.

5.  biological diversity: means the variety and variability among living
    organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial,
    marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
    which they are a part; this includes diversity within species,
    between species and of ecosystems.

6.  environmental management: means management and control of the
    environment and natural resources systems in such a way so as to
    ensure the sustainability of development efforts over a long-term
    basis.

7.  planned and organized manner: means collection and fishing
    activities are consistent with the Collection Area Management Plan.

8.  Collection Area Management Plan: means a document or collection of
    documents, usually prepared by those managing the fishery, the
    purpose of which is to ensure the collection area is managed
    according to the principles of the MAC standards. It includes
    objectives for the fishery (resource, environmental, biodiversity
    and ecological), details of the decision-making processes, agreed
    measures for regulation of the fishery (e.g. general and specific
    measures, precautionary measures and contingency plans, issues of
    particular concern and the actions to address them, and arrangements
    for monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement).

9.  unsuitable species: means the species that have been determined by
    the MAC Committee on Unsuitable Species to be inappropriate for the
    trade in marine ornamentals. In practice this means species that are
    unlikely to survive shipment or capture for a considerable portion
    of their potential lifespan.

## Appendix 13. The scoring used in the Blue Ocean Institute seafood guide {#appendix-13.-the-scoring-used-in-the-blue-ocean-institute-seafood-guide .unnumbered}

**(from <http://www.blueocean.org/Seafood/>)**

For each of the five criteria, scoring entails awarding one, two, or
three core points and then applying adjustments (all that apply) that
add or subtract 0.5 points each. In cases where data are deficient, we
award a middle score assuming neither best nor worst case. A total score
of minus one to five points is possible for each criterion. Next, we
average the total scores in each category to get a final score. We treat
all criteria as equally important. The scores are turned into five
colour codes with green being 2.6-4, yellow being 1.8-2.19 and red being
0-1.39, with the two intermediate scores giving intermediate colours.

**Life history**

CORE POINTS

*Intrinsic rate of increase (r), age at maturity (t~m~), and maximum age
(t~max~):*

**+1** r \<0.05; or t~m~ \>10 years; or t~max~\>30 years

**+2** r = 0.05-0.15; or t~m~ =5-10 years; or t~max~ =11-30 years

**+3** r \>0.16; or t~m~ \<5 years; or t~max~ \<11 years

POINTS OF ADJUSTMENT

*Special behaviors that affect vulnerability or resilience to fishing
pressure:*

**- 0.5** E.g., site fidelity or concentrated spawning aggregations

**+0.5** E.g., wide dispersal during spawning *Sexual development*

**- 0.5** E.g., species is a hermaphrodite

**+0.5** E.g., sexual maturity occurs in less than one year

*Range:*

**- 0.5** Very small or restricted, e.g., species found along one coast
or endemic to a small region

**+0.5** Very wide, e.g., species distributed throughout the world's
oceans

*Worst/best case:*

**- 0.5** E.g., species matures at a high age, has special behaviors
that increase vulnerability, and has a small range

**+0.5** E.g., species matures very rapidly, has few special behaviors,
and has a wide range

**Abundance**

CORE POINTS

*Current population abundance compared to natural or unfished level:*

**+1** Low: Abundance or biomass is far below B~MSY~ (\<50% B~MSY~) or
population is depleted

**+2** Medium: Abundance or biomass is considered close to B~MSY~
(50-125% B~MSY~) or no information is available

**+3** High: Abundance or biomass is estimated to be close to virgin
biomass

POINTS OF ADJUSTMENT

*Trends:*

**- 0.5** Population is declining, e.g., declining catch per unit effort

**+0.5** population is increasing, e.g., increasing catch per unit
effort *Age and/or sex distribution:*

**- 0.5** Skewed relative to normal, e.g., truncated age structure or
anomalous sex distribution

**+0.5** Functionally normal *Food web impacts:*

**- 0.5** Catch jeopardizes availability of food for other species or
changes structure of food web

**+0.5** Indications that abundance does not jeopardize availability of
food for other species or change food web

*Worst/best case:*

**- 0.5** E.g., biomass very low, depleted, or declining, and skewed
sex/age distribution

**+0.5** Biomass very high or increasing and age/sex distribution is
normal

**Habitat**

CORE POINTS

*Effects of fishing gear on habitat:*

**+1** Serious damage, e.g., cyanide blasting, trawling, and dredging on
hard bottom

**+2** Modest damage, e.g., set gillnets

**+3** Little damage, e.g., hookand- line traps, hand picking,

pelagic longlines, midwater trawls, purse seines

POINTS OF ADJUSTMENT

*Habitat health:*

**- 0.5** Habitat too compromised by non-fishery causes to support this
species

**+0.5** Habitat robust and viable

*Habitat protection:*

**- 0.5** Important areas (e.g., critical spawning areas) not protected

**+0.5** Important areas are protected

*Recovery time:*

**- 0.5** Habitat recovery is very slow, e.g., coral reefs

**+0.5** Recovery of habitat quality is fast

*Worst/best case:*

**- 0.5** E.g., long-term damage to habitat, recovery is slow, ecosystem
change or instability is likely

**+0.5** E.g., fishing method is very low impact, habitat is greatly
improved compared to previous conditions, important areas are protected

**Bycatch**

CORE POINTS

*Level of bycatch relative to targeted landings and nature of bycatch:*

**+1** High: Bycatch \> targeted landings; drives decline in bycatch
species; endangers a species or prevents recovery of an endangered
species

**+2** Moderate: Bycatch is 10-99% of targeted landings and does not
drive the trend in abundance of the bycatch species; or level of bycatch
unknown or unmonitored

**+3** Low: Bycatch \<10% of targeted landings

POINTS OF ADJUSTMENT

*Bycatch of threatened, endangered, or protected species (TEP) and
management response:*

**- 0.5** TEP species are regularly caught

**+0.5** Specific measures taken to reduce bycatch of TEP species

*Bycatch of nontarget and undersized target species in this fishery or
bycatch of this species in other fisheries and management response:*

**- 0.5** Bycatch high and no management measures taken to reduce it

**+0.5** Measures (e.g., gear changes) are in place over a major portion
of species range to reduce bycatch of these species

*Bycatch of depleted target or non-target species (not including TEP
species):*

**- 0.5** Bycatch weakens recovery

**+0.5** Bycatch is not believed to weaken or undermine recovery of
these species

*Worst/best case:*

**- 0.5** Species is being driven to extinction as a result of fishery,
e.g., bycatch of albatrosses in toothfish fisheries

**+0.5** Fishery is very selective, e.g., harpoon fishery for swordfish

**Management**

CORE POINTS

*Presence (e.g., fishery regulations over major portion of species'
range) and effectiveness of management (e.g., conservation goals are
met):*

**+1** No management is in place

**+2** Management exists but is ineffective

**+3** Management is effective

POINTS OF ADJUSTMENT

*Catch and population monitoring:*

**- 0.5** Inadequate, e.g., illegal fishing is significant, stock
assessments are not conducted

**+0.5** Adequate, e.g., catch levels are enforced, stock assessments
are performed

*Response to ecological concerns and industry pressure:*

**- 0.5** Management responds insufficiently to concerns about ecosystem
disruption; fishers bring political pressure that weakens management

**+0.5** Management explicitly considers ecosystem; fishers advocate for
sustainability

*Response to species status:*

**- 0.5** Species is overfished and no recovery plan is in place, or
management is in violation of the law

**+0.5** Species is overfished but there's a recovery plan in place or
management is on the way

*Worst/best case:*

**- 0.5** E.g., species is depleted and management allows continued
exploitation with little enforcement of regulations despite public
outcry

**+0.5** E.g., effective management and enforcement is in place and
population is not overfished, or strong recovery plan is in place and
population rebuilding

## Appendix 14. The scoring used by the Monterey Bay Aquarium seafood guide {#appendix-14.-the-scoring-used-by-the-monterey-bay-aquarium-seafood-guide .unnumbered}

**(from <http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp>)**

Seafood Watch uses five sustainability criteria**,** corresponding to
these guiding principles, to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose
of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses.
These criteria are:

> 1\. Inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure
>
> 2\. Status of wild stocks
>
> 3\. Nature and extent of discarded bycatch
>
> 4\. Effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems
>
> 5\. Effectiveness of the management regime

A green (G), yellow (Y) or red (R) rank is assigned to each criterion,
with green being the most sustainable. The rank for each criterion is
assigned on the basis of a series of factors relevant to that criterion,
with each factor also given a green, yellow or red rank. In addition
there are 'critical conservation concerns' or factors that are scored
for criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5. An overall colour rank is then allocated for
the species according to:

> A species is green if it has three or more green criteria and the
> remaining criteria are not red.
>
> A species is yellow if
>
> 1\) Criteria "average" to yellow
>
> 2\) There are four green criteria and one red criteria
>
> 3\) Stock Status and Management criteria are both ranked yellow and
> remaining criteria are not red.
>
> A species is red if
>
> 1\) It has a total of two or more red criteria
>
> 2\) It has one or more Critical Conservation Concerns.

Based on these overall scores green species the consumer's best consumer
choice, yellow species are a good alternative and consumers are
encouraged to avoid red species.

The factors and 'critical conservation concerns' that are used to rank
each criterion for this process are:

Criterion 1: Inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Intrinsic rate of increase (r)      G: high (\>0.16)

                                      Y: medium (0.05-0.160

                                      R: low (\<).05)

  Age at first maturity               G: low (\<5y)

                                      Y: medium (0.05-10y)

                                      R: high (\>10y)

  Von Bertalanffy growth coefficient  G: high (\>0.16)
  (K)                                 

                                      Y: medium (0.05-0.15)

                                      R: low (\<0.05)

  Maximum age                         G: low (\<11y)

                                      Y: medium (11-30y)

                                      R: high (\>30y)

  Reproductive potential (fecundity)  G: high (\>100 individuals/year)

                                      Y: medium (10-100 individuals/year)

                                      R: low(\<10 individuals/year)

  Species range                       G: broad (many ocean basins,
                                      multiple stocks or highly
                                      migratory)

                                      Y: limited (one ocean basin)

                                      R: narrow (endemism, evolutionarily
                                      significant units, one coastline)

  Special behaviours or requirements  G: none known or behaviours
                                      decrease vulnerability

                                      Y: some (1-2) behaviours

                                      R: many (\>2) behaviours

  Quality and degradation of habitats G: habitat robust
  from non-fishery impacts            

                                      Y: habitat modestly altered by
                                      non-fishery impacts

                                      R: habitat substantially
                                      compromised from non-fishery
                                      impacts and thus has reduced
                                      capacity to support this species
                                      (e.g. dams, pollution, coastal
                                      development)
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Criterion 2: Status of wild stocks

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Management classification status  | G: underutilized [or]{.underline} |
|                                   | close to virgin biomass           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: fully fished [or]{.underline}  |
|                                   | recovering from overfishing or    |
|                                   | unknown                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: recruitment overfished         |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} growth           |
|                                   | overfished, overexploited,        |
|                                   | depleted [or]{.underline}         |
|                                   | 'threatened'                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Current population abundance      | G: at or above B~MSY~ (\>100%)    |
| relative to B~MSY~                |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: moderately below B~MSY~        |
|                                   | (50-100%)                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: substantially below B~MSY~     |
|                                   | (\<50%)                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Occurrence of overfishing         | G: overfishing not occurring      |
| (current level of fishing         | (F~curr~/F~MSY~\<1.0)             |
| mortality relative to overfishing |                                   |
| threshold)                        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: overfishing is likely/probable |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} fishing effort   |
|                                   | is increasing with poor           |
|                                   | understanding of stock status     |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} unknown          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: overfishing occurring          |
|                                   | (F~curr~/F~MSY~\>1.0)             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Overall degree of uncertainty in  | G: low (current stock assessment  |
| status of stock                   | and other fishery-independent     |
|                                   | data are robust [or]{.underline}  |
|                                   | reliable long-term                |
|                                   | fishery-dependent data)           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: medium (only limited,          |
|                                   | fishery-dependent data on stock   |
|                                   | status available)                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: high (little or no current     |
|                                   | fishery-dependent or independent  |
|                                   | information on stock status       |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} models/estimates |
|                                   | broadly disputed or otherwise     |
|                                   | out-of-date                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Long-term trend (relative to      | G: trend is up                    |
| species' generation time) in      |                                   |
| population abundance as measured  |                                   |
| by either fishery-independent     |                                   |
| (stock assessment) or             |                                   |
| fishery-dependent (standardized   |                                   |
| CPUE) measures                    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: trend is flat or variable      |
|                                   | (among areas, over time or among  |
|                                   | methods) [or]{.underline} unknown |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: trend is down                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Short-term trend in population    | G: trend is up                    |
| abundance as measured by either   |                                   |
| fishery-independent (stock        |                                   |
| assessment) or fishery-dependent  |                                   |
| (standardized CPUE) measures      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: trend is flat or variable      |
|                                   | (among areas, over time or among  |
|                                   | methods) [or]{.underline} unknown |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: trend is down                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Current age, size or sex          | G: distribution(s) is (are)       |
| distribution of the stock         | functionally normal               |
| relative to natural condition     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: distribution(s) unknown        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: distribution(s) is (are)       |
|                                   | skewed                            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \* A stock is considered a        | G:                                |
| Critical Conservation Concern and |                                   |
| the species is ranked red if it   |                                   |
| is:                               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y:                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: (1) overfished, overexploited  |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} depleted and     |
|                                   | trend in abundance is flat or     |
|                                   | down                              |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | \(2\) overfished                  |
|                                   | [and]{.underline} overfishing is  |
|                                   | occurring                         |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | \(3\) listed as a 'threatened     |
|                                   | species' or similar proxy by      |
|                                   | national or international bodies  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Criterion 3: Nature and extent of discarded bycatch

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Quantity of bycatch, including    | G: Quantity of bycatch is low     |
| any species of 'special concern'  | (\<10% of targeted landings on a  |
| (i.e. those identified as         | per number basis)                 |
| endangered, threatened or         | [and]{.underline} does not        |
| protected under state, federal or | regularly include species of      |
| international law)                | special concern                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: Quantity of bycatch is         |
|                                   | moderate (10-100% of targeted     |
|                                   | landings on a per number basis)   |
|                                   | [and]{.underline} does not        |
|                                   | regularly include species of      |
|                                   | special concern [or]{.underline}  |
|                                   | unknown                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: Quantity of bycatch is high    |
|                                   | (\>100% of targeted landings on a |
|                                   | per number basis)                 |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} bycatch          |
|                                   | regularly includes threatened,    |
|                                   | endangered or protected species   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Population consequences of        | G: low. Evidence indicates        |
| bycatch                           | quantity of bycatch has little or |
|                                   | no impact on population levels    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: moderate. Conflicting evidence |
|                                   | of population consequences of     |
|                                   | bycatch [or]{.underline} unknown  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: Severe. Evidence indicates     |
|                                   | quantity of bycatch is a          |
|                                   | contributing factor in driving    |
|                                   | one or more bycatch species       |
|                                   | towards extinction or is a        |
|                                   | contributing factor to limiting   |
|                                   | the recovery of a species of      |
|                                   | special concern                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Trend in bycatch interaction      | G: trend in bycatch interaction   |
| rates (adjusting for changes in   | rates is down                     |
| abundance of bycatch species) as  |                                   |
| a result of management measures   |                                   |
| (including fishing seasons,       |                                   |
| protected areas and gear          |                                   |
| innovations). Note: this is not   |                                   |
| applicable if bycatch is low.     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: trend in bycatch interaction   |
|                                   | rates is flat [or]{.underline}    |
|                                   | Unknown                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: trend in bycatch interaction   |
|                                   | rates is up                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Evidence that the ecosystem has   | G: studies show no evidence of    |
| been or likely will be            | ecosystem impacts                 |
| substantially altered (relative   |                                   |
| to natural variability) in        |                                   |
| response to the continued discard |                                   |
| of the bycatch species            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: conflicting evidence of        |
|                                   | ecosystem impacts                 |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} Unknown          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R:                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \* Bycatch is considered a        | G:                                |
| Critical Conservation Concern and |                                   |
| the species is ranked red if:     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y:                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: (1) bycatch regularly includes |
|                                   | species of special concern        |
|                                   | [and]{.underline} evidence        |
|                                   | indicates bycatch rate is a       |
|                                   | factor contributing to extinction |
|                                   | or limiting recovery              |
|                                   | [and]{.underline} trend in        |
|                                   | bycatch interaction rates is not  |
|                                   | down.                             |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | \(2\) quantity of bycatch is high |
|                                   | [and]{.underline} studies show    |
|                                   | evidence of substantial ecosystem |
|                                   | impacts                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Criterion 4: Effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Known (or inferred from other       G: minimal damage (i.e. pelagic
  studies) effect of fishing gear on  longline, midwater gillnet,
  physical and biogenic habitats      midwater trawl, purse seine, hook
                                      and line, or spear/harpoon)

                                      Y: moderate damage (i.e. bottom
                                      gillnet, bottom longline or some
                                      pots/ traps)

                                      R: great damage (i.e. bottom trawl
                                      or dredge)

  For specific fishery being          G: high (e.g. shallow water, sandy
  evaluated, resilience of physical   habitats)
  and biogenic habitats to            
  disturbance by fishing method.      
  Note: this is not applicable if     
  gear damage is minimal.             

                                      Y: moderate (e.g. shallow or deep
                                      water mud bottoms, or deep water
                                      sandy habitats)

                                      R: low (e.g. shallow or deep water
                                      corals, shallow or deep water rocky
                                      bottoms)

  If gear impacts are moderate or     G: small scale (e.g. small,
  great, spatial scale of the impact. artisanal fishery or sensitive
  Note: this is not applicable if     habitats are strongly protected)
  gear damage is minimal.             

                                      Y: moderate scale (e.g. modern
                                      fishery but of limited geographic
                                      scope)

                                      R: large scale (e.g. industrialized
                                      fishery over large geographic
                                      areas)

  Evidence that the removal of the    G: the fishery and its ecosystem
  targeted species or the             have been thoroughly studied, and
  removal/deployment of baitfish has  studies show no evidence of
  or will likely substantially        substantial ecosystem impacts
  disrupt the food web                

                                      Y: conflicting evidence of
                                      ecosystem impacts [or]{.underline}
                                      Unknown

                                      R: ecosystem impacts of targeted
                                      species removal demonstrated

  Evidence that the fishing method    G: the fishery and its ecosystem
  has caused or is likely to cause    have been thoroughly studied, and
  substantial ecosystem state         studies show no evidence of
  changes, including alternate stable substantial ecosystem impacts
  states                              

                                      Y: conflicting evidence of
                                      ecosystem impacts [or]{.underline}
                                      Unknown

                                      R: ecosystem impacts from fishing
                                      method demonstrated

  \* Habitat and ecosystem effects    G:
  are considered a Critical           
  Conservation Concern and the        
  species is ranked red if:           

                                      Y:

                                      R: four or more of the Habitat and
                                      Ecosystem factors rank red
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the management regime

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Stock Status: Management process  | G: stock assessment complete and  |
| utilizes an independent           | robust                            |
| scientific stock assessment that  |                                   |
| seeks knowledge related to the    |                                   |
| status of the stock.              |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: stock assessment is planned or |
|                                   | underway but is incomplete        |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} stock assessment |
|                                   | complete but out-of-date or       |
|                                   | otherwise uncertain               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: no stock assessment available  |
|                                   | now and none is planned in the    |
|                                   | near future                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Scientific Monitoring: Management | G: regular collection and         |
| process involves regular          | assessment of both                |
| collection and analysis of data   | fishery-dependent and independent |
| with respect to the short and     | data                              |
| long-term abundance of the stock. |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: regular collection of          |
|                                   | fishery-dependent data only       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: no regular collection or       |
|                                   | analysis of data                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Scientific Advice: Management has | G: no                             |
| a well-known track record of      |                                   |
| consistently setting or exceeding |                                   |
| catch quotas beyond those         |                                   |
| recommended by its scientific     |                                   |
| advisors and other external       |                                   |
| scientists.                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: yes                            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: not enough information         |
|                                   | available to evaluate             |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} not applicable   |
|                                   | because little or no scientific   |
|                                   | information is collected          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Bycatch: Management implements an | G: bycatch plan in place and      |
| effective bycatch reduction plan. | reaching its conservation goals   |
| Note: not applicable if bycatch   | (deemed effective)                |
| is low.                           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: bycatch plan in place but      |
|                                   | effectiveness is not yet          |
|                                   | demonstrated or is under debate   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: no bycatch plan implemented or |
|                                   | bycatch plan implemented but not  |
|                                   | meeting its conservation goals    |
|                                   | (deemed ineffective)              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Fishing practices: Management     | G: mitigation measures in place   |
| addresses the effect of the       | and deemed effective              |
| fishing method(s) on habitats and |                                   |
| ecosystems. Note: not applicable  |                                   |
| if the fishing methods is         |                                   |
| moderate or benign.               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: mitigation measures in place   |
|                                   | but effectiveness is not yet      |
|                                   | demonstrated or is under debate   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: no mitigation measures in      |
|                                   | place or measures in place but    |
|                                   | deemed ineffective                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Enforcement: Management and       | G: regulations regularly enforced |
| appropriate government bodies     | by independent bodies, including  |
| enforce fishery regulations       | logbook reports, observer         |
|                                   | coverage, dockside monitoring and |
|                                   | similar measures                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: regulations enforced by        |
|                                   | fishing industry or by            |
|                                   | voluntary/honor system            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: regulations not regularly and  |
|                                   | consistently enforced             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Management Track Record:          | G: management has maintained      |
| Conservation measures enacted by  | stock productivity over time      |
| management have resulted in the   | [or]{.underline} has fully        |
| long-term maintenance of stock    | recovered the stock from an       |
| abundance and ecosystem integrity | overfished condition              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y: stock productivity has varied  |
|                                   | and management has responded      |
|                                   | quickly [or]{.underline} stock    |
|                                   | has not varied but management has |
|                                   | not been in place long enough to  |
|                                   | evaluate its effectiveness        |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} Unknown          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: measures have not maintained   |
|                                   | stock productivity                |
|                                   | [or]{.underline} were implemented |
|                                   | only after significant declines   |
|                                   | and stock has not yet fully       |
|                                   | recovered                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \* Management is considered a     | G:                                |
| Critical Conservation Concern and |                                   |
| the species is ranked red if:     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | Y:                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   | R: (1) There is no management in  |
|                                   | place                             |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | \(2\) The majority of the         |
|                                   | management factors rank red       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

## Appendix 15. FishSource criteria for target species sustainability.  {#appendix-15.-fishsource-criteria-for-target-species-sustainability. .unnumbered}

**(from www.fishsource.org)**

FishSource helps lay-people by translating these raw measures into
simple scores out of 10. This scoring system is designed to communicate
to a lay person what different value of the ratios mean in terms of
fisheries sustainability used by existing leading fisheries management
agencies and independent certification systems such as the MSC.
FishScore has yet to develop criteria and scores for the environmental
performance.

If existing measures of sustainability consider a fishery to be
relatively well managed, then it will typically score 8 or more out of
10 on FishSource. If the fishery is judged to be doing ok, but requires
improvement, then it will typically score between 6 and 8 on FishSource.
Fisheries falling short of minimum requirements of existing measures of
sustainability are scored 6 or below, with the score declining as the
condition of the fishery deteriorates.

FishSource Scores include the following:

***Score 1: Is the management strategy precautionary?*** A fishery
scores 10 out of 10 if fishing mortality is reduced to zero at biomass
levels below the limit reference point. Reducing fishing mortality to
zero is preferable because it is the fastest possible way to rebuild the
stock above the level at which it may be of risk of collapse. A fishery
scores 8 out of 10 if fishing mortality is reduced to 50% of the target
reference point for fishing mortality. A fishery scores 6 out of 10 if
the fishing mortality is held at the target reference point level.

***Score 2: Do managers follow scientific advice?*** A fishery scores 10
out of 10 if managers always set the TAC equal to or below the
scientific advice. The score drops to 8 out of 10 if the managers set
the TAC 12.5% above the advised level, and drops to 6 out of 10 if they
set the level 25% higher than advised.

***Score 3: Do fishers comply with managers decisions?*** A fishery
scores 10 out of 10 if the estimated total actual catches are always at
or below the quota level set by managers. The score drops to 8 out of 10
if catches exceed the quota by 12.5%, and drop to 6 out 10 if catches
exceed the quota by 25%.

***Score 4: Is the fish stock healthy?*** A fishery scores 10 out of 10
if current spawning biomass is 50% above the target reference point
(typically Bmsy or some variation). A fishery at Bmsy scores an 8, while
a fishery at 0.5Bmsy scores a 6 and a fishery below that level scores
below 6.

***Score 5: Will the fish stock be healthy in future?*** A fishery
scores 10 out of 10 if F is 50% below Fmsy. A fishery where the fishing
mortality is at the target reference point scores an 8, while a fishery
with fishing mortality 50% higher than F~msy~ scores a 6 and a fishery
with even higher F scores below 6.

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Issue**            | **Measure**           | **Underlying ratio**  |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Is the management    | Determine whether     | F~advised~/F~targ     |
| precautionary?       | harvest rates are     | et\ refenerce\ point~ |
|                      | reduced at low stock  | or                    |
|                      | levels                |                       |
|                      |                       | F~actual~/F~targ      |
|                      |                       | et\ reference\ point~ |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Do the managers      | Determine whether the | Set TAC/advised TAC   |
| follow scientific    | catch limits set by   |                       |
| advice?              | managers are in line  |                       |
|                      | with the advice in    |                       |
|                      | the stock assessments |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Do fishers comply?   | Determine whether the | Actual catch/Set TAC  |
|                      | actual catches are in |                       |
|                      | line with the catch   |                       |
|                      | limits set by         |                       |
|                      | managers              |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Is the stock healthy | Determine if current  | SSB/B~40~ (or         |
|                      | biomass is at         | equivalent) B~40~ is  |
|                      | long-term target      | 40% of the unfished   |
|                      | levels                | biomass and is a      |
|                      |                       | proxy for B~MS~Y in   |
|                      |                       | the absence of a      |
|                      |                       | direct estimate.      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Will the fish stock  | Determine if current  | F/F~targ              |
| be healthy in        | fishing mortality is  | et\ reference\ point~ |
| future?              | at the long-term      |                       |
|                      | target level          |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

[^1]: FAO. Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products
    from Marine Capture Fisheries. Rome, FAO. 2005. 90p.
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5889t/y5889t00.pdf

[^2]: FAO. 2006. Report of the Expert Consultation on the Development of
    International Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery
    Products from Inland Capture Fisheries. Rome, 23-26 May 2006. FAO
    Fisheries Reports R804.
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0741e/a0741e00.pdf

[^3]: