GSSI Global Benchmark Tool_Draft for Consultation

Date: 16 June 2014Subject: Announcing 60 day consultation period on draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool Dear GSSI Stakeholder, Over the past year, the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) has been working to develop a first draft of its Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes to ensure confidence in the supply and promotion of sustainable seafood to consumers worldwide as well as promote improvement in the schemes. Public Consultation Period GSSI will conduct an extensive consultation and pilot testing process in order to ensure the relevance, applicability and usability of its Global Benchmark Tool. As a start of this process, on June 16 2014, the initial draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool has been released for a 60 day public consultation period. As part of the consultation period GSSI will host a series of webinars and workshops, please visit www.ourGSSI.org for an overview of the scheduled events and contact the GSSI Secretariat for more information on registration. In support of the draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool an excel file is available to submit your comments. If you have not received the excel file, please contact the GSSI Secretariat and they will make sure you will be provided with a complete set of documents and files. Submit Comments To participate in the public consultation period: • Submit your comments by filling out the excel file. All comments must be submitted in English before August 16 2014 to [email protected] • Visit the GSSI website (www.ourgssi.org) for more details on the scheduled webinars and workshops, and contact the GSSI Secretariat for information on the registration process Please note that this initial draft of the Benchmark Tool is a work in progress. In particular there are still areas where perspectives differ and the expert working groups are still seeking consensus. It is expected that the public input process will help to resolve some of these issues. Next Steps The public consultation period will be followed by a pilot testing program to test the Tool’s usability and help GSSI address any major issues from the consultation period. When the consultation period has ended, the Expert Working Groups and the Secretariat will review the comments and prepare a summary of the major issues that require specific attention during the pilot testing period. A list of all of the comments and this summary will be posted on the GSSI website at that time. More Information GSSI is looking forward to receive your comments, and please do not hesitate to contact the GSSI Secretariat with any further enquiries you might have. For more information about the process for developing the Tool, please visit www.ourgssi.org. Yours Sincerely, The GSSI Steering Board GSSI GLOBAL BENCHMARK TOOL Please note that this initial draft of the Global Benchmark Tool is a work in progress. 2 Foreword Responsible certification schemes are effective mechanisms for promoting sustainability in the seafood supply chain. Over the past few years the number of seafood certification schemes in the marketplace has been rapidly increasing without a clear way to determine which ones are in alignment with existing international normative references (at a minimum the FAO Guidelines 1 ) commonly accepted and recognized by all relevant stakeholders. This has created confusion and increased costs throughout the seafood supply chain, which could ultimately harm consumer confidence in certified sustainable seafood products. Therefore there is a need for a globally accepted tool to provide an objective and transparent assessment of the performance and provide recognition of seafood certification schemes. The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) was created to develop a common, consistent Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes that will: Creating an internationally agreed set of criteria and indicators to measure and compare the performance of seafood certification and labelling programs, in order to facilitate their implementation and use; Provide an international Multi-Stakeholder Platform for collaboration, knowledge exchange in seafood sustainability; and Reduce cost by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency of seafood certification and labelling programs thereby increasing affordability and flexibility within the supply chain The current draft Global Benchmark Tool was created by a diverse range of stakeholders, including retailers, food services, manufacturers, harvesters and farmers, non-governmental organizations, academics and intergovernmental organizations. Please note that this initial draft of the Benchmark Tool is a work in progress. GSSI participants are still working to find common ground on some areas in the Framework and expect that the consultation period and pilot testing phase will help to resolve some of these issues. 1 Throughout the entire document the term “FAO Guidelines” refers to these three Guidelines: FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification 3 Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................... 2 Overview……………………………………………………………….6 About the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) .................................... 6 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6 Scope of GSSI .............................................................................................................................. 6 Structure and Governance ........................................................................................................... 7 Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 7 About the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool ............................................................ 8 Development of the Global Benchmark Tool ................................................................................ 8 GSSI Benchmark Process ............................................................................................................. 9 GSSI Benchmark Framework........................................................................................................ 9 GSSI recognition and opportunity for improvement ................................................................... 10 The Consultation and Pilot Testing ................................................................. 12 Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 12 Pilot Testing .............................................................................................................................. 12 Part I: GSSI Benchmark Process………………………………...14 Introduction ................................................................................................... 14 GSSI Benchmark Process: Key Steps and Activities ......................................... 14 The Benchmark Committee ............................................................................ 20 The Benchmark Committee: Responsibilities ............................................................................. 20 The Benchmark Committee: Structure ....................................................................................... 20 Part II: GSSI Benchmark Framework……………………………21 Introduction ................................................................................................... 22 Benchmark Framework Sections: Scope and Performance Areas .................... 23 Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes .......................... 23 Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes ..... 25 Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards ............................................... 27 Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards .................................................... 29 Explanation of the GSSI Requirements Tables ............................................................................ 34 4 Section A – Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes ......................................................................................................... 35 A.1 Scheme Governance ............................................................................................................ 35 A.2 Scheme Management.......................................................................................................... 39 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 42 Section B – Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes ..................................................................................... 49 B.1 Accreditation ...................................................................................................................... 49 B.2 Certification ........................................................................................................................ 52 B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody ........................................................................................ 57 Section C – Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards ................ 60 C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management ................................................................................... 60 C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use ....................................................................................... 64 C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use ....................................................................................................... 66 C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity ..................................................................................... 68 C.5 Seed .................................................................................................................................... 71 C.6 Species Selection and Escapes .............................................................................................. 74 C.7 General Site Management ................................................................................................... 75 C.8 Water Quality and Waste .................................................................................................... 77 Section D – Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards ...................... 80 D.1 Governance and Fishery Management ................................................................................. 80 D.2 Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... 83 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans ................................................................... 86 D.4 Data and Information .......................................................................................................... 92 D.5 Assessment Methodologies ................................................................................................. 94 D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes ........................................................................................... 97 D.7 Compliance and Enforcement .............................................................................................. 99 GSSI Terms and Definitions .......................................................................... 100 Part III: Reference Matrix to the FAO Guidelines……………121 5 INTRODUCTION This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing. Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative 6 Overview About the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) In 2013, the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) was founded as a strategic partnership between the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and global seafood stakeholders, including retailers, food services, manufacturers, harvesters and farmers, non-governmental organizations, academics and intergovernmental organizations. The mission of GSSI is to deliver a common, consistent and global benchmarking tool for seafood certification schemes to ensure confidence in the supply and promotion of sustainable seafood to consumers worldwide as well as promote improvement in the schemes. Objectives Creating an internationally agreed set of criteria and indicators to measure and compare the performance of seafood certification and labelling programs, in order to facilitate their implementation and use; Provide an international Multi-Stakeholder Platform for collaboration, knowledge exchange in seafood sustainability; and Reduce cost by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency of seafood certification and labelling programs thereby increasing affordability and flexibility within the supply chain Scope of GSSI The GSSI was created as a multi-stakeholder initiative to address sustainability certification issues in the global seafood value chain. The initial mandate of the GSSI has been to develop a Global Benchmark Tool to assess the governance and operational procedures of seafood certification schemes and the robustness of the environmental criteria in the certification standards for aquaculture and fisheries. All parties involved with GSSI recognize the importance of social issues in the seafood supply chain; however the current available expertise and resources for GSSI are not adequate to address this important issue at this point in time. In the future, GSSI will explore what – if any – type of role the initiative could play in assessing how this important component in seafood production is assessed. 7 Structure and Governance GSSI has the following structure in place: • A Steering Board that oversees the daily management and provides strategic direction for GSSI. The Steering Board includes a diverse set of stakeholders, including major seafood harvesters and producers, seafood processors and manufacturers, retail and food service companies, non-governmental organizations, academics, and inter- governmental organizations. • Expert Working Groups mandated by the Steering Board to conduct specific tasks. To date over 40 experts in seafood sustainability and certification have joined three working groups to develop the first draft of the Global Benchmark Tool: o The Aquaculture Expert Working Group. o The Fisheries Expert Working Group o The Process Expert Working Group. • A Secretariat that manages the daily operations of GSSI. • Formal GSSI partners, which are companies and organizations that are committed to actively supporting GSSI through funding, participation and/ or endorsement of the tool. Funding The Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) is co-funded by Public Private Partnership between the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and the GSSI Consortium GbR, a global consortium with 31 leading seafood companies. For more detailed information, background, and contact information for the GSSI please visit www.ourGSSI.org. 8 About the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool The draft GSSI Global Benchmark Tool for seafood certification schemes has three main components: • Benchmark Process – This component outlines the process by which seafood certification schemes, who are seeking formal recognition by the GSSI, can be objectively assessed against the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework • Benchmark Framework – This component outlines the requirements against which seafood certification schemes are assessed. • Public Recognition – This component outlines GSSI’s process for communicating the benchmark results of seafood certification schemes that have successfully undergone the Benchmark Process. This document includes initial drafts of the Benchmark Process and Benchmark Framework that are being released for consultation with GSSI stakeholders. Development of the Global Benchmark Tool The components of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool are being developed according to the following key steps. • Initial draft of the Global Benchmark Tool. Over the past year, the Expert Working Groups have developed initial drafts of the Benchmark Framework and the Benchmark Process. These documents have been approved and released by the GSSI Steering Board for a consultation period and a pilot testing period, • Consultation period. The consultation period will include a series of consultation workshops and webinars as well as an online form for gathering stakeholder comments. Based on a review of the comments received a summary of the major issues that require particular attention during the pilot testing period will be prepared • Pilot testing program. The pilot testing program will be conducted using this initial draft of the Benchmark Tool, and will give particular attention on any major issue that may come out of the consultation period. In the pilot testing program, a number of seafood certification schemes will go through key steps of the Benchmark Process to test its usability and help GSSI to assess the applicability of the requirements in the Benchmark Framework. • Revised draft of Global Benchmark Tool. The Expert Working Groups will use input from the consultation period and pilot testing period to develop a revised draft of the tool. 9 • Potential 2nd comment stage. The Steering Board will review the nature and amount of comments received during the consultation period and results from pilot testing to determine if the revised draft needs to go through a second consultation period. • Launch Global Benchmark Tool. The Expert Working Groups will finalize the tool, present it to the Steering Board for final approval, after which it will be launched and open for seafood certification schemes to apply for benchmarking. The goal is to have the tool ready for a public launch before the summer of 2015, shortly after which the GSSI hopes to welcome the first applications from seafood certification schemes for benchmarking. GSSI Benchmark Process The Benchmark Process defines the process by which seafood certification schemes that are seeking formal recognition by the GSSI will be objectively assessed against the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework. The GSSI Benchmark Process is designed to ensure integrity and consistency between assessments, and is carried out in an independent, impartial and transparent manner by technically competent experts. The six key steps of the Benchmark Process are: • Submission of application and supporting documentation by certification scheme; • Preliminary desk top review by an Independent Expert; • Office audit or desk top review (dependent upon adequacy of application) by Independent Expert; • Review by multi-stakeholder Benchmark Committee; • Stakeholder Consultation; • Recognition decision by GSSI Steering Board. GSSI Benchmark Framework The GSSI Benchmark Framework is the collective set of requirements against which seafood certification schemes are assessed. The Benchmark Framework is divided into four sections, each of which includes a number of Performance Areas: Section A – Requirements for Governance of a Seafood Certification Scheme A.1 Scheme Governance A.2 Scheme Management A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance Section B – Requirements for Operational Management of a Seafood Certification Scheme B.1 Accreditation B.2 Certification 10 B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody Section C – Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity C.5 Seed C.6 Species Selection and Escapes C.7 General Site Management C.8 Water Quality and Waste Section D – Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards D.1 Governance and Fishery Management D.2 Management Objectives D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans D.4 Data and Information D.5 Assessment Methodologies D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes D.7 Compliance and Enforcement GSSI recognition and opportunity for improvement The GSSI will provide formal recognition to certification schemes with demonstrated responsible practices and is committed to providing seafood certification schemes with an opportunity for improvement through identified improved and leading practices; this is reflected in the requirements for each Performance Area in the Benchmark Framework through a 3-tiered approach: • Tier 1: Responsible Practice • Tier 2: Improved Practice • Tier 3: Leading Practice Certification schemes for which alignment with all requirements for Responsible Practice has been verified through the GSSI Benchmark Process will receive a formal recognition by GSSI. Through the verification of alignment with requirements for tiers 2 and 3, the GSSI Benchmark Process will also demonstrate and verify the implementation of Improved and Leading Practices for specific elements of a certification scheme. 11 The table below provides a general framework of the requirements for each respective tier. Tier General Requirements Tier 1: Responsible Practice Requirements for recognition in alignment with: • Principles and Requirements of the FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling Marine/Inland Capture Fisheries • Principles and Requirements of the FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification • Current common practices for responsible seafood certification schemes in alignment with existing international normative references to supplement FAO Guidelines (where appropriate). Tier 2: Improved Practice Requirements in addition to Tier 1 related to scheme governance and operational management, including but not limited to: • Increased engagement of stakeholders within the organizational and institutional arrangements of the certification scheme. • Increased transparency and communication. • Improved scheme management practices. Requirements reflecting increased robustness of the environmental impact criteria of the certification standard, including but not limited to: • Monitoring of ecosystem impacts. • Adoption of additional practices demonstrated to reduce environmental impacts of fishery and/ or aquaculture operations. • Transparency and review of fishery and/ or aquaculture management programs and documents. Tier 3: Leading Practice Requirements in addition to Tier 2 related to both scheme governance, operational management and certification standard requirements, including but not limited to: • Proactive engagement of relevant stakeholders. • Independent evaluation and demonstration of improvements against certification scheme’s sustainability objectives. • Incorporation of established leading practices in the certification standard, including a holistic approach to ecosystem effects and management, and cumulative environmental impacts. 12 The Consultation and Pilot Testing In order to ensure the relevance, applicability and usability of the Global Benchmark Tool, GSSI is conducting a public consultation of stakeholders and a pilot testing program. Consultation This initial draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool has been released for a 60 day public consultation period on June 16 2014. The GSSI Steering Board is encouraging all interested stakeholders to submit their comments electronically to the GSSI Secretariat. As part of the consultation period GSSI will also host a series of webinars and workshops, please visit www.ourGSSI.org for an overview of the scheduled events. For more information on registration please contact the GSSI Secretariat. To learn more about the workshops, webinars and how to submit comments and remain updated on the progress of the consultation, please visit www.ourGSSI.org. After the consultation period has ended, the Expert Working Groups and the Secretariat will review the comments and prepare a summary of the major issues that require specific attention during the pilot testing period. This summary will be posted on the GSSI website, together with all comments received. Pilot Testing A number of seafood certification schemes have volunteered to participate in the GSSI Pilot Testing Program using the draft Framework to test its usability and help GSSI address any major issues from the consultation period. The pilot testing period will run from September through October 2014. Pilot testing will not result in recognition by GSSI. After the Pilot testing period, the Expert Working Groups will integrate comments from the consultation period and the feedback from the pilot testing program into the Global Benchmark Tool and present this to the Steering Board. In January 2015, the Steering Board will decide if a second consultation period for the revised Benchmark Tool is desired, based on the feedback and outcomes of the consultation process and the pilot testing program, and the review and recommendations of the Expert Working Groups. 13 GSSI GLOBAL BENCHMARK TOOL PART I: BENCHMARK PROCESS This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing. Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative 14 Part I: GSSI Benchmark Process Introduction This section defines the key steps and activities of the GSSI Benchmark Process for the objective assessment of seafood certification schemes against the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework. The GSSI Benchmark Process is designed to ensure consistency between assessments, and is carried out in an independent, impartial and transparent manner by technically competent experts. Its duration is expected to vary dependent on a number of factors and GSSI expects to obtain a clear timeframe through the pilot testing. GSSI will develop a mechanism to ensure continued alignment of recognised schemes with the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework. The following experts and individuals are involved in the key steps of the Benchmark Process: • Independent Expert (IE): a competent trained person, approved and appointed by the GSSI Steering Board, who is assigned to conduct the assessment and manage the benchmark process for a specific seafood certification scheme application. • Benchmark Committee (BMC): A multi-stakeholder team of technical experts who have been approved and appointed by the GSSI Steering Board with the task of reviewing the benchmark report of the Independent Expert and providing a recommendation to the GSSI Steering Board on whether or not GSSI should recognise a specific seafood certification scheme. • Steering Board Liaison: Appointed member of the GSSI Steering Board who is assigned for a specific application to work closely with the Independent Expert, Benchmark Committee members and applicant scheme owners to provide support and guidance on issues arising from GSSI benchmarking activities, with particular reference to the resolution of conflict or disagreement. The following sections outline the key steps and activities in the Benchmark Process and the structure and roles and responsibilities of the Benchmark Committee. GSSI Benchmark Process: Key Steps and Activities This section outlines the activities and expected time frames for the key steps in the Benchmark Process. Within the Benchmark Process six critical steps are identified. These are highlighted in the figure ‘The GSSI Benchmark Process – Key Steps and the tables in dark blue below: Submission of application and supporting documentation. • Review of Preliminary Report by the independent Expert and GSSI Steering Board Liaison. • Office Audit or Desk Top Review (dependent upon adequacy of application). • Benchmark Committee Review. • Stakeholder Consultation followed by review by Benchmark Committee of comments received and formulation of recommendation. • Recognition decision by GSSI Steering Board. As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, the Benchmark Process will be regularly reviewed, maintained and updated as required to ensure consistency and integrity. 15 The GSSI Benchmark Process – Key Steps Office Audit Undertaken by IE 9a Desktop Review Undertaken by IE (in cases where preliminary information provided is sufficient) 9b Supplementary Actions Undertaken by Applicant 10 Interim Report issued by IE 11 Convene GSSI Benchmarking Committee (BMC) 12 Review by GSSI BMC 13 GSSI BMC/ Scheme Owner Meeting 14 Issue of Report by GSSI BMC 15 Stakeholder Consultation 16 Review of Stakeholder Consultation Response by BC 17 Issue of Final Report to GSSI Steering Board 18 Decision by GSSI Steering Board 19 Continuous Recognition Process (to be developed) 20 Submission of Application via an IT Platform 1 Application Review by Trained Staff 2 Benchmark Agreement 3 Appointment of an Independent Expert (IE) 4 Appointment of GSSI Steering Board Liaison 5 Preliminary Desk Review by the Independent Expert 6 Completion of Preliminary Report by the IE 7 Review of Preliminary Report by the IE and GSSI Steering Board Liaison 8 16 Step Description Objective Description of Activity 1 Submission of Application via an IT Platform To submit a clear, concise and complete application to GSSI, allowing the benchmark process to commence. The application shall be compliant with application requirements and be submitted to the GSSI Secretariat using a secure IT platform. The Scheme Owner submits a completed application for GSSI recognition to GSSI Secretariat using defined documentation and following guidance for completion of the GSSI application. 2 Application Review by Trained Staff To review the submitted application for completeness and relevance. The GSSI Secretariat reviews the submitted application for completeness and relevance; this is not a detailed review of content but only to ensure all expected documentation has been submitted. 3 Benchmark Agreement To review, agree and sign an Agreement/ Contract in relation to the benchmark process and possible recognition by the GSSI. The GSSI and the Scheme Owner shall review, agree and sign an Agreement/Contract to cover all aspects of the benchmark process. 4 Appointment of an Independent Expert To appoint a competent, trained independent expert, who shall manage the benchmark process The GSSI appoints a competent independent expert to take a lead on the verification process. The independent expert will have undergone training specified by the GSSI. 5 Appointment of a GSSI Steering Board Liaison To appoint a GSSI Steering Board Liaison from the GSSI Steering Board membership The GSSI appoints a GSSI Steering Board Liaison for each application who will be made aware of all information during the benchmark process and will act as an advisor for the verification process and support the Independent Expert and the Benchmark Committee. 6 Preliminary Desk Top Review by the Independent Expert To undertake a preliminary review of the scheme application and to make an assessment on the status of alignment with GSSI Framework Document Requirements. The Independent Expert reviews the submitted application and makes an assessment on the scheme’s alignment with GSSI Framework Document Requirements. The review will act as a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of the scheme gaining recognition, without significant amendment and within the expected timeframe. Unless it is decided that the resubmission of an application must occur (see Step 7), the information will be used to plan for the office review or desk top review that will be taken later in the process. The Independent Expert should liaise with the Scheme Owner to clarify any issues identified by the review. 7 Completion of Preliminary Desk Review Report by the Independent Expert To produce a short, but detailed report upon the findings of the preliminary desk review and confirm status of the application. The Independent Expert drafts a report on the findings/outcomes of the preliminary review and agrees this with the Scheme Owner, as far as possible, and circulates it to the GSSI Secretariat and Steering Board Liaison. The report will state the expert’s opinion of the likelihood of the scheme either to gain recognition within a defined time frame or the non-recognition of the scheme leading to the need for a resubmission of the application. 17 Step Description Objective Description of Activity 8 Review of Preliminary Report by the Independent Expert and GSSI Steering Board Liaison To review the detailed Preliminary Report to determine and agree upon the status of scheme alignment and to decide upon course of action, namely resubmission, office audit or desk top audit. The Independent Expert provides a copy of the Preliminary Report to the GSSI Steering Board Liaison and a decision is made on the requirement for resubmission, to progress to an Office Audit or to progress to a Desk Top Review. In the event that resubmission is not required, the Office Audit shall be the default action, but if it is deemed that the application and supporting documentation are of sufficient detail that an Office Audit can be deferred, then this shall be agreed by the GSSI Steering Board Liaison and a Desk Top Review be undertaken. In the event that when the Desk Top Review commences and unforeseen issues are experienced, the Independent Expert shall seek agreement with the GSSI Steering Board Liaison to undertake an Office Audit. Where the decision that the scheme would require significant amendment, or would be unlikely to gain recognition within the expected timeframe, the GSSI shall inform the scheme of its decision and it is the responsibility of the scheme if resubmission is made; in this case the scheme will have to submit a revised application at their discretion and process steps 1-8 shall be followed once again. 9 a Office Audit Undertaken by the Independent Expert To undertake a detailed and comprehensive audit of the Scheme Owner’s systems and procedures, at specified locations of the Scheme Owner, in order to assess conformity with the requirements of the GSSI Framework Document. The Independent Expert undertakes an in depth office audit to assess alignment of the Scheme Owner with GSSI requirements. All information in relation to objective evidence of alignment should be made available and reviewed in detail by the Independent Expert. 9 b Desk Top Review Undertaken by the Independent Expert To undertake a detailed and comprehensive Desk Top Review of the Scheme Owner’s systems and procedures, in order to assess conformity with the requirements of the GSSI Framework Document. The Independent Expert undertakes an in depth desk top review to assess alignment of the Scheme Owner with GSSI requirements. All information in relation to objective evidence of alignment should be made available and reviewed in detail by the Independent Expert. 10 Supplementary Action Undertaken by the Applicant To ensure any supplementary actions relating to deficiencies identified by the GSSI Independent Expert during the Desk Top Review or the Office Audit are successfully completed and are in alignment with the GSSI Framework Document requirements. The Independent Expert shall, following the Office Audit or Desk Top Review, make comment on all areas where the applicant scheme does not meet GSSI requirements and, where appropriate in consultation with the Steering Board Liaison, agree any supplementary action with the Scheme Owner. The effectiveness of supplementary action taken shall be verified by the Independent Expert in consultation with the Steering Board. If it is believed the supplementary actions will mean significant changes to the Scheme to that submitted within the application, the Independent Expert shall refer the matter to the GSSI Steering Board Liaison for guidance on action. 18 Step Description Objective Description of Activity 11 Interim Report Issued by the Independent Expert To produce a short, but detailed report upon the findings of Office Audit or Desk Top Review, issues that require action, associated agreed supplementary actions and the effectiveness and acceptability of supplementary actions. The Independent Expert issues an Interim Report which confirms the findings of the office audit, agreed corrective actions arising from the Office Audit or Desk Top Review and the effectiveness of the corrective actions. The report will be agreed with the Scheme Owner and then circulated to the GSSI Secretariat and GSSI Steering Board Liaison. The report will state the expert’s opinion of the likelihood of the scheme to gain recognition within a defined time frame or the non-recognition of the scheme. In the event that agreement cannot be reached with the Scheme Owner, the Independent Expert shall refer this matter to the GSSI Steering Board Liaison for resolution. The Independent Expert, with the agreement of the GSSI Steering Board Liaison, defines if the interim report can be sent to the GSSI Benchmark Committee. If the decision is to send the report, this will mean the GSSI Benchmark Committee can be convened. If the decision is not to send the report to the Benchmark Committee, the GSSI Secretariat will inform the GSSI Steering Board and agree actions to be taken. 12 Convene the GSSI Benchmark Committee To convene a GSSI Benchmark Committee by the appointment of specified GSSI members. The GSSI Secretariat convenes a Benchmark Committee from a cohort of trained GSSI members. 13 Review by the GSSI Benchmark Committee To objectively review the applicant scheme requirements against the defined requirements laid down in the GSSI Framework Document and prepare recommendations for recognition or non-recognition. All documentation and reports are made available to GSSI Benchmark Committee members and the Committee members are briefed by the Independent Expert and Steering Board Liaison. The Benchmark Committee members should challenge any issues that arise from their review of the process and document. These issues will be discussed with the Independent Expert and potential resolution of these issues agreed. 14 GSSI Benchmark Committee/ Scheme Owner Meeting To conduct a meeting between the GSSI Benchmark Committee and the management of the Scheme Owner in order to discuss, and where possible, resolve any issues identified within the GSSI Benchmark Committee review. A meeting is convened between the GSSI Benchmark Committee and the Scheme Owner to discuss and agree issues identified by the Committee. It is at the discretion of the GSSI Steering Board Liaison, if he/she wishes to attend the meeting. 15 Issue of Assessment Report by the GSSI Benchmark Committee To issue a clear and concise Assessment Report which summarises the outcomes of the Benchmark Process to date, confirmation of issues identified and where these issues have been corrected. The Report shall also summarise issues which have not been resolved by the GSSI Benchmark Committee and the Scheme Owner. The Independent Expert drafts an Assessment Report following the GSSI Benchmark Committee/Scheme Owners meeting, which will be approved by the committee. The report shall document the outcome of the process and highlight where alignment is in place, where non- alignment has been corrected and any issues that have been raised by the Benchmark Committee that remain unresolved. 19 Step Description Objective Description of Activity 16 Stakeholder Consultation To conduct and open, effective and transparent stakeholder consultation on the outcome of the GSSI Benchmark Process. The GSSI conducts an open and transparent stakeholder consultation and collate comments from respondents. 17 Review of Stakeholder Consultation and Response by the GSSI Benchmark Committee To review and act upon the responses from stakeholders following consultation. The Benchmark Committee reviews the responses from the stakeholder consultation and agrees action(s), if required. The Benchmark Committee may, at their discretion, share information and agree further actions with the Scheme Owner. 18 Issue of Final Report to the GSSI Steering Board To issue a clear and concise Final Report. This Report shall contain details of all the activities of the Benchmark Process and shall provide recommendation regarding recognition or non-recognition of the scheme, and verified improved and leading practices to the GSSI Steering Board. The Independent Expert drafts a Final Report which contains details of the activities undertaken within the Benchmark Process. The GSSI Benchmark Committee vets and agrees the final report. The report shall have a clear and concise recommendation to the GSSI Steering Board, regarding recognition or non-recognition of the scheme, and verified improved and leading practices. The GSSI Secretariat ensures all supporting documentation is collated and available for review by GSSI Steering Committee Board members, if required. The GSSI Benchmark Committee Final Report shall clearly specify the reasons for the recommendation, whether for recognition or non-recognition. 19 Decision by the GSSI Steering Board To review the activities undertaken within the Benchmark Process and agree upon the recognition or non-recognition, and verified improved and leading practices of the applicant scheme. The members of the GSSI Steering Board review the Final Report to ensure that all due process has been followed and accept or reject the recommendation by the Benchmark Committee. The GSSI Steering Board reaches agreement by consensus. During the decision making process the GSSI Steering Board members may request further information or clarity on any issue. The GSSI Steering Board shall provide the Scheme Owner with the reasons for the decision, whether it is for recognition or non-recognition. In the event of non- recognition, the Steering Board will specify any possible further action by the Scheme Owner. The minutes of the meeting of the GSSI Steering Board shall include all necessary detail. 20 Continuous Recognition Processes (to be developed) To ensure continued alignment of recognised schemes on a regular basis. GSSI will develop a mechanism to ensure continued alignment of recognised schemes with the requirements of the GSSI Benchmark Framework. 20 The Benchmark Committee The Benchmark Committee: Responsibilities Each seafood certification scheme that goes through the Benchmark Process will have a Benchmark Committee who will be responsible for ensuring that: • An applicant scheme is objectively assessed against the Benchmark Framework using the Benchmark Process. • The Benchmark Process is carried out within an agreed timeframe. • The findings of the Benchmark Process are clearly and concisely documented. The Benchmark Committee will also submit recommendations to the Steering Board for recognition or non-recognition of the applicant scheme. The Benchmark Committee: Structure Each Benchmark Committee will consist of 8 members and an independent expert who are selected by the Steering Board in accordance with a set of defined technical competencies. Committee members will appoint a Committee Leader. Each Committee member must: • Agree to serve for a minimum of 4 scheme applications. • Declare their potential conflicts of interest in advance. • Participate in the Committee as an individual and not represent an organization. The role of the appointed independent expert and a Benchmark Committee is to undertake assessment and not to provide consultative advice to scheme owners. 21 GSSI GLOBAL BENCHMARK TOOL PART II: BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK This document is part of the first draft of the GSSI Global Benchmark Tool which is being released for public consultation and pilot testing. Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative 22 Part II: GSSI Benchmark Framework Introduction This section outlines the requirements against which seafood certification schemes are assessed. The Benchmark Framework is divided into four sections, each of which includes a number of Performance Areas. The requirements for each Performance Area follow the tiered approach to outline Responsible, Improved and Leading Practices for specific elements within the respective Performance Areas. The first two sections of the Benchmark Framework outline the requirements for scheme governance and operational management, while the last two sections outline the requirements in relation to the environmental criteria of certification standards for aquaculture and fisheries: • Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Scheme • Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes • Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards • Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards All seafood certification schemes seeking recognition by the GSSI will need to verify alignment with, at a minimum, the requirements for Responsible Practice in Section A and B. Seafood certification schemes will also need to verify alignment with, at a minimum, the requirements for Responsible Practice of Section C and / or Section D, depending on their scope for certification (Aquaculture and/or Fisheries). The process for formal verification of alignment with the requirement of the Benchmark Framework is outlined in section 1 of the Global Benchmark Tool: GSSI Benchmark Process. The Benchmark Framework provides additional guidance to applicant certification schemes on the objective evidence that is required to verify alignment with the individual requirements. The requirements in the Benchmark Framework have been developed by the GSSI Expert Working Groups in alignment with the principles and requirements outlined in the FAO Guidelines 1 . The requirements for Responsible Practice are based on a detailed review of the FAO Guidelines 1 and relevant normative references. In specific areas requirements based on current common practices for responsible seafood certification schemes have been included where these supplemented the requirements in the FAO Guidelines 1 . Where appropriate, requirements reflecting identified Improved and Leading Practices for specific elements of a Performance Area have been included in the Benchmark Framework. These requirements have been included to acknowledge enhanced practices and, where appropriate, serve as an opportunity for improvement. The following section will provide an overview of the scope and performance areas of the four sections of the Benchmark Framework, followed by the detailed requirements and guidance for objective evidence of each Section. The last section of this document includes a glossary of terms. 1 FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification 23 Benchmark Framework Sections: Scope and Performance Areas Section A: Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes Section A of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements for the governance of a seafood certification scheme, recognizing the importance of effective management control by a scheme owner. There is specific emphasis placed upon transparency regarding the scheme’s legal standing, the adoption and implementation of good governance principles, the appropriateness of scheme rules/ procedures, adequacy of resource and the robustness of supporting systems. The table below provides an overview and short summary of the different Performance Areas addressed in this section. Section A Performance Areas A.1 Scheme Governance This Performance Area defines the requirements in relation to the ownership and the effective governance of a seafood certification scheme. Compliance with the defined elements will ensure that the scheme owner has demonstrated that a level of responsible governance is in place at all times. This performance area includes five topics: - Governance - Institutional Arrangements - Non-discrimination - Scheme Integrity Monitoring Program - Scope and Objectives A.2 Scheme Management This Performance Area defines the requirements in relation to the effective management of a seafood certification scheme. It includes two topics: - Logo use and misrepresentation - Complaints and Appeals. Logo use and misrepresentation The requirements in this area ensure that the use of information such as symbols, logos and claims are effectively controlled and managed by a seafood certification scheme and that there are clear rules by which symbols, logos and claims can be used. The information conveyed by the use of symbols, logos and claims is important to consumers to make informed choices. The misuse or misinterpretation of symbols, logos and claims in relation to a seafood certification scheme will bring the Seafood Industry into disrepute and seriously damage the confidence of the consumer with respect to the integrity of seafood certification schemes. GSSI wishes to ensure that effective control mechanisms are in place to prevent the occurrence of such issues. Complaints and Appeals 24 Section A Performance Areas Effective complaint handling and resolution of complaints is a key indicator of a well governed seafood certification scheme. The elements of these processes are defined within this section. In the event that an appeal is made to a seafood certification scheme, procedures shall be through, fair and transparent. There are a number of benefits in relation to the way in which a seafood certification scheme manages its complaints and appeals. GSSI wishes to promote the effectiveness of complaint and appeal handling procedures to ensure these benefits are gained and the integrity of the seafood certification scheme is not compromised. A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance This Performance Area ensures that a certification standard has been developed, implemented and is maintained in accordance with responsible practice. The requirements are in alignment with the relevant sections of the ISEAL Standard Setting Code and ISO 59. Effective standard setting and the maintenance of its standard by a scheme owner is defined within this section and there is specific emphasis placed upon the standard setting body’s structure and terms of reference, the standard setting body’s competence, standard setting and approval procedures, standard review and revision procedures and consultative process. GSSI wishes to ensure that a seafood certification scheme management of its standard is robust and meets defined responsible practice in accordance with Industry and Stakeholder expectations. Compliance with the defined elements within this section will provide assurance that these expectations have been met. This performance area includes one topic: - Standard Setting and Maintenance 25 Section B: Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes Section B of the Benchmark Framework defines the requirements for the operational management of seafood certification schemes, to ensure a high level of assurance. The key performance areas in this section are accreditation, certification, and maintenance of Chain of Custody. Requirements for the respective Performance Areas are based on the implementation of the relevant standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The table below provides an overview and short summary of the different Performance Areas addressed in this section. Section B: Performance Areas B.1 Accreditation This section has been developed to ensure that there are in place formal relationships between a seafood certification scheme owner and Accreditation Bodies and that the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011:2004 (Conformity assessment – General requirements for Accreditation Bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies) are supplemented by rules and procedures issued and monitored by a scheme owner. The ISO Standard ISO/IEC 17011:2004 is used as an assurance mechanism and is comprehensive in its content. However, the supplementary requirements issued by a scheme owner provide an increased level of assurance that scheme specific requirements are in place, understood and reflect the relevant sector needs. GSSI places the onus of control and management of a seafood certification scheme with a scheme owner, but GSSI is conscious that accreditation of Certification Bodies is highly reliant upon the correct and consistent application of ISO Standards by Accreditation Bodies. The elements defined in this section are those required to be in place to provide assurance that a seafood scheme owner has taken action to ensure that Accreditation Bodies operate in a consistent manner and within an agreed framework. This performance area includes one topic: - Accreditation B.2 Certification Similar to the section relating to Accreditation, this section has been developed to ensure that there are clearly defined criteria for the application of scheme requirements by accredited Certification Bodies. In addition to these basic requirements for all Certification Bodies to be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012, GSSI has focused on specific requirements in relation to additional rules and procedures, audit frequency, surveillance audits, certification status, audit reporting , non-compliance identification and Certification Body personnel competence. Once again GSSI places the onus of control and management of a seafood certification scheme with a scheme owner. In addition to the control exercised by the accreditation of Certification Bodies by Accreditation Bodies, there are scheme specific requirements, which have been reflected in the elements defined in this section. Those are 26 Section B: Performance Areas required to be in place to provide assurance that a seafood scheme owner has taken action to ensure that Certification Bodies operate in a consistent manner and within an agreed framework. This performance area includes one topic: - Certification B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody This performance area has been developed to ensure that there is in place a defined system, utilizing an audit process, to provide assurance of the identification and status of certified product at all stages within the supply chain. Procedures relating to chain of custody of certified product require elements such as auditing methodology and periodicity, audit reporting, record keeping, product identification, segregation and traceability processes to be in place and are defined within this section in order to provide assurance of correct product status. Linked directly to issues that could result in the inadvertent misuse or misinterpretation of symbols, logos and claims in relation to a seafood certification scheme and the unacceptable consequences to the Seafood Industry, GSSI wishes to ensure that effective control mechanisms are in place to confirm the status of certified product is known at all times and at all locations. This performance area includes two topics: - Management of Chain of Custody - Standard for Maintenance of Chain of Custody 27 Section C: Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards Section C of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements in relation to the environmental criteria of certification standards for aquaculture. The requirements in this section are in alignment with the Principles and Minimum Substantive Criteria from the FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification that deal with environmental integrity and animal health and welfare (where relevant for environmental integrity). The table below provides an overview and short summary of the different Performance Areas addressed in this section. Section C: Performance Areas C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management Disease has the potential to impede aquaculture development and impact environmental sustainability through the loss of resources, the use of chemicals, and the potential effects of resistance. Responsible aquaculture standards include animal health controls, such as Aquatic Animal Health Management Practices (AAHMP). These AAHMP are required to be consistent with international norms defined by leading organizations, such as World Animal Health Organization (OIE) and overseen by a suitably trained aquatic animal health professional. The standards are required to cover both disease prevention and the legal, prudent use of veterinary drugs, in response to it. This performance area includes one topic: - Aquatic Health Management C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use Responsible aquaculture standards ensure all chemical and veterinary drug use is appropriately documented, consistent with legal requirements, and prudent, based on international norms defined by leading organizations, such as the OIE. When chemicals and veterinary drugs are used, the standard content also includes criteria to consider their impacts on environment. This performance area includes one topic: - Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use Responsible aquaculture standards ensure that the environmental impacts associated with feed and fertilizer use is minimize, feed and fertilizer use is adequately recorded and the wider issues associated with feed, such as the environmental impacts associated with ingredients are considered. This performance area includes one topic: - Feed and Fertilizer Use 28 Section C: Performance Areas C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity Responsible aquaculture standards require an understanding of the impacts on habitats and biodiversity caused by the siting and operation of the certified unit. They also offer protection for high conservation value habitats and biodiversity, and in some cases restoring these in areas damaged by previous aquaculture uses. Additional focus is given to the impacts of waste on the marine seabed and in terms of predator control. This performance area includes one topic: - Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity C.5 Seed Responsible aquaculture certification schemes ensure that the source of seed or fry use in grow out facilities is legally obtained. They also promote the use of hatchery-reared seed. Where an aquaculture industry is reliant on wild seed (e.g., some bivalve culture), the certification scheme requires it to be sourced in a responsible manner This performance area includes one topic: - Seed. C.6 Species Selection and Escapes Responsible aquaculture certification schemes ensure legal compliance on species selection, such as consistency with international guidance, such as the FAO’s Codes of Practice and Manual of Procedures for Consideration of Introductions and Transfers of Marine and Freshwater Organisms (1988) or the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (2005). Aquatic animal containment is prioritized at certified aquaculture establishments with the aim of reducing the risk of escapes and their impact on the local environment. This performance area includes one topic: - Species Selection and Escapes C.7 General Site Management Responsible aquaculture certification schemes require legal compliance during construction, waste disposal and general storage. Certified operations are required to be well maintained to minimize environmental damage. Feed and hazardous waste must be stored appropriately, to prevent contamination and wasting resources. This performance area includes one topic: - General Site Management C.8 Water Quality and Waste Responsible aquaculture certification schemes require legal compliance on water usage, water quality, and effluents. Additional monitoring and control of effluent water quality is required, including addressing key factors, such as nutrients, and that the impacts of salinization are prevented. This performance area includes one topic: - Water Quality and Waste 29 Section D: Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards Section D of the Benchmark Framework outlines the requirements in relation to the environmental criteria of certification standards for capture fisheries. The requirements in this section are in alignment with the Principles and Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria set out in the FAO Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (revision 1, 2009) and also the Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries (2011). Where there are references to the FAO Guidelines in the column “Guidance for Objective Evidence”, numbers in parentheses are paragraph numbers from Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries (2011). Those standing before parentheses are paragraph numbers from the FAO Guidelines for Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (revision 1, 2009). This section provides benchmark indicators for certification standards applied to any marine or inland capture fisheries, including small-scale and data limited fisheries. The benchmark indicators also apply to certification standards that cover enhanced components of the stock being exploited by the certified fishery (the stock under consideration), provided that: • A natural reproductive stock component is maintained and fishery production is based primarily on natural biological production within the ecosystem of which the stock under consideration forms a part. • The species are native to the fishery’s geographic area or were introduced historically and have subsequently become established as part of the “natural” ecosystem. • There are natural reproductive components of the stock under consideration. • The growth during the post-release phase is based upon food supply from the natural environment and the production system operates without supplemental feeding. The Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria cover four main topics: management systems of wild and enhanced fisheries, stocks under consideration, ecosystem considerations, and methodological aspects regarding the assessment of the current state and trends in the stock under consideration. The requirements in this section are organised in a series of seven interrelated Performance Areas, following a logical progression from the establishment of a governance structure, through management objectives, approaches and measures, the gathering and analysis of data, stock and ecosystem outcomes, and compliance and enforcement. The four main topics outlined in the Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria are addressed within and throughout these Performance Areas. The table on the following pages provides an overview and short summary of the seven Performance Areas in this section. 30 Section D: Performance Areas D.1 Governance and Fishery Management The existence and functioning of a fishery management organization or arrangement representing the “designated authority” mentioned in the FAO Guidelines; implementation of a participatory, transparent and responsive governance and management system; the national and international jurisdiction of the management organization and measures; and the accommodation of governance and management systems for small scale and data limited fisheries. This performance area includes two topics: - Fishery Management Organization - Legal Framework D.2 Management Objectives The need for management objectives for the unit of certification and the stock under consideration seeking outcomes consistent with rational use of the resources under management, including the establishment of reference points for the stock under consideration, the avoidance of ecosystem impacts that are irreversible, or very slowly reversible, and the use of best scientific evidence available. This performance area includes two topics: - Stock under Consideration - Ecosystem Effects of Fishing D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans The existence of management measures to meet the objectives established under Performance Area D.2 for the unit of certification and the stock under consideration, including ecosystem impacts; management in accordance with the precautionary and ecosystem approaches; establishment of decision rules to operationalise reference points. This performance area includes four topics: - Stock under Consideration - Ecosystem Effects of Fishing - Management under Uncertainty - Fishery Management Documentation D.4 Data and Information Fishery monitoring and the collection and maintenance of adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information about the state and trends of the stock under consideration and the effects of the unit of certification on the ecosystem, including traditional, fisher or community knowledge; i.e. the data and information required to assess the efficacy of the management measures established under Performance Area D.3 in meeting the Objectives established under Performance Area D.2. This performance area includes two topics: - Collection and Maintenance of Data - Traditional, Fisher or Community Knowledge 31 Section D: Performance Areas D.5 Assessment Methodologies Assessment of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration and impacted ecosystem components using the data and information collected under Performance Area D.4; development and delivery of the best scientific evidence available; handling of uncertainty and implementation of a risk assessment/risk management approach. This performance area includes three topics: - Stock under Consideration - Ecosystem Effects of Fishing - Dissemination of Assessment Results D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Status and Outcomes Requirement for outcome indicators covering the objectives established under Performance Area D.2; the stock under consideration is not overfished; link to reference points; establishment of outcome status indicators of ecosystem components. This performance area includes two topics: - Stock under Consideration - Ecosystem Effects of Fishing D.7 Compliance and Enforcement Fishery is in compliance with applicable local, national and international laws and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fishery management organisation with jurisdiction over the fishery; requirement for effective and suitable monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement. This performance area includes one topic - Compliance with Laws and Regulations The seven Performance Areas are divided up into a series of ten Topics as follows: Performance Area F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t O r g a n i s a t i o n L e g a l F r a m e w o r k S t o c k u n d e r C o n s i d e r a t i o n E c o s y s t e m E f f e c t s o f F i s h i n g M a n a g e m e n t u n d e r U n c e r t a i n t y F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t D o c u m e n t a t i o n C o l l e c t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e o f D a t a T r a d i t i o n a l , F i s h e r o r C o m m u n i t y K n o w l e d g e D i s s e m i n a t i o n o f A s s e s s m e n t R e s u l t s C o m p l i a n c e w i t h L a w s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s D.1 Governance and Fishery Management D.2 Management Objectives D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans D.4 Data and Information D.5 Assessment Methodologies D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Status and Outcomes D.7 Compliance and Enforcement 32 The ten Topics contain a further series of 32 Elements. These are distributed among the Topics according to the table below. These Elements are not intended to change the meaning or application of the Indicator to which they are attached, but are to aid the users of the Benchmark Framework to navigate among the indicators and see the relationships between different indicators. They are also included in the spreadsheet version of the Indicators Table that enables users to sort the table by different categories, again to help with navigation and understanding of the structure of the framework. Element F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t O r g a n i s a t i o n L e g a l F r a m e w o r k S t o c k u n d e r C o n s i d e r a t i o n E c o s y s t e m E f f e c t s o f F i s h i n g M a n a g e m e n t u n d e r U n c e r t a i n t y F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t D o c u m e n t a t i o n C o l l e c t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e o f D a t a T r a d i t i o n a l , F i s h e r o r C o m m u n i t y K n o w l e d g e D i s s e m i n a t i o n o f A s s e s s m e n t R e s u l t s C o m p l i a n c e w i t h L a w s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s Management organization Adaptive Management Participatory Management Legal framework Transparency Small scale and data limited fisheries Transboundary stocks Best scientific evidence available Management objectives Management measures Stock assessment Target stock status Enhanced fisheries Reference points Decision Rules Traditional, fisher or community knowledge Recovery and rebuilding 33 Element F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t O r g a n i s a t i o n L e g a l F r a m e w o r k S t o c k u n d e r C o n s i d e r a t i o n E c o s y s t e m E f f e c t s o f F i s h i n g M a n a g e m e n t u n d e r U n c e r t a i n t y F i s h e r y M a n a g e m e n t D o c u m e n t a t i o n C o l l e c t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e o f D a t a T r a d i t i o n a l , F i s h e r o r C o m m u n i t y K n o w l e d g e D i s s e m i n a t i o n o f A s s e s s m e n t R e s u l t s C o m p l i a n c e w i t h L a w s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s Precautionary Approach Ecosystem Approach Impact Assessment Non-fishing impacts Ecosystem effects Non-target catches ETP species Habitat Food web Dependent predators Ecosystem structure and function Biodiversity Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Control and Surveillance Compliance outcomes 34 Explanation of the GSSI Requirements Tables The following tables containing the GSSI Requirements are subdivided in four columns: i. GSSI Requirement Number (No.), ii. Element Name (Element), iii. GSSI Requirement Content (GSSI Requirement), and iv. Guidance for Objective Evidence The first column, “GSSI Requirement Number” (i.), indicates in which section (A, B, C or D) and performance area (first digit) a GSSI Requirement is to be found. The last digit specifies its position within a performance area. To give an example, GSSI Requirement C.8.01 is the first requirement of performance area 8 “Water Quality and Waste” within Section C on “Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards”. The second column, “Element” (ii.), is to be understood as an individual title to each GSSI Requirement. The third column, “GSSI Requirement” (iii.), contains the full text of each GSSI Requirement. The fourth column contains Guidance for Objective Evidence (iv.). This is provided to assist scheme owners with the provision of information needed to support an effective application, and GSSI benchmark experts in their assessment of alignment with the requirements. With respect to Section A – Requirements for Governance and Section B – Requirements for Operational Management the objective evidence is relatively generic. That documentation will be of constitutional or corporate format and content whereas Section C - Requirements for Aquaculture and Section D – Requirements for Fisheries is more specific as the objective evidence will relate directly to content of the scheme standard's requirements. In order to demonstrate the progression within topics of individual performance areas and their respective tiers, the following colour coding has been applied: The complete tier structure and respective coloring has only been applied where different tiers within a topic exist. An example for this is the topic "Institutional Arrangements" within Performance Area A.1 Scheme Governance. In some cases no tier two or three requirements exist. Tier 1 – Responsible Practice Tier 2 – Improved Practice Tier 3 – Leading Practice 35 Section A – Requirements for the Governance of Seafood Certification Schemes A.1 Scheme Governance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Institutional Arrangements - Requirements for Responsible Practice A.1.01 Independence The scheme owner is independent from any organisation that can, or has influence regarding accreditation or certification decisions. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation iv) Summary of activities and relationships with other bodies A.1.02 Legal Status The scheme owner is a legal entity, or an organization that is a partnership of legal entities, or a government agency. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation A.1.03 Resource Management The scheme owner has in place an appropriate number of competent staff with adequate resources to effectively manage the scheme’s day to day operations Confirmation of i) The details of typical day to day operation of the scheme and expected performance criteria. ii) The number and type of staff employed is commensurate with the effective operation of the scheme. iii) Human Resources policy regarding personnel competence and procedures to ensure that personnel appointed have the appropriate qualifications, experience, competence and training of that staff to undertake defined roles and responsibilities. iv) results of internal audit A.1.04 Insurance and Reserves The scheme owner has adequate arrangements (e.g. insurance or reserves) to cover liabilities arising from its activities. Confirmation of i) Cover of insurance with a registered underwriter (certificate of insurance) ii) Financial reserves signed off by a registered CPA. iii) Liability levels represent no lower than acceptable minimum standard industry levels. A.1.05 Copyright Protection Where the scheme owner has copyright on any normative document, symbol, logo or mark these are held by the legal entity. The scheme owner has systems in place to minimize the risk of breach of copyright and to apply sanctions when misrepresentation is established Confirmation of i) A procedure for checking for breaches of copyright of normative documents, symbols, logo or mark ii) A policy and procedure in relation to the issuing of sanctions in relation to breach of copyright iii) Contract/ Document issued to users of documents, symbols, logo or mark on their use and misuse A.1.06 Document Controls The scheme owner has adequate controls for the translation and publication of normative documents Confirmation of i) A procedure for the accurate translation and publication of normative documents 36 A.1 Scheme Governance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Governance – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.1.07 Impartiality The scheme owner is not directly engaged in the operational affairs (auditing, evaluation, certification etc...) of the certification program. Confirmation of i) Summary of activities and relationships with other bodies ii) Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel ( Job Descriptions) A.1.08 Operating Procedures The scheme owner operates to a defined set of governance policies and procedures specifying at least the following: - Board or Governance Body election or appointment process, - Board or Governance Body representation and ToRs, - Member categories (where applicable), - Income generation or funding processes, - An organisational structure, - The decision making processes of each governance body, - Personnel roles (responsibility and authority), - Standard-setting and maintenance procedures, and - A conformity assessment program. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation iv) Organization Structure v) Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel ( Job Descriptions) vi) Standard-setting, maintenance procedures and records of activity vii) Conformity assessment program, procedures and records of activity A.1.09 Transparency of Governance The scheme owner makes information freely available on request about the scheme’s governance structure, scheme ownership, standards and standard- setting procedures, and the composition, operating procedures and responsibilities of its governance bodies. Confirmation that the specified information is freely available on request by i) The existence of a statement, which is it freely available, concerning the issuing of information and how this can be obtained. ii) An example where this information has been provided upon request. A.1.10 Conflict of Interest in Governance The scheme owner’s governance ensures that there is no conflict of interest, which could call into question its impartiality and integrity. Confirmation that within the Scheme’s Constitution, Articles of Association or Corporate Governance Documentation, the scheme owner has a policy or statement regarding non conflict of interest in relation to its management or personnel and a procedure in place to assure adherence to this requirement Governance – Requirements for Improved Practice A.1.11 Transparency of Governance The scheme owner makes information in A.1.04 freely and publicly available on their website Assessor should check the scheme web site A.1.12 Governance Complaints The scheme owner has a transparent complaints resolution process based on a publicly available procedure for resolving complaints related to governance, scheme management and executive functions (which includes requirements for investigation, complaint management, documentation and successful resolution of the complaint). Confirmation of i) Public availability of the scheme complaint management process ii) An effective complaint management procedure iii) Documentation and results of complaints received A.1.13 Governance Participation The scheme owner requires that stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in the top governance body Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation iv) Organization Structure v) Roles and Responsibilities of Governance Body 37 A.1 Scheme Governance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.1.14 Governance Decision- making The scheme owner requires that voting procedures for governance bodies ensure that no category of stakeholders has a majority vote in decision-making. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation iv) Organization Structure A.1.15 Governance Performance Review The scheme owner requires a regular performance review of the top governance body, with results that are made publicly available Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation Governance – Requirements for Leading Practice A.1.16 Governance Composition The scheme owner requires that the top governance body has a balanced multi-stakeholder composition. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation iv) Organization Structure A.1.17 Governance Oversight The scheme owner has a mechanism for stakeholders to input into the choice and removal of top governance body members. Confirmation of i) Scheme Constitution ii) Articles of Association iii) Corporate Governance Documentation Scope and Objectives – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.1.18 Scheme Scope The scheme owner has a defined scope in relation to its activities, which is subject to certification by accredited certification bodies. Confirmation of i) Accreditation Schedules published by the Accreditation Bodies A.1.19 Scheme objectives and validation The scheme owner has defined key performance indicators related to scheme objectives and collects data over time on these KPIs to inform the revision of its standard Confirmation of i) the agreement upon the key performance indicators (KPI’s) by the scheme management ii) procedures for the collection of data relating to KPI’s iii) results of KPI performance Scope and Objectives – Requirements for Improved Practice A.1.20 Scheme Objectives The scheme owner has articulated objectives for its scheme that aim to decrease negative environmental impacts. Confirmation of i) Objectives agreed by the management scheme that are in place to decrease negative environmental impacts. ii) That these objectives are communicated to scheme personnel, certification bodies and other interested parties. A.1.21 Monitoring and evaluation system The scheme owner has a documented monitoring and evaluation system with specified sustainability indicators that are measured on an ongoing basis Confirmation of i) Documented monitoring and evaluation system in relation to measured sustainability indicators ii) Results of monitoring measured sustainability indicators iii) Results of evaluation of measured sustainability indicators 38 A.1 Scheme Governance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Scope and Objectives – Requirements for Leading Practice A.1.22 Outcome and Impact evaluations The scheme owner can demonstrate it has delivered improvement against its scheme objectives through independent outcome and impact evaluations of its scheme Confirmation of i) Results of the comparison of performance criteria in relation to defined scheme objectives. ii) Methodology of the measurement of the performance indicators is obtained independently and that the results provide demonstrable improvement. Non-Discrimination – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.1.23 Non-Discrimination - Openness The scheme owner ensures that all types of fishery/aquaculture operations within the scope of its scheme can apply for certification, regardless of their scale, size or management arrangements; Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of Certification Bodies A.1.24 Non-Discrimination - Openness The scheme owner has not set an upper limit to the number of fisheries/ aquaculture operations that can be certified Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of Certification Bodies A.1.25 Non-Discrimination – market access The scheme owner does not have mandatory requirements by the scheme for a fishery to be certified in order to access any markets. Confirmation of policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of fisheries Non-Discrimination – Requirements for Improved Practice A.1.26 Accessibility The scheme owner has a program with publicly available procedures for taking into account the special circumstances of developing countries and/ or countries in transition. Confirmation of publically available policy/ scheme rules in relation to the application of companies located in developing countries or countries in transition. Scheme Integrity monitoring program – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.1.27 Internal Review The scheme owner undertakes a formal internal review annually and, where appropriate, revises its operating procedures Confirmation of i) Internal auditing program ii) Internal audit procedures iii) Copy of internal audit results iv) Copy of minutes of internal audits and review meeting/document revision /corrective action procedure arising from internal audit activity and review. A.1.28 Conformity Assessment monitoring The scheme owner monitors the activities of certification and accreditation bodies within its scheme to ensure their consistent and competent performance. Confirmation of a monitoring system which effectively assesses the performance of Certification Bodies and Accreditation Bodies to defined criteria. The methodology of assessment may vary but the scheme owner should demonstrate the type and level of monitoring is appropriate to identify poor or inconsistent performance. Methodology may include monitoring of complaints, certification audit report screening procedures, or a risk-based program of office audits and witness audits. 39 A.1 Scheme Governance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Scheme Integrity monitoring program – Requirements for Improved Practice A.1.29 Internal Review The scheme owner ensures the formal internal review is fully documented, is carried out with the involvement of direct stakeholders and addresses any issues of concern raised by stakeholders. Confirmation of i) Internal auditing program ii) Internal audit procedures iii) Copy of internal audit results iv) Copy of minutes of internal audits and review meeting /document revision /corrective action procedure arising from internal audit activity with evidence that stakeholders where included within the review of the results of the internal audit program and their concerns specifically addressed. A.2 Scheme Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Logo Use and Claims – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.2.01 Claims Policy The scheme owner has a publicly available policy governing use of symbols, logos and claims Confirmation of i) Publically available policy governing use of symbols, logos and claims ii) Minutes of Meetings A.2.02 Relevant Claims Through the claims policy, the scheme owner ensures that symbols, logos and claims are only applied to activities that are within the scope of certification, do not overstate or mislead users relative to the defined scope, and are relevant to that scope, so as to not cause barriers to trade or mislead consumers. Confirmation of i) Claims policy ii) Assessment procedure of the use of symbols, logos and claims iii) Complaints procedure iv) Minutes of meetings 40 A.2 Scheme Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.2.03 Claims-making requirements The scheme owner requires that the certified organization: - Conforms to the scheme requirements when making reference to its certification status in communication media such as the internet, brochures or advertising, or other documents, - Does not make or permit any misleading statement regarding its certification, - Does not use or permit the use of a certification document or any part thereof in a misleading manner, - Upon suspension or withdrawal of its certification, discontinues its use of all advertising matter that contains a reference to certification, as directed by the certification body, - Amends all advertising matter when the scope of certification has been reduced, - Does not imply that the certification applies to activities that are outside the scope of certification, and - Does not use its certification in such a manner that would bring the certification body and/or scheme into disrepute and lose public trust. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures for Certification Bodies ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iv) Complaint procedure v) Minutes of meetings A.2.04 Logo Management The scheme owner or its delegated authority issues written and enforceable authorizations and/or licenses to use the scheme’s mark/claim/logo only when the facility and/or product has been certified as being in conformity with the relevant standard. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.05 Certificate Content Management The scheme owner requires certificates for use to include, at a minimum: - The name and address of the AB or scheme owner; - The name and address of the certification body; - The name and address of the certification holder; - The effective date of issue of the certificate; - The substance (scope of certification) of the certificate; - The term for which the certification is valid; - Signature of the issuing officer. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures for Certification Bodies ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Example of certificate template v) Examples of certificates vi) Minutes of meetings A.2.06 Misuse Prevention The scheme owner has mechanisms in place to ensure that no fraudulent or misleading use is made with the use and display of its certification mark and logos. Confirmation of i) Claims policy ii) Assessment procedure of the use of symbols, logos and claims iii) Complaints procedure iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.07 Sanctions for Misuse The scheme owner has a procedure in place that requires that suitable action is taken to deal with incorrect references to the certification system or misleading use of symbols and logos Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Claims policy iii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iv) Contract / agreement / license with Accreditation Bodies v) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations vi) Minutes of meetings 41 A.2 Scheme Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.2.08 Percentage-based claims The scheme owner has a publicly available policy that defines which percentage of certifiable ingredients within a product must be of certified origin. Confirmation of publically available policy regarding the percentage of certifiable ingredients within a product must be of certified origin Logo Use and Claims – Requirements for Improved Practice A.2.09 Minimum percentage- based claims The scheme owner requires that at least 95% of the certifiable seafood ingredient within a product must be of certified origin in order for the scheme’s claim or logo to be used. Confirmation of i) Claims/logo policy ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.10 Accuracy of claims The scheme owner has data to substantiate the claims about the sustainability benefits of the scheme, e.g. with impacts data or monitoring and evaluation results. Confirmation of i) Data regarding claims about sustainability benefits ii) Records of review of data which substantiate the claims about the sustainability benefits of the scheme iii) Minutes of meetings Complaints and Appeals – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.2.11 Complaints Policy and Procedure The scheme owner ensures there is a publicly available procedure applicable to accredited certification bodies for dealing with complaints and appeals related to certification or decertification from parties involved in, or consulted, during the assessment. Confirmation of i) Public available policy for dealing with complaints and appeals by Certification Bodies ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.12 Complaints Policy and Procedure The complaints procedure is timely and clearly defines the scope and nature of complaints and appeals that will be considered. Confirmation of i) Public available policy for dealing with complaints and appeals ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.13 Complaints Policy and Procedure The scheme owner requires that costs of appeals are borne by the appellant. Confirmation of i) Policy for dealing with complaints and appeals ii) Contract / agreement / license with Certification Bodies iii) Contract / agreement / license with certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings A.2.14 Impartial Complaints Committee An independent and impartial committee is established by the scheme owner or the AB to respond to any complaint. If discussion and/or conciliation fail, the committee provides a written finding to the CB, AB or scheme owner, which transmits it to the other party or parties involved. Confirmation of i) Policy for dealing with complaints and appeals ii) ToR of complaint committee iii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies v) Contract / agreement with certified organizations vi) Minutes of meetings 42 A.2 Scheme Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.2.15 Corrective Action The CB, AB or scheme owner, as appropriate, takes appropriate corrective and preventive action following the determination of the committee. This does not exclude recourse to other forms of legal and administrative processes as provided for in national legislation or international law. Confirmation of i) Policy for dealing with complaints and appeals ii) ToR of complaint committee iii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies v) Contract / agreement with certified organizations vi) Minutes of meetings A.2.16 Record Keeping The Scheme Owner or AB: - Keeps a record of all complaints and appeals, and remedial actions related to certification; - Takes appropriate corrective and preventive action; assesses the effectiveness of remedial actions; - Safeguards confidentiality of information obtained during the investigation and resolution of complaints and appeals concerning certification. Confirmation of i) Policy and procedure for dealing with complaints and appeals ii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Records iv) Minutes of meetings A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Standard Setting and Maintenance – Requirements for Responsible Practice A.3.01 Standard Setting Body A scheme owner or other suitable arrangement (e.g. technical committee of independent experts) is assigned with the tasks of setting, reviewing, revising, assessing, verifying and approving standards. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Terms of Reference of Technical Committees. iii) List of members and their details (company/ position/ job title) who were directly involved with the development and maintenance of the scheme. iv) Minutes of Technical Meetings A.3.02 Standards Development & Maintenance Procedure The scheme owner has available on request procedures for the process under which each standard is developed and revised Confirmation of publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) A.3.03 Complaints – Standard- setting procedural The scheme owner makes impartial and documented efforts to resolve procedural complaints related to standard-setting, based on a publicly documented complaints resolution mechanism. Decisions taken on complaints are available on request. Confirmation of i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) ii) Minutes of Technical Meetings 43 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.3.04 Work Program A work program is prepared and made publicly available at least every six months, including: - Scheme owner’s name and address - The list of standards currently under preparation; - The list of standards currently under reviewing or revision; - The list of standards which were adopted in the preceding period. Confirmation of i) Publically available work program ii) Minutes of Technical meetings iii) Record of program amendment A.3.05 Balanced Participation The scheme owner ensures participation by independent technical experts and balanced participation by representatives of interested parties in the standard development, revision and approval process. Development or revision of standards include, wherever possible, representatives of fisheries management authorities, the fishing industry, fish workers organizations, fishing communities, the scientific community, environmental interest groups, fish processors, traders, and retailers and hatchery managers as well as consumer associations. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) List of organizations involved with consultation iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.06 Public Announcement No later than the start of the comment period, the scheme owner publishes a notice announcing the period for commenting in a national or, as may be, regional or international publication of standardization activities and/or on the internet. Confirmation of i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) ii) Publically available work program iii) Evidence of notices iv) Minutes of Meetings A.3.07 Stakeholder Consultation The scheme owner ensures that interested parties can participate in the standard-setting process through a consultation forum or are made aware of alternative mechanisms by which they can participate. Confirmation of i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) ii) Publically available work program iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.08 Comment Submissions The scheme owner allows a period of at least 60 days for the submission of comments on the draft standard by interested parties prior to its adoption. Confirmation of i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) ii) Publically available work program iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.09 Taking Comments into Account The scheme owner takes into account in further processing of the standard, comments received during the period for commenting. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Register of comments iii) Minutes of Meetings 44 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.3.10 Consensus Decision- making The scheme owner strives for consensus decisions on the content of the standard. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the scheme owner defines criteria in advance to determine when alternative decision-making procedures should come into effect and what the decision-making thresholds will be. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Register of comments iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.11 Deviations in Content The scheme owner provides an explanation regarding any deviation from relevant national or international standards. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Minutes of meetings iii) Evidence of explanations A.3.12 Local Applicability Where international standards are to be adapted for direct application at the national or regional level, the scheme owner develops interpretive guidance or related policies and procedures for how to take into account local economic, social, environmental and regulatory conditions. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Minutes of meetings iii) Evidence of guidance policies and procedures A.3.13 Standards Availability The scheme owner promptly publishes adopted standards, and makes them available for free on the internet, and on request, to any interested party. Confirmation from the website of i) Scheme standards ii) Examples where standards have been provided A.3.14 Translations The scheme owner makes translations available in the official languages where the standard is applied Confirmation of i) Register of countries where scheme certificates have been issued ii) Translations of normative documents into official languages where scheme certificates have been issued A.3.15 Translations Upon request, the scheme owner provides, within its means, translations of its standard-setting procedures, most recent work program, draft and final versions of their standards. Confirmation of i) Examples where the information required within this indicator has been provided. ii) Where no requests have been made, a procedure should be provided to confirm how the scheme owner shall achieve the provision of the information required within this indicator. A.3.16 Standards Records The scheme owner keeps on file for at least 5 years the following records related to each standard development or revision process: - Policies and procedures guiding the standard-setting activity; - Lists of stakeholders contacted; - Interested parties involved at each stage of the process; - Comments received and a synopsis of how those comments were taken into account; and - All draft and final versions of the standard. Confirmation of i) Documentation system and procedures ii) Documentation register A.3.17 Central Focal Point The scheme owner identifies a central focal point for standards-related enquiries and for submission of comments. The scheme owner makes contact information for this focal point readily available including on the internet. Confirmation of i) Details of the central focal point contact details ii) Provision of internet link regarding central focal point contact details 45 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.3.18 Standards Review and Revision The scheme owner reviews standards at a defined frequency for continued relevance and for effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives and, undertake more frequent standards review based on emergence of new scientific information; if revision is necessary, this is undertaken in a timely manner (At a minimum every five years). Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.19 Transition period for Compliance The scheme owner requires that certified enterprises are given a period of at least three years to come into compliance with the revised standards. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Communication with certificated companies iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.20 Transition period for Compliance The scheme owner notes the date of a revision or reaffirmation of a standard in the standard along with a transition period by which the revised standard will come into effect. Confirmation of scheme standard with stated transition periods A.3.21 Informing Enterprises of Transition The scheme owner informs its stakeholders of the revised standard and transition period, in particular certification bodies and, where feasible, certified enterprises. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Communication with certificated companies iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.22 Proposals for Revisions The scheme owner allows for comments on the standard or on the process to be submitted by any interested party and considers them through a consistent and transparent process. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Communication with certificated companies iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.23 Updating Standard- Setting Procedures The scheme owner updates the procedural and methodological approach for setting and revising standards in light of scientific and technical progress and of the experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable fisheries. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Methodology of assessing scientific and technical progress and the experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable fisheries. iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.24 Relevance of Standards Content The scheme owner demonstrates that the standard does not encompass criteria or requirements that are of no relevance for sustainable fisheries and that could cause unnecessary barriers of trade or mislead the consumer. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Methodology of assessing scientific and technical progress and the experience gained in standard-setting of sustainable fisheries. iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.25 Standards Content The scheme owner ensures that standards are consistent with the following requirements: - Only include language that is clear, specific, objective and verifiable; - are expressed in terms of process, management and performance criteria, rather than design or descriptive characteristics; (ISO 59) - Do not favour a particular technology, patented item or service provider; and ( ISO 59) - Attribute or cite all original intellectual sources of content. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Review of standard criteria against defined indicator requirements. iii) Minutes of Meetings 46 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Standard Setting and Maintenance – Requirements for Improved Practice A.3.26 Standards Development & Maintenance Procedure The scheme owner has publicly available procedures for the process under which each standard is developed and revised. Confirmation of publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) A.3.27 Complaints – Standard- setting procedural The scheme owner makes impartial and documented efforts to resolve procedural complaints related to standard-setting, based on a publicly documented complaints resolution mechanism. Decisions taken on complaints are disclosed are publicly available. Confirmation of i) Publically available standard setting and maintenance procedures (it is acceptable for this to be made available on request and not published on internet, although proper public notification of its existence needs to be carried out) ii) Minutes of Technical Meetings A.3.28 Terms of Reference Terms of Reference: At the outset of a new standard development or revision process, the scheme owner develops or update terms of reference (ToRs), which includes the following elements: - Proposed scope of the standard and intended geographic application; - A justification of the need for the standard, including an assessment of the most important sustainability issues falling within the scope of the standard; whether the proposed standard will meet an expressed need; and documentation of what other standards exist or are in the process of development which meet all or part of the expressed need; - Clear social and environmental objectives that the standard seeks to achieve and how those are linked to the organisation’s intended change; - An assessment of risks in implementing the standard and how to mitigate for these. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures which includes provision of indicator criteria ii) Social and environmental objectives iii) Risk assessment documentation in relation to standards implementation iv) Minutes of Technical Meetings A.3.29 Public Summary At the outset of a standard development or revision process, the scheme owner makes publicly available a summary of the process that includes: - Contact information and information on how to contribute to the consultation; - Summary of the terms of reference for the standard, including the proposed scope, objectives and justification of the need for the standard; - Steps in the standard-setting process, including timelines and clearly identified opportunities for contributing; and - Decision-making procedures, including how decisions are made and who makes them. Confirmation of i) Publically available Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Minutes of Technical Meetings 47 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.3.30 Public Consultation The scheme owner allows at least two rounds of at least 30 days each for comment submissions on the draft standard by interested parties. Confirmation of i) Publically available Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.31 Directly Affected Stakeholders The scheme owner identifies stakeholders who will be directly affected by the standard and those that are not adequately represented in consultations and proactively seeks their contributions. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) List of organizations identified and evidence of communication with these organizations iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.32 Taking Comments into Account - Transparency The scheme owner makes publicly available the non-attributed copies of the original comments and a synopsis of how the comments were addressed and the synopsis is sent to all parties that submitted comments. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Publically available information of the non-attributed copies of the original comments and a synopsis of how the comments were addressed iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.33 Participation in Decision-Making The scheme owner ensures participation in standards decision-making bodies is open to all interested parties. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria, to verify the scheme owner / standard-setting body does not have any criteria that limits who can provide input on the standard ii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.34 Balanced Decision- making – Committee Governance The scheme owner’s decision-making process for standards development or revision ensures that no significant interest group can dominate nor be dominated in decision-making. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Terms of Reference of Technical Committees. iii) List of members and their details (company/ position/ job title) who were directly involved with the development and maintenance of the scheme. iv) Minutes of Technical Meetings A.3.35 Balanced Decision- making – Structure of Committee Membership The scheme owner ensures that directly affected stakeholders make up a meaningful segment of participants in decision-making. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Terms of Reference of Technical Committees. iii) Minutes of meetings A.3.36 Membership Decision- Making Where the scheme owner limits decision-making to members, membership criteria and application procedures shall be transparent and non-discriminatory. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Terms of Reference of Technical Committees. iii) Minutes of meetings A.3.37 Decision-Making Transparency The scheme owner makes public any decisions on the content of the standard as well as a summary of deliberations in arriving at the decision. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Minutes of meetings iii) Publically available decisions 48 A.3 Standard Setting and Maintenance No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence A.3.38 Standards Records - Transparency The scheme owner makes these records available to interested parties upon request. Confirmation of i) Examples where the information required within this indicator has been provided. ii) Where no requests have been made, a procedure should be provided to confirm how the scheme owner shall achieve the provision of the information required within this indicator. A.3.39 Relevance of Standards Content The scheme owner demonstrates that all of the criteria in its standard are relevant to meeting the standard’s defined environmental objectives Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Review of standard criteria against defined scheme environmental objectives. iii) Minutes of Meetings Standard Setting and Maintenance – Requirements for Leading Practice A.3.40 Disadvantaged Stakeholders The scheme owner addresses constraints faced by disadvantaged parties to participate effectively in standards development and revision. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) List of organizations identified and evidence of communication with these organizations iii) Minutes of Meetings A.3.41 Feasibility Assessment As part of the consultation process, the scheme owner carries out field tests to assess the feasibility and auditability of requirements in the draft standard. Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures in relation to indicator criteria ii) Procedures for field testing iii) Results of field testing iv) Minutes of Meetings 49 Section B – Requirements for the Operational Management of Seafood Certification Schemes B.1 Accreditation No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Accreditation – Requirements for Responsible Practice B.1.01 Accreditation - 17011 compliance The scheme owner has a contractual or enforceable arrangement with their respective Accreditation Bodies (AB) to ensure compliance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011:2004 – Conformity Assessment – general requirements for accreditation bodies accredited conformity assessment bodies. Confirmation of i) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies ii) Results of peer reviews iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.02 Accreditation -non- discrimination Accreditation services are available to potential certifying bodies (CBs) irrespective of their country of residence, size and of the existing number of already accredited bodies. Confirmation of i) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies ii) Policy regarding non discrimination iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.03 Accreditation - contractual arrangements Contracts or equivalent enforceable arrangements have been established between the AB and scheme owner and between the AB and prospective CBs describing the responsibilities of all parties with respect to the accreditation process. Confirmation of i) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.04 Accreditation – specified requirements The Scheme owner shall define Rules and Procedures for conducting accreditation activities, to be applied by the Accreditation Body. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures regarding accreditation ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Minutes of meetings B.1.05 Accreditation – transition period Subsequent to any changes in the accreditation requirements, Certification Bodies are given a defined time period within which to conform to the changes. Where deemed appropriate, the time period for conformance should be considered separately for Certification Bodies in developing countries Confirmation of i) Standard setting and maintenance procedures ii) Communication with certificated companies iii) Communication with Accreditation Bodies iv) Communication with Certification Bodies v) Minutes of Meetings B.1.06 Accreditation Body – competencies The scheme owner ensures that Accreditation Bodies and their auditors possess the following competencies: - In-depth knowledge of the standard and its intent (and other requirements) and an understanding of the goals of the scheme. - Competence to review sampling protocols and practice, where this is undertaken by the CB. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.07 Accreditation – external review External audits are carried out on the accreditation body to assess performance. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) External audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings 50 B.1 Accreditation No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.1.08 Accreditation – organizational transparency The AB makes information available on request about its organizational structure and the financial and other kinds of support it receives from public or private entities Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Publically available Accreditation Body information iv) Minutes of meetings Accreditation – Requirements for Improved Practice B.1.09 Accreditation – Office Audit The accreditation process includes an office audit of the certification body. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Results of office audits iv) Minutes of meeting B.1.10 Accreditation – field audit The accreditation process includes a review of the performance of assurance providers and auditors in the field. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Results of review iv) Minutes of meetings B.1.11 Accreditation – complaints and appeals The complaints procedures and results of complaints and/or appeals in relation to accreditation are made publicly available. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Results of complaints and /or appeals publically available iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.12 Accreditation – remediation procedure There is a procedure in place for how CBs are required to address non- compliances, including when accreditation is suspended or revoked. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Results of non-compliance corrective action iii) Minutes of meetings B.1.13 Accreditation – external review External audits are carried out on the accreditation body to assess performance and the results of these audits are made available upon request. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) External audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.1.14 Accreditation – Public summaries The AB makes summaries of accreditation audit reports available on request. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Publically available audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.1.15 Accreditation – organizational transparency The AB makes information publicly available about its organizational structure and the financial and other kinds of support it receives from public or private entities Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Publically available audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings 51 B.1 Accreditation No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Accreditation – Requirements for Leading Practice B.1.16 Accreditation – external review External audits are carried out on the accreditation body to assess performance and the results of these audits are made publicly available. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) External audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.1.17 Accreditation – audit reports transparency The Accreditation Body makes accreditation audit reports publicly available. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iii) Publically available accreditation audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings 52 B.2 Certification No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Certification – Requirements for Responsible Practice B.2.01 Certification 17065 compliance Certification Bodies operating in a scheme comply with the requirements of the GSSI Framework Document and are accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012 for the scope of respective standard of the scheme. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures regarding accreditation ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Contract/ agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Accreditation Body schedules v) Minutes of meetings B.2.02 Certification - Fee structure The Scheme Owner requires Certification Bodies to maintain a written fee structure that is adequate to support accurate and truthful assessments commensurate with the scale, size and complexity of the fishery or chain of custody. The fee structure is non-discriminatory and takes into account the special circumstances and requirements of developing countries and countries in transition. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Evidence of fee structures of Certification Bodies iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.03 Certification - certificate duration The validity of a certificate does not exceed 5 years in the case of fishery or aquaculture certification and 3 years in the case of chain of custody certification. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Copies of certification iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.04 Certification - Surveillance Certification bodies are required to carry out annual surveillance audits of certified enterprises. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Copies of audit program of certification body iv) Audit register v) Minutes of meetings B.2.05 Certification - Termination, suspension, withdrawal The Scheme Owner or accredited CBs have a documented procedure(s) that specifies the conditions under which certification may be suspended or withdrawn, partially or in total, for all or part of the scope of certification. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.06 Certification - Multi-site Certification Where multi-site certification is allowed under the scheme, the scheme owner has certification procedures in place which include the requirements for the multi-site organisation and sampling methodology. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.07 Certification - Audit reports The scheme owner has or requires CBs to have requirements for audit reports and reporting Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.08 Certification - Stakeholder input The scheme owner requires that CBs have in place an appropriate mechanism for stakeholder to provide input during the audit process. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings 53 B.2 Certification No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.2.09 Certification - Assessment Methodology The scheme owner has requirements in place to ensure CBs have a consistent interpretation of compliance with the standard and of the sampling methodology. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.10 Certification - Non- compliances The scheme owner requires that CBs have a consistent procedure for determining, remediating and appealing non-compliances Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.11 Certification - Complaints resolution The scheme owner requires that CBs provide parties involved or consulted with during certification with access to a complaints resolution process for compliance decisions Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.2.12 Certification – site visit The scheme owner requires that the (re-)certification audit includes an office visit and a site visit Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.13 Certification – Transparency on audit reports The scheme owner requires that Certification Bodies make publicly available a summary of audit reports where certification is granted. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Publically available audit reports summary iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.14 Certification – Transparency on certified entities The scheme owner requires that a list of certified enterprises is made publicly available. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Publically available list/ register of certified organizations iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.15 Certification - Notification of changes The scheme owner notifies AB’s, CB’s and certified enterprises of any change in management procedures which effects scheme rules and procedures for accreditation or certification. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Contract/agreement with Accreditation Bodies iv) Contract/agreement with certified organizations v) Communication regarding changes to management procedures effecting scheme rules and procedures relating to accreditation or certification vi) Minutes of meetings Certification – Requirements for Improved Practice B.2.16 Certification - Stakeholder input The scheme owner requires that CB auditors solicit stakeholder input during the audit process Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings 54 B.2 Certification No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.2.17 Certification - Unannounced audits The scheme owner requires that CBs conduct unannounced audits [not possible for fisheries] Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Certification audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings Note: this indicator will not be possible to meet for fisheries B.2.18 Certification - Audit duration The scheme owner has a publicly available methodology for calculating audit duration Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Publically available audit duration information iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.19 Certification – publication of audit reports The scheme owner requires Certification Bodies to make publicly available the full audit reports after certification has been granted. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Publically available audit duration information iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.20 Certification - Surveillance Audit The scheme owner requires that Surveillance Audits necessarily include a site visit. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.21 Certification - Timeline for corrective action If the scheme owner allows for certification of an entity with non-compliances, the scheme owner requires that: - A timeline for corrective actions must be defined; - Only non-conformities on minor, non-critical issues are allowed; - A system to verify compliance is in place Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports and corrective action reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.22 Certification - Other scheme enrolment disclosure (CoC) The scheme owner requires that new applicants disclose any certificates they are holding in other certification schemes Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Applicant disclosures iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.23 Certification – Risk- based audit frequency The scheme owner has in place a risk-based methodology for CBs to calculate audit frequency and intensity. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.24 Certification – Provision of advice The scheme owner has defined the conditions under which auditors are able to provide generic advice to clients during the audit process, but these shall not include advice which will affect the certification decision. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings 55 B.2 Certification No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.2.25 Certification – Sampling requirements The scheme owner or CBs have defined requirements for sampling methodology and frequency during the audit Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings Certification – Requirements for Leading Practice B.2.26 Certification – stakeholder input The scheme owner requires Certification Bodies to make publicly available for comment a draft of the full audit report prior to the certification decision, with sufficient time for interested parties to submit comments Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports for consultation iv) Minutes of meetings Auditor Competence - Requirements for Responsible Practice B.2.27 Auditor Competence Requirements for Technical Knowledge The scheme owner has defined the qualifications and education required by auditors employed by Certification Bodies Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Auditor personal records iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.28 Auditor Competence - Technical Knowledge CB auditors are required to have successfully completed training in the scheme to the satisfaction of the scheme owner. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Training course materials iv) Auditor personal records v) Minutes of meetings B.2.29 Auditor Competence – general auditing skills CB auditors are required to have successfully completed training in auditing techniques, with duration of at least 40 hours. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Training course materials iv) Auditor personal records v) Minutes of meetings 56 B.2 Certification No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.2.30 Auditor Competence Scheme specific knowledge assessment Certification Bodies shall include the following in their appraisal program of auditors: - An assessment of knowledge and skills for each fundamental area the auditor will be expected to be working, - An assessment of knowledge of pertinent Sustainable Fishery and Aquaculture Programs and the ability to access and be able to apply relevant laws and regulations, - An assessment of the personal attributes of the auditor, to ensure they conduct themselves in a professional manner, - A period of supervised training to cover the assessment fishery and aquaculture principles, specific audit techniques and specific category knowledge, - A documented sign off of the satisfactory completion of the training program by the appointed competent supervisor. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Certification body training and appraisal procedures iv) Auditor personal records v) Minutes of meetings B.2.31 Auditor Competence – Knowledge and Scheme Specific Knowledge maintenance CB auditors are required to participate annually in at least one on-site audit against the scheme standard to maintain category and scheme knowledge. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Auditor personal records, including proof of site visits. iv) Minutes of meetings B.2.32 Auditor Competence – Knowledge maintenance CBs have a continuing professional development program in place that provides auditors with current best practice for sustainable fishery and aquaculture. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Certification body continuous professional development program iv) Auditor personal records v) Minutes of meetings B.2.33 Auditor Competence – extension of scope Where an auditor extends the scope of their competence, the CB requires them to undertake training in the new category, conduct supervised audits and be assessed and signed off as competent by the Certification Body to conduct audits in the new category. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Certification body continuous professional development program iv) Auditor personal records v) Minutes of meetings 57 B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Management of Chain of Custody – Requirements for Responsible Practice B.3.01 Segregation The scheme owner requires that all certified products are identified and segregated from non-certified products at all stages of the supply chain. Confirmation of i) Reference to CoC Standard ii) Auditor training iii) Audit reports B.3.02 Enterprises to be audited The scheme owner requires all enterprises that are physically handling the certified product to undergo a CoC audit by an accredited CB. Exceptions: No audit is required for storage and distribution of tamper-proof packaged products. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings B.3.03 Records for traceability The scheme owner requires CBs to verify that all enterprises maintain records that allow any certified product or batch of products to be traced from initial possession at receipt to release of possession at sale of product. Confirmation of i) Reference to CoC Standard ii) Auditor training iii) Audit Reports Records should contain: name of the supplier, evidence of certificate validity (own and suppliers), records of all entries, processing and sale of certified products, receipts and invoices that state the certified status of the products and sufficient other details. B.3.04 Records/ information confidentiality The scheme owner has a policy that defines the level of confidentiality of the traceability information or records. The following minimum information is available upon request: - Species name - Certified fishery/ farm Confirmation of i) Scheme Policy ii) Scheme Rules and Procedures iii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iv) Audit reports v) Minutes of meetings Standard for Maintenance of Chain of Custody – Requirements for Improved Practice B.3.05 Sub-contractors The Scheme owner requires that enterprises are able to demonstrate that these CoC requirements are met by its subcontractors. Confirmation of i) Scheme Policy ii) Reference to CoC Standard iii) Auditor training iv) Audit reports Subcontractors physically handling the certified product will undergo a CoC audit by an accredited CB, as defined by B.3.2. 58 B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.3.06 Auditing methods and periodicity The scheme owner has or requires CBs to have documented procedures for auditing methods and periodicity of audits that meet the following requirements: - periods between audits does not exceed 3 years; - periodicity depends on risk factors - major changes that are deemed to affect the integrity of the CoC result in a re-audit (onsite), Confirmation of i) Scheme Policy ii) Scheme Rules and Procedures iii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iv) Audit reports v) Minutes of meetings Guidance: Risk factors e.g. previous audit history, concerns about compliance with a scheme’s standard, seasonality of product, significant capacity increases, structural changes, changes in processing technology or changes in product type. Major changes: e.g. change of ownership, change of processing methods, change of premises. The SC will provide general guidance but decisions will be taken on a case by case basis by the CB. B.3.07 Non-conformity/ Corrective Actions The scheme owner requires the CB to record all identified breaches of the chain of custody, including: - An explanation of the factors that allowed the breach to occur; - An explanation of the corrective actions required to ensure that a similar breach does not re-occur; - The time frames for the corrective actions to be completed; and - The date of closing out of the corrective actions and how the problem was solved. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings The recording of breaches of the CoC in the inspection / audit report is identified as CB task; specification of responsibility. B.3.08 Audit Report The scheme owner requires that CB audit reports include: - The date of the inspection/audit; - The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the audit and report; - The names and addresses of the sites inspected/audited; - The scope of the inspection/audit; - The non-conformities identified; - A conclusion on the conformity of the client with the chain of custody requirements. The scheme owner requires the CB to file reports at their office and to make these reports available to pertinent parties. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Report template iv) Audit reports v) Minutes of meetings B.3.09 Record Keeping The scheme owner requires that an enterprise keeps records that demonstrate conformity with these requirements for a period that: - Exceeds the shelf life of the certified product; and - Exceeds the periodicity between audits Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Minutes of meetings 59 B.3 Maintenance of Chain of Custody No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence B.3.10 Group CoC Audit The scheme owner has a documented audit procedure that defines the audit process for an enterprise, or group of related enterprises, with several sites that share an internal CoC management system. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports iv) Minutes of meetings One enterprise or a group of enterprises conducting activities at more than 4 discrete physical locations. The enterprise or a group of enterprises has in place a common internal COC management system with a documentation process. B.3.11 Group CoC Internal verification The scheme owner requires that for group certification at least all sites / enterprises are assessed as part of the internal audit during the period of validity of the certificate. Confirmation of i) Scheme Rules and Procedures ii) Contract / agreement with Certification Bodies iii) Audit reports indicating internal audit programs iv) Minutes of meetings 60 Section C – Requirements for Aquaculture Certification Standards C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Aquatic Animal Health Management – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.1.01 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment has operational fish health management practices, specifically favouring biosecurity and vaccines, including introductions and transfers where relevant, which is overseen by an aquatic animal health professional. The standard should ensure sufficient elements and/or audit of culture practices for an operational program relative to the scale, species, and production systems covered by the standards scope. These elements must incorporate measures focusing on the prevention rather than use of antimicrobials. The content of the measures must also be addressed through the oversight, but not necessarily full time employment, of an aquatic animal health professional. C.1.02 Record keeping The standard requires the aquaculture establishment maintain records on disease occurrences, mortalities, and veterinary drug and chemical usage. The audit must verify that suitable records are kept. Suitable records include type, concentration, and dosage, method of administration and withdrawal times of chemicals and veterinary drugs and the rationale for their use. C.1.03 Chemical Usage The standard requires that the prophylactic use of antimicrobials is prohibited. The standard may explicitly prohibit prophylactic usage for growth promotion or require that all antimicrobials are used in response to a diagnosed disease (i.e., by the aquatic animal health professional or other relevant competent authority). C.1.04 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires that mortalities and moribund aquatic animals are routinely collected, where collection is a suitable practice. This indicator should only be applied where collection is a plausible function of good management practice (e.g., finfish grow out). Examples where this is not suitable could include hatcheries (where aquatic animals may be too small to effectively collect) or where such collection is not feasible (e.g., marine shrimp). C.1.05 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish and implement procedures for the disposal of mortalities using appropriate methods that prevent the spread of disease. Given the nature of this indicator, the standard may appear as a general requirement; in which case the audit should verify that the employed practices prevent the spread of disease, this may include examples listed in the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code. C.1.06 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires suitable farming locations and/or production conditions for the all stages of the species raised which take into account water temperature and water quality, The standard includes provisions that require the farmer to maintain a suitable culture environment; these could include specific metrics that would be suitable for aquaculture or general requirements to monitor and respond to key indicators of poor culture environment (e.g., disease, poor animal condition). These provisions should specifically reference water temperature and sufficient water quality criteria. C.1.07 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain appropriate procedures to respond to disease outbreaks, which includes the ability to quarantine the aquatic animal where appropriate. Appropriate procedures may include regular health inspections, contacting the aquatic health professional or the relevant authorities. The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records, written contingency plans or interviews) to ensure procedures are in place to respond to disease. For production systems where quarantine is appropriate, the ability to quarantine must also be verified. 61 C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.1.08 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems to reduce the likelihood of disease and parasite transmission within and between the aquaculture establishment and natural aquatic fauna. Appropriate procedures or systems must address both on farm disease and parasite transfer (such as the ability to quarantine diseased stocks, separating equipment) as well as between the facility and natural fauna (such as disinfection of effluents for diseased stocks, fallowing). The approach taken must be relevant to the species, production system, and scale of production. The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records, visual checks, or through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are operational. C.1.09 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems for the early detection of aquatic animal health issues, which include routine monitoring of stocks and the environment. Appropriate procedures may include general health/behavioural inspections or testing for specific diseases. Monitoring must be regular enough and of a sufficient sample size to identify disease outbreaks expediently, as well as increased surveillance when potential issues are identified. The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records or through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are operational. C.1.10 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain appropriate procedures and/or systems to minimize the reoccurrence of aquatic animal health issues. Appropriate procedures could include increased surveillance when potential issues are identified, resistance testing before subsequent re-treatment of veterinary drugs, failure analysis and/or end of production cycle reviews of health management procedures. The audit must include a review of evidence (such as written records or through interviews) to ensure procedures and/or systems are operational. C.1.11 Chemical Usage The standard requires the prudent use of antimicrobial agents at least consistent with the guidelines outlined in section 6.3.7 of the Principles for Responsible and Prudent Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Aquatic Animals of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code. See the latest addition of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code for specifics. Standards may outline these expressly or reference the OIE code. The audit must include a review of evidence that the individual components of the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials are being followed appropriately. C.1.12 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires an appropriate system is in place to ensure workers employed in husbandry activities are adequately trained and aware of their responsibilities in aquatic health and welfare management practices Appropriate systems could include specific extension or training courses, training developed and given by the aquatic animal health professional. The audit must verify that the content of the training or qualification is suitable for the husbandry activities, that training had occurred (e.g., records kept), that it was reasonably current, and that the training was successful (e.g., employees interviewed to verify knowledge). 62 C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Aquatic Animal Health Management – Requirements for Improved Practice C.1.13 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires that where culture system allows the discharge of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to local wildlife, management measures are in place to avoid significant impact to wild populations. Add-on to C.1.08. Examples of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to include sea lice on farmed salmon; these could be called out in the standard or a suitable risk assessment or other justification could be given to determine whether or not this indicator is applicable. Appropriate management measures could include treatment trigger levels of parasite numbers on the farm-establishment or siting requirements that require that the aquaculture establishment is located at suitable distances from wild populations. The audit must verify that the management measures are employed. C.1.14 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment takes reasonable efforts to determine the cause of death in periods of greater-than-expected-losses. Add-on to C.1.09. Reasonable efforts could include increased disease surveillance such as laboratory testing of mortalities for the presence of disease. The audit must verify policies or other systems are in place to respond to these situations. Should these issues have occurred in the near-term, the audit should verify that these systems are employed (such as by results and receipts for testing). C.1.15 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment establish, implement, and maintain a written Aquatic Animal Health Management Plan (AAHMP) which is, at a minimum, consistent with C.1.01 to C.1.12 with oversight by an aquatic animal health professional. The audit must verify the farm has a written AAHMP, and that the content covers the necessary content. Evidence of oversight could include an interview with the health professional or a signature on the documents. Verification also must include a review of evidence that the plan is fully operation and frequently reviewed. C.1.16 Biosecurity and Disease Control In addition to C.1.15, the standard also requires the AAHMP include: - An emergency response protocol in the event of an invasive disease, which includes depopulation where appropriate. - A written list of all diseases that the aquatic animals are likely to face during production. - Annual/end of production review and failure analysis. - Where possible, the rotation of effective chemical treatments to reduce the risk of resistance. The audit must verify the additional information in the AAHMP. C.1.17 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires that the aquatic animals are vaccinated against relevant/important diseases for which vaccines are available and effective against. Add-on to C.1.01 Relevant/important pathogens can include those identified by the aquatic animal health professional and sources such as the OIE/ transboundary disease lists. The audit must include a review of justification by the aquatic animal health professional as to which vaccines could be used and records/receipts for vaccinations. 63 C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.1.18 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement, and maintain a written plan for improving recovery rate, including defined annual targets. Add-on to C.1.01. The audit must include a review of evidence that a written plan exists and that includes actions directed at increasing recovery rate (such as increasing vaccination, biosecurity, water quality etc.) and that suitable records are kept on recovery rate and the factors being considered in the plan, and that the plan is operational (e.g., by interview). C.1.19 Cumulative Impact Control The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to adequately cooperate with relevant neighbouring aquaculture establishments (if they exist) in the shared management of aquatic animal disease risk. Add-on to C.1.08. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that disease transfer is highly unlikely. Adequate cooperation can include notification of disease outbreaks as they occur, shared practices to improve biosecurity (such as all in all out strategies). The audit must include a review evidence that aquaculture establishment does or doesn’t have neighbouring entities (e.g., maps, satellite images). If neighbouring aquaculture establishments exist then the auditor is required to review evidence (such as written records, meeting notes, contractual agreements and/or interviews) that the aquaculture establishment actively cooperates with neighbours to manage disease in the region. C.1.20 Chemical Usage The standard prohibits the use of antibiotics listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as highly or critically important to human health. The audit must include a review of evidence that supports a claim of no listed antibiotic usage, this could include independent laboratory testing results, reviews of financial records, inspections of offices and chemical storage facilities. C.1.21 Chemical Usage The standard requires regular monitoring of the local environment to appropriately detect antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the effectiveness of the monitoring system, that monitoring takes place and that the results are appropriately recorded and responded to by the aquatic animal health professional. C.1.22 Chemical Usage The standard requires regular monitoring of the local environment to appropriately detect drug persistence. The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the effectiveness of the monitoring system, that monitoring takes place and that the results are appropriately recorded and responded to by the aquatic animal health professional. Aquatic Animal Health Management – Requirements for Leading Practice C.1.23 Biosecurity and Disease Control Where the production system allows the discharge of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to local wildlife, the standard requires monitoring and adapting farming practices based on trigger limits of relevant pathogen or parasite numbers on wild fish. Add-on to C.1.08. Compliance with C.1.13 is also required. Examples of pathogens or parasites that are a known concern to include sea lice on farmed salmon; these could be called out in the standard or a suitable risk assessment or other justification could be given to determine whether or not this indicator is applicable. The audit must include a review of evidence that shows monitoring of pathogen or parasite numbers on wild fish, that the monitoring system is likely to be effective at finding evidence of impact if its occurring, and that appropriate trigger limits (e.g., expert opinions, scientific literature) and adaptive management plans exist and are employed to reduce the pressure on wild populations (such as by treating fish, fallowing, etc.). 64 C.1 Aquatic Animal Health Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.1.24 Biosecurity and Disease Control The standard requires a suitable performance based metric limits on recovery rate or similar criteria that demonstrate that the aquatic health management practices are effective. A suitable performance based metric limit could include those set on a species- specific basis using industry average data or based on farm monitoring records. Other possible criteria may include metric limits on veterinary drug usage. The audit must include a review of evidence that the metric limits has been met based on a suitable monitoring and record keeping system C.1.25 Cumulative Impact Control The standard requires the organization to participate in a formal area management system (AMS) for aquatic animal diseases; specifically including suitable requirements to prevent disease outbreaks, share disease status information, and, where appropriate, coordinate response actions in the presence of a disease. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that disease transfer is highly unlikely. All aquaculture establishments must be in compliance with PA 1 Tier 1 Requirements. The audit must review evidence that the plan exists and is operational and that its content is likely to achieve the stated goals. . The content of the plan must be verified to include the requirements outlined in C.1.25. C.1.26 Chemical Usage The standard requires that no antimicrobials are used on certified products while still maintaining animal welfare. The audit must include a review of evidence that supports a claim of no antimicrobial usage, this could include independent laboratory testing results, reviews of financial records, inspections of offices and chemical storage facilities. C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.2.01 Legal compliance The standard requires the aquaculture establishment operates in compliance with relevant national and local laws with regard to the application of chemicals and veterinary drugs The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. C.2.02 Chemical management system The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of an appropriate system for the use of chemicals and veterinary drugs. An appropriate system could conform to the relevant sections of OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code or other suitable reference. The system must ensure that usage follows the instructions of the manufacturer or other competent authority. The audit must include an inspection of records of use. C.2.03 Chemical Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment undertakes a risk assessment regarding adverse impacts from the release, whether from regular usage, discharge or accidental spillage, of chemicals and veterinary drugs into the immediate surroundings. The audit must include a review of the risk assessment and verification that it was sufficiently detailed and using appropriate methods in order to address the types of risks described. This could also be covered by a suitable EIA. 65 C.2 Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.2.04 Chemical Use The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of an appropriate system for the record keeping and traceability of any application of chemicals and veterinary drugs. An appropriate system would capture information include must include the source, type, concentration, dosage, method of administration and withdrawal periods of chemicals and veterinary drugs and the rationale for their use. The audit must include review of evidence that demonstrates appropriate record keeping. C.2.05 Impacts of chemical discharge or spillage Based on the risk assessment (C.2.03) and other suitable resources, the standard requires appropriate measures for minimizing adverse impacts from the release, whether from regular usage, discharge or accidental spillage, of chemicals and veterinary drugs into the immediate surroundings. Appropriate measures could include contingency plans, specific containment plans, effluent treatment systems, and environmental monitoring with appropriate trigger levels for mitigation. These could be covered in a suitable EIA. The audit must include a review of evidence to verify that the measures are operational and fit for purpose. C.2.06 Antifoulant treatments The standard requires the responsible collection and disposal of polluting antifoulants during cleaning. Examples of polluting antifoulant include some copper-based paints. Responsible collection and disposal could include measures that prevent the release of antifoulants into the aquatic environment; including in-situ and off- site systems. The audit must include a review of evidence supporting responsible collection and disposal, such as equipment inspections, records of collection and disposal, site inspections, and environmental monitoring data. Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use – Requirements for Improved Practice C.2.07 Chemical Use The standard prohibits chemicals to be used that are listed as highly polluting by relevant organizations or other justification. Relevant organizations could include the World Health Organization and the Rotterdam Convention (www.pic.int). The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim of no use, such as inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc. C.2.08 Chemical Use The standard does not allow the use of polluting antifoulants The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim of no use, such as inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc. Chemical and Veterinary Drug Use – Requirements for Leading Practice C.2.09 Chemical Use The standard requires that chemical use is restricted to identified environmentally benign (e.g., rapidly denaturing chemicals), with a suitable justification for their listing as benign. Replaces all C.2 Tier 2 indicators. Suitable justification can include scientific literature or product description. The audit must include a review of evidence supporting the claim, such as inspection of the chemical storage, interviews etc. 66 C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Feed and Fertilizer Use – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.3.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that feed, feed additives, feed ingredients, and fertilizers used are compliant with relevant national and local laws The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. C.3.02 Record Keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on all feed use. Appropriate records must include feed source, feed Batch/Lot/ID number, date of purchase, feed conversion ratio (FCR), feed inclusion percentages of fishmeal and fish oil or a fish in: fish out ratio. The audit must include review of evidence that demonstrates appropriate record keeping and suitable documentation from feed manufacturers. C.3.03 Feed Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has suitable measures in place to prevent overfeeding. Suitable measures could include the use of feedtrays, cameras, pellet sensors, documented records of visual feed response. The audit must ensure the measures are operational and fit for purpose. C.3.04 Record keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on all fertilizer use. Appropriate records must include source of fertilizer, fertilizer Batch/Lot/ID number, date of Purchase. The audit must include review of evidence that demonstrates appropriate record keeping. C.3.05 Fertilizer Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has measures in place to prevent over-fertilizing Suitable measures could include visual assessments of water colour or aquatic vegetation. The audit must ensure the measures are operational and fit for purpose. C.3.06 Feed Source The standard requires the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a manufacturer with a stated objective for all feed ingredients (including terrestrial materials) can be traced back to the source, for wild harvest aquatic feed ingredients this must be back to the source fishery. The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self- declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website. C.3.07 Feed Source The standard requires the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a manufacture that prohibits marine feed ingredients from endangered species as listed on the IUCN Red List or equivalent. The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self- declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website. C.3.08 Feed Source The standard requires the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a manufacture that prohibits the use of marine feed ingredients from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (I.U.U.). The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self- declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website. C.3.09 Feed Source The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment sources feed from a manufacturer that has a written policy which includes assessment of source fishery status and identification of improvement needs and work plan to deliver improvements. The policy must include a commitment and timeline to source aquaculture and fishery products from responsible/best practice sources, such as those certified a standard benchmarked at minimum consistent with relevant FAO’s ecolabelling guidelines or by identified independent risk assessment (e.g., FishSource). The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self- declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website. C.3.10 Feed Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment has measures in place to ensure expired and unusable feeds are disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. Suitable measures could include composting or feed recycling. The audit must include a review of evidence such as disposal records or visual inspection. 67 C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.3.11 Feed Source The standard prohibits the use of wet-fish as a direct feed source in grow-out, This could also include a requirement for all feed to be manufactured dry feed. The audit must include a suitable review of evidence, such as feed use records, visual observation, financial records etc. C.3.12 Feed Source The standards prohibit aquatic feed protein from the same species and genus as the species being farmed. The audit must include a review of evidence which could include self- declaration by the feed manufacturer or company website. Feed and Fertilizer Use – Requirements for Improved Practice C.3.13 Record Keeping The standard requires that appropriate records are kept on feed/or fertilizer use at the individual production unit level. Replaces C.3.02. Appropriate records must include a unique identifier for each individual production unit and records, including feed/fertilizer used, Batch/Lot/ID number, amount used, and its efficiency (e.g. FCR). C.3.14 Fertilizer Use The standard requires that fertilizer is efficiently used at the individual production unit level. Replaces C.3.05. The audit could include a review of evidence of limits, the appropriateness of the measures used to determine efficient usage, and that regular performance reviews are undertaken. Examples of suitable metrics could include mass balance or water quality criteria. C.3.15 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source; - Can trace aquatic feed ingredients traceable to species, fishery and country of origin, and - That aquatic feed ingredients are from responsible/best practice sources, such as those certified a standard benchmarked at minimum consistent with relevant FAO’s ecolabelling guidelines or identified as low risk by independent risk assessment or in an effective Fishery Improvement Project (FIP). This could be by the auditor reviewing evidence at the feed mill or by virtue of a 3rd party certification of the feed manufacturer. Direct marine sources of fishmeal and fish oil are evaluated for environmental risk . C.3.16 Feed Use The standard requires the minimal usage of aquatic feed ingredients relative to the production system and the welfare of the aquatic animal. Replaces C.3.05; requires compliance with C.3.13. Suitable approaches could include setting a suitable maximum Fish in: Fish Out Ratio, which reflects the importance of limited wild-harvested aquatic resources, this could include be species specific performance based metric limits. Consideration for extreme events (such as disease or escapes) is permissible. The audit must include a review of evidence to show compliance at the aquaculture establishment level. Feed and Fertilizer Use – Requirements for Leading Practice C.3.17 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source only sources aquatic feed ingredients certified a standard benchmarked to be, at minimum, consistent with relevant FAO’s ecolabelling guidelines Add-on to C.3.06. Replaces C.3.15 This could be by the auditor reviewing evidence at the feed mill or by virtue of a 3rd party certification of the feed manufacturer. 68 C.3. Feed and Fertilizer Use No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.3.18 Feed Use The standard requires efficient net protein conversion. Suitable approaches could include by setting a suitable minimum acceptable limit. Records of protein conversion must be kept. The audit must include a review of evidence to show compliance at the aquaculture establishment level. C.3.19 Feed Source The standard requires independent verification that the feed source only sources terrestrial feed ingredients certified to an ecolabel or risk assessed not to present significant environmental impacts. Add-on to C.3.06. This could be by the auditor reviewing evidence at the feed mill or by virtue of a 3rd party certification of the feed manufacturer. Examples of ecolabels in terrestrial feed ingredients include the Roundtable for sustainable soy and the Roundtable for sustainable palm oil. Accepted ecolabels should demonstrably have met credibility thresholds for content and process requirements relevant to the industry they represent C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.4.01 Legal compliance The standard requires compliance with national and local laws on habitat and biodiversity, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where required. The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. C.4.02 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of an appropriate system for - Regular monitoring and recording of environmental quality on the aquaculture establishment and its immediate area of influence, using appropriate methodologies taking into account the scale of operation - Evaluation of the adverse impacts on the surrounding natural ecosystem, including fauna, flora, and habitat. - Appropriate mitigation measures / remedial action for the identified adverse impacts on the surrounding natural ecosystem. An appropriate system must consider the impact of siting and operation high conservation value habitats and biodiversity. The audit must ensure that all of the measures are operational and fit for purpose. C.4.03 Habitat Restoration The standard requires that in areas where damage of high conservation value habitats has occurred previously: - The aquaculture establishment cannot be certified where the initial damage was illegal. - Where restoration is possible and effective; restoration efforts will or have resulted in a meaningful amount of restored habitat; either through direct on-farm restoration or by an off-farm offsetting approach. It is allowable for an appropriate date to be used prior to which legal impacts can be “grandfathered in”. The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires restoration and to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images, certification etc.). Where restoration is required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, records, financial records) that the restoration meets the stated goals. 69 C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.4.04 Predator Control The standard prohibits the use of any lethal predator control techniques on high conservation value species. The audit must include an site inspection and verification of the predator controls used, and details of the high conservation value species in the area. Examples of supporting evidence of non-use include interview, appropriate signage, and mortality records. C.4.05 Benthic habitats For cage production systems, the standard requires appropriate management measures for preventing the adverse impacts of aquaculture establishment waste on benthic environments. Must be required for all cage systems include marine and freshwater. Appropriate measures must consider biological, chemical and physical impacts, impact footprint, and additional chemical residues resulting from culture practices. Where relevant, they should conform to ISO 16665. The use of systems with suitable allowable zones of effect are acceptable, The audit must ensure that all of the measures are operational and fit for purpose. Evidence of the prevention of adverse impacts could include comparisons with baseline conditions or standardized limits with a suitable justification for their use. Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity – Requirements for Improved Practice C.4.06 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard ensures no net loss of high conservation value habitats on an area basis as a result of aquaculture establishment construction and conversion and culture practices. Grandfathering is allowed, but must use a meaningful specific date in the context of the habitat loss. Offsetting is also allowed. The standard requires that where restoration is applied monitoring demonstrably shows progress towards successful restoration. Replaces C.4.03 Meaningful specific dates are those that address to periods of maximal loss of high conservation value habitats. The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires restoration and to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images etc.). Where restoration is required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, records, certification) that monitoring and progress meets the stated goals. C.4.07 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard requires appropriate performance based limits for negative impacts on high conservation value habits as a result of aquaculture establishment construction and conversion and culture practices. Add-on to C.4.02 The audit must verify the monitoring and measurement of impacts are fit for purpose and review supporting evidence of compliance, e.g., visual inspection of the health of the habitat or records of biodiversity assessments etc.). C.4.08 Predator Control The standard prohibits the use of any lethal predator control techniques on higher animals such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Replaces C.4.04 The audit must include a site inspection and verification of the predator used. Examples of supporting evidence of non-use include interview, appropriate signage, and mortality records. C.4.09 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard requires verification that a suitable EIA was performed prior to expansions on recent (including currently certified or by an appropriate fixed date) aquaculture establishments. Suitable EIA’s should fit for purpose. The audit must include a review of the scale and scope of the EIA, evidence that it occurred, that it met legal requirements, and evidence of the operational implementation of measures prescribed in the EIA. C.4.10 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard prohibits the further expansion or movement (e.g. net pens) on (including currently certified or by a fixed date) of aquaculture establishments in high conservation value habitats. The audit must include a review of evidence (visual inspection, maps, aerial photos, satellite images, certification, or EIA etc.). 70 C.4 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.4.11 Cumulative Impacts The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to adequately cooperate with relevant neighbouring aquaculture establishments (if they exist) in the shared management of habitat and biodiversity impacts. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. Adequate cooperation can include shared monitoring, measurement and restoration of habitat or biodiversity. The audit must include a review evidence that aquaculture establishment does or doesn’t have neighbouring entities (e.g., maps, satellite images). If neighbouring aquaculture establishments exist then the auditor is required to review evidence (such as written records, meeting notes, contractual agreements and/or interviews) that the aquaculture establishment actively cooperates with neighbours to manage habitat impacts in the region. C.4.12 Habitat and Biodiversity Management Where relevant, the standard requires suitable habitat coastal and riparian buffer zones, as well as salinization buffers agricultural land or rivers Add-on to C.4.02 The audit must verify if the aquaculture establishment requires buffer zones and to what degree (maps, aerial photos, satellite images, certification etc.). Where required, evidence (e.g., visual inspection, maps, water quality results) that the buffers are fit for purpose. C.4.13 Record Keeping The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to maintain accurate records of impactful interactions with local wildlife. The audit must include an inspection of supporting evidence, including written records. Other evidence could include interviews with employees and local community and management plans. Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity – Requirements for Leading Practice C.4.14 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard ensures no loss of high conservation value habitats as a result of aquaculture establishment construction, conversion, expansion, and culture practices at the site. No grandfathering or offsetting is allowed. Replaces C.4.03 and C.4.06 The audit must review and verify to the extent practical the no loss claim; example of evidence could include visual inspection, map, aerial photos, satellite images, suitable certification, interviews with the local community etc.). C.4.15 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard requires environmental management measures are consistent with ISO:14001 Replaces C.4.02 compliance with C.4.14, C.4.07,,C.4.10,C.4.11 The audit must verify ISO:14001 requirements are followed or suitable certification. C.4.16 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment is part of a formal area management system that requires the identification and protection of high conservation value habitats and biodiversity, and undertakes habitat restoration of impacted areas. Replaces C.4.12. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. The audit must include a review of evidence including the area management agreement, and other example evidence such as written records and monitoring results, meeting notes, financial records, visual inspection). C.4.17 Habitat and Biodiversity Management The standard excludes aquaculture establishments where accidental and deliberate mortality of high conservation value species has occurred during recent production cycles. Accidental mortality can include those as a result of entanglement etc. The audit must include an inspection of supporting evidence. Examples of include employee and local community interviews, appropriate signage, and interaction records. 71 C.5 Seed No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Seed – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.5.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that all seed is sourced and used in compliance with relevant national and local legal requirements for both the source and destination law. The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. This could include international laws (e.g., CITES) and laws governing introductions and transfers of live aquatic animals. Suitable evidence could include self-declaration by the seed supplier or supporting evidence such as fishing license/permit for wild seed. C.5.02 Record keeping The standard requires the establishment, implementation and maintenance of an appropriate system for recording the source, stocking and health status of seed. An appropriate records system must include source of the seed, date of purchase, results of disease/heath status tests (including ISO 23893-1:2007), vaccination record of the seed, stocking density, and stocked seed batch identification. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.5.03 Hatchery Seed The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment deliberately stock hatchery-raised seed unless justification exists otherwise. Suitable justifiable exclusions include the lack of commercially-available hatchery-raised seed, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.5.04 Wild Seed The standard requires that where the deliberate use of wild seed is justifiable, it is collected in a manner that: - Ensures controls are in place so that the collection of seed is not detrimental to the status of the wild target and non-target populations, nor the wider ecosystem. - Avoids the use of environmentally damaging collection practices Justifiable uses include where the lack of commercially-available hatchery- raised seed, inability/lack of technology to hatchery-raised the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level. i) Suitable controls can include aspects such as a fishery management plan that limits take to maintain the wild populations, appropriate safeguards against excessive bycatch, and prevention of damaging gear types. ii) Examples of environmentally damaging collection practice include dynamite or poison fishing, habitat impacts. The audit must include a review of evidence of responsible seed collection, such as copies of the fishery management plan, self-certification by the seed supplier, visual inspection etc. 72 C.5 Seed No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Seed – Requirements for Improved Practice C.5.05 Hatchery seed The standard requires that the source hatchery is independently-verified to meet relevant law and appropriate controls for animal health management, Water Quality, Escapes, Habitat, Chemical Use, Feed Replaces C.5.01, C.5.03, C.5.04. Appropriate controls must include: Compliance with international/ national laws and CITES and introductions and transfers of live aquatic animals requirements, including legal broodstock sourcing. All C1 – Tier 1 criteria All C2 – Tier 1 criteria C.3.15 C.4 (4.01 to 4.04) C.5.C5.2 C.6. 6.01 to.6.02, 6.04 All C.7- Tier 1 criteria All C8 – Tier 1 criteria The audit must include a review of evidence of the independence of the validation and supporting evidence of compliance with the required controls (e.g., an audit report, certificate, benchmarking result, supplier of wild broodstock could include fishing license/permit). C.5.06 Record Keeping The standard requires that the source hatchery has established, implemented and maintained appropriate system for recording the source, stocking and health status of broodstock. Compliance with C.5.05 required. An appropriate records system must include source of the seed, date of purchase, results of disease/heath status tests, vaccination record of the seed, stocking density, and stocked broodstock batch identification. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.5.07 Broodstock Source The standard requires that source hatchery uses hatchery-raised broodstock unless justification exists otherwise. Compliance with C.5.05 required. Suitable justifiable exclusions include the lack of commercially-available hatchery-raised broodstock, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level. Small numbers of wild broodstock are allowable to maintain genetic rigor, but they must be sourced in compliance with C.5.08. The audit must review evidence of the source of the broodstock (e.g., inspection of written/financial records, marking techniques). 73 C.5 Seed No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.5.08 Broodstock Source The standard requires that the source hatchery only use of wild broodstock if it is justifiable and it is collected in a manner that: - Ensures controls are in place so that the collection of broodstock is not detrimental to the status of the wild target and non-target populations, nor the wider ecosystem. - Prohibits the use of environmentally damaging collection practices Compliance with C.5.05 required. Suitable justifiable exclusions include the lack of commercially-available hatchery-raised broodstock, inability/lack of technology to close the lifecycle of the farmed species, or passive collection of molluscs. Justification can be offered at the standard or aquaculture establishment level. i) Suitable controls can include aspects such as a fishery management plan that limits take to maintain the wild populations, appropriate safeguards against excessive bycatch, and prevention of damaging gear types. ii) Examples of environmentally damaging collection practice include dynamite or poison fishing, habitat impacts. The audit must include a review of evidence of responsible broodstock collection, such as copies of the fishery management plan, self-certification by the seed supplier, visual inspection etc. C.5.09 Hatchery seed The standard requires that all hatchery seed must be suitably verified to be free from relevant/important pathogens before stocking for grow-out. Relevant/important pathogens can include those identified by the aquatic health professional and sources such as the OIE/ transboundary disease lists. The audit must include a review of evidence including the suitability of the disease-testing methods, the disease tested for, and the results. C.5.10 Broodstock Source The standard requires that, where feasible, the source hatchery uses a broodstock facility that has established, implanted and maintained a broodstock management plan to maintain reasonable genetic rigor. Compliance with C.5.05 required. The audit must include a review of evidence of the broodstock facility having an operational and fit for purpose plan. This could include self-certification, copies of the plan itself, suitable records etc. C.5.11 Wild Seed Where standards permit natural spat fall for bivalves this collection is managed to ensure that there is spat available to support both aquaculture uses and sufficient protection of wild populations, with appropriate justification. Add-on to C.5.04 The audit must include a review of evidence of, such as copies of the fishery management plan, self-certification by the seed supplier, scientific literature etc. Seed – Requirements for Leading Practice C.5.12 Hatchery Seed The standard requires that wild caught seed are prohibited. 100% of manually stocked seed must be from a hatchery. Compliance with all Tier 2 indicators required. The audit must include a review of evidence to support the claim (e.g., receipts from seed purchases). C.5.13 Broodstock source The standard requires that, where feasible, the source hatchery uses a broodstock facility that has established, implanted and maintained includes multi-factor broodstock selection program that maintains reasonable genetic rigor. Replaces C.5.10 and C.5.09, compliance with all other Tier 2 indicators is required. The audit must include a review of evidence of the broodstock facility having an operational and fit for purpose plan. This could include self-certification, copies of the plan itself, suitable records etc. 74 C.6 Species Selection and Escapes No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Species Selection and Escapes – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.6.01 Legal compliance The standard requires that all species are farmed in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. C.6.02 Escapes The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establishes, implements and maintains an appropriate system to minimize the unintentional release or escape of cultured species. , An appropriate system should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of events and the magnitude of impacts on surrounding environment using a suitable scientific method and taking into consideration, siting, culture practices, local environmental conditions, including extreme events, and other relevant uncertainties according to the precautionary approach and possible impacts on genetic diversity, aquatic communities and ecosystems. Specific standard requirements are acceptable. The audit must include a review of evidence of an operational and fit for purpose system. The system must have addressed the following: i) Measures for escape detection ii) Monitoring for and record keeping of escapes events iii) Suitable training of employees iv) Incident management, including response or recapture measures. v) Regular monitoring and maintenance of the culture system vi) Regular review and failure analysis Where exotic are farmed, systems must appropriately reflect the additional impact risks that maybe presented by exotic species, particularly regarding measures to reduce the risk of the impact of escaped aquatic animals. C.6.03 Genetically modified organisms In the case where the culture of GMO organisms is permitted, the standard requires a suitable evaluation of the risk of impacts on the surrounding environment. A suitable evaluation must have been performed using an appropriate scientific method that assesses the likelihood of events and the magnitude of impacts, and take into account relevant uncertainties according to the precautionary approach. The evaluation should consider the possible impacts on genetic diversity, aquatic communities and ecosystems. Where ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms 2005 is relevant, consistency with these requirements on genetically modified organisms (GMO). The audit must include a review of evidence of an operational and fit for purpose system. Species Selection and Escapes – Requirements for Improved Practice C.6.04 Escapes The standard requires the establishment, implementation and monitoring of a system designed to accurately count the aquatic animals stocked; and account for “leakage” or “unexplained” losses. Add-on to C.6.02 Examples of effective accounting systems include direct counts or representative samples that are suitably accurate to estimate unexplained or leakage losses. E.g., low ‘error” ratings in counting methods. The audit must include a review of evidence of an operational and fit for purpose system. 75 C.6 Species Selection and Escapes No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.6.05 Escapes The standard requires that non-established non-native species are controlled by effective escape impact prevention and mitigation measures. Add-on to C.6.02 Effective measures could include sourcing only sterile, polyploidy, or mono-sex seed or physical isolation. The audit must include a review of evidence of an operational and fit for purpose measures (e.g., hatchery records, visual inspection (farm and/or aquatic animal). C.6.06 Escapes The standard prohibits aquaculture establishments that, due to its negligence, have repeated escape events over a representative number of production cycles and/or a single significant escape event. Repeated escape events should be considered in terms of the numbers of aquatic animals stocked and the length of the production cycle. Escapes due to factors outside of the farms control can be exempt. The audit must include a review of evidence, such as monitoring records, interviews with employees and the local community. Species Selection and Escapes – Requirements for Leading Practice C.6.07 Escapes Within detection limitations, the standard requires a maximum cap on escapes that effectively prohibits certification from aquaculture establishments with any escape events. Replaces C.6.07 Escapes due to factors outside of the farms control can be exempt. Escape limits should be set to account for the detection limits of the counting system. The audit must include a review of evidence, such as monitoring records, interviews with employees and the local community. C.6.08 Escapes The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment participate in formal area management system that sets a maximum cap on escapes within the area. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. The standard must be consistent with all C.6 tier 1 and 2 indicators. The audit must include a review evidence including the area management agreement, and other example evidence such as written records and monitoring results, meeting notes, interviews with local regulators and the community). C.7 General Site Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.7.01 General site maintenance The standard requires that aquaculture establishment sites are well maintained in order to prevent pollution, whether from construction, operation or decommissioning, including the following requirements: i) An effective general waste management system that requires the collection and responsible disposal of waste. ii) A requirement for derelict or damaged gear to be collected and disposed of responsibly. Responsible disposal includes recycling of materials where and when possible. An appropriate system should account for more polluting waste. The audit must include a general inspection of the aquaculture establishment to ensure it is well maintained. The audit must also include a review evidence of an effective waste management system; such as waste management plans, waste disposal records, recycling plans, presence of bins for separating waste, etc. 76 C.7 General Site Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.7.02 Storage The standard requires that where feed is stored, it is appropriately stored to prevent biological, chemical, or physical contamination. Appropriate storage must ensure that feed is stored separately, off the floor (e.g., on pallets), and kept a sufficient distance away from walls. The storage area must be kept dry. Stored feed must be accurately labelled and medicated and non-medicated feed must be separated. The audit must include an inspection of the feed storage area and ensure that feed is appropriately labelled. C.7.03 Storage The standard requires that where fuel is stored, it is appropriately stored to prevent environmental damage and that a suitable fuel containment system is in place to address accidents. Appropriate storage must ensure that the storage system has a secondary containment system that is, at a minimum, of 110% of initial storage, with no drain. The storage must have appropriate signage. The fuel containment system must address leakage and containment system failure. The audit must include an inspection of the fuel storage area and review evidence of an operational and fit for purpose fuel containment system (e.g., a written action plan, records of inspection and maintenance of the system, staff training and access to emergency equipment). C.7.04 General site maintenance The standard requires measures that ensure hazardous waste is disposed of responsibly. Responsible disposal must be compliant with all relevant laws; and follow suitable prescribed practices such as the manufacturer’s guidelines, and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) specifications (or similar guidance). The audit must include aquaculture establishment inspection and a review of evidence that the measures are operational and fit for purpose (e.g., records, receipts for disposal, written action plans, available GHS documentation, presence of appropriate disposal, treatment and handling equipment). C.7.05 General site maintenance The standard requires appropriate measures for pest control The audit must ensure pest control is operational and fit for purpose (e.g., visual inspection of traps, their locations and number, monitoring records). C.7.06 General site maintenance The standard requires that domestic sewage shall be treated and/or properly disposed of to avoid local contamination. The audit must include aquaculture establishment inspection and a review of evidence of appropriate treatment and disposal. C.7.07 Storage The standard requires that chemicals are appropriately stored in a lockable, labelled facility and accessible to only by authorized personnel. Responsible storage must be compliant with all relevant laws; and follow suitable prescribed practices such as the manufacturer’s guidelines, and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) specifications (or similar guidance). The audit must include an inspection of the chemical storage and a review of evidence that the measures are operational and fit for purpose (e.g., records, receipts for chemicals, written action plans, presence of suitable equipment, available GHS documentation, interview with staff). Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage – Requirements for Improved Practice C.7.08 Energy Use The standard requires energy use to be monitored and recorded (e.g., total fuel or energy) The audit must include a review of evidence that energy use is being appropriately monitored and recorded. Appropriate calculations are used when estimates of energy use are applied. C.7.09 General site maintenance The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain a general waste reduction system. An appropriate system must include a baseline of waste generation and actions aimed at reductions, and suitable monitoring. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. 77 C.7 General Site Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Environmentally responsible Infrastructure construction, waste disposal & general storage – Requirements for Leading Practice C.7.10 General site maintenance The standard requires 100% recycling of recyclable waste. Additional component to C.7.01 The audit must review evidence that recyclable waste and recycling systems have been appropriately identified and that recycling is occurring (e.g., receipts, visual inspection). C.7.11 Energy Use The standard requires the aquaculture establishment to establish, implement and maintain an appropriate energy use reduction system. Compliance with C.7.08 must be met. An appropriate system must include a baseline of energy use per unit of production, and actions aimed at reductions, and suitable monitoring and revision of the system. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.8 Water Quality and Waste No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Water Quality and Waste – Requirements for Responsible Practice C.8.01 Water Use The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment has appropriate management measures for efficient abstracted water and, where appropriate, the measuring and recording of water use. Appropriate management measures may include general promotion of efficient water use, monitoring requirements for water use, or setting specific efficiency limits for water use. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.8.02 Salinization Subsidence The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establish, implement and maintain an appropriate system for monitoring and managing the use of groundwater. Aquaculture establishments that do not use groundwater should be exempt. Appropriate systems must, where relevant, minimize the increase of groundwater salinity and prevent subsidence. These systems could include a determination of a baseline and using it to limit on groundwater use through a management plan or a specific limit. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose. C.8.03 Salinization The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment establish, implement and maintain an appropriate system to minimize the impact of the discharge or seepage of saline water on freshwater resources and the surrounding environment, Aquaculture establishments that do not discharge saline water should be exempt. Appropriate measures can be based on risk assessments or standardized requirements. Controls could include relevant monitoring of freshwater impacts for salinity changes and measures such as pond-linings or other control technique. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose, including visual inspection of the site. 78 C.8 Water Quality and Waste No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.8.04 Water Quality The standard requires, where applicable, management measures of effluents to ensure that these do not exceed local environments ability to assimilate aquaculture wastes without jeopardizing local ecosystem health or integrity. Appropriate measures must include. 1. Monitoring and recording of effluent and receiving water quality, including key parameters that need to be addressed include, where applicable: i) Nutrients – Nitrate/Nitrogen (in seawater) ii) Nutrients – Phosphate/Phosphorous (in freshwater) iii) Dissolved oxygen iv) Salinity v) Suspended Solids vi) pH vii) Pond sludge 2. Defined, aquaculture appropriate, maximum reference points (e.g., general concentration limits or aquaculture establishment-specific limits) or mandatory systems (e.g., presence of a suitable filter) are defined to prevent pollution 3. Where reference points are exceeded, the scheme either refuses certification or that mitigation methods are employed and monitored to meet a timebound goal to come into compliance. The audit must review evidence that the system is operational and fit for purpose, including visual inspection of the site. Where effluent concentration limits are used for compliance, the audit must include verification of conformance. C.8.05 Legal Compliance The standard requires compliance with all relevant laws regarding water use, water quality, and waste discharge. The audit must include a review evidence to support compliance with all relevant laws. Water Quality and Waste – Requirements for Improved Practice C.8.06 Water Quality The standard requires suitable specific limits on nutrients loads released to the environment. Add-on to C.8.04. Suitable specific limits are those that are specific to the culture practices, and designed to ensure minimal pollution. The audit must review evidence that the limits are fit for purpose. C.8.07 Water Quality The standard requires the use of appropriate water treatment measures appropriate to the culture practice. Cage systems are exempt. Add-on to C.8.04. Appropriate water treatment measures should aim for the aquaculture establishment to greatly improve effluent water quality. E.g., settling ponds, particulate/solids filtration, biofiltration, treatment ponds. The audit must review evidence that the treatment systems are fit for purpose. C.8.08 Water Quality The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment collaborates with neighbouring establishments in order to maintain regional water quality. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. The audit must include a review evidence of collaboration as meeting notes, sharing of effluent and influent water quality data, interviews with local community). 79 C.8 Water Quality and Waste No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence C.8.09 Water Quality The standard requires effluent discharge water quality parameters are no worse than the incoming water. Add-on to C.8.04. C.8.10 Salinization The standard prohibits salinization resulting from the production system. Add-on to C.8.03 The audit must include a review of evidence, specifically using metric limits and suitable monitoring system. Water Quality and Waste – Requirements for Leading Practice C.8.11 Water Quality The standard requires regional water quality monitoring that feeds back into the future effluent management measures Add-on to C.8.04. The audit must verify that a suitable feedback system is in operation. C.8.12 Water Quality The standard requires that the aquaculture establishment is part of an area management system that sets a suitable maximum limit for cumulative impacts on regional water quality. Not applicable where the aquaculture establishment is physically or sufficiently isolated that cumulative impact is highly unlikely. All aquaculture establishments must meet C.8 – Tier 1 requirements. Suitable limits could include performance based water quality limits measured at relevant locations within the area, a mass balance limit based on modelling the regions assimilative ability with individual permitted loads for each aquaculture establishment. The audit must include a review of evidence, which could include the area management agreement, environmental monitoring data, maps and justification for monitoring locations, meeting notes, interviews with local regulators and the community). 80 Section D – Requirements for Fisheries Certification Standards D.1 Governance and Fishery Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Fishery Management Organization – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.1.01 Management organization The standard requires the existence of a fishery management organization or arrangement that manages the fishery that is seeking certification (the unit of certification). A fisheries management organization or arrangement is defined by FAO (see Terms and Definitions) and is used throughout the benchmarking framework. It is intended to represent the “designated authority” mentioned in paragraphs 29.2 (36.2) and 29.4 (36.5) of the FAO Guidelines. In this context it is essentially an entity holding the legal and generally recognised mandate for establishing fisheries management measures and taking management decisions such that those measures and decisions are legally enforceable. Where the stock is transboundary, it might also encompass a Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) – see below. It may also exist under relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches to the management of the stock under consideration, provided their performance can be objectively verified (i.e. the knowledge has been collected and analysed though a systematic, objective and well-designed process, and is not just hearsay). D.1.02 Adaptive Management The standard requires that the fishery management organization or arrangement receives and responds to in a timely manner the best scientific evidence available regarding the status of the stock under consideration and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts of the unit of certification on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. Best scientific evidence available is defined in the Terms and Definitions as a process by which scientific advice is commissioned and solicited by the management system. For the stock under consideration it can come from assessments of stock status outside of the standard “stock assessment”, accommodating techniques for data limited fisheries and including traditional knowledge, providing its validity can be objectively verified. The actions of the fishery management organization or arrangement in both receiving and responding to the best scientific evidence available must be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach as set out under D.3.22-D.3.26. This Indicator is linked to those in D.4 that cover the collection and handling of data and information. D.1.03 Management organization The standard requires that the fisheries management organization operates in compliance with local, national and international laws and regulations. This indicator refers to the requirement that the fisheries management organization or arrangement itself to be operating legally (locally, nationally and internationally); the legality of the fishery (i.e. compliance with applicable fishing regulations) is covered under D.7. For the purposes of clarity, this includes compliance with the requirements of any regional fisheries management organisation that exercises internationally recognized management jurisdiction over the stock under consideration. 81 D.1 Governance and Fishery Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.1.04 Small scale and data limited fisheries The standard accommodates governance and management systems for small scale and data limited fisheries where appropriate, provided their performance can be objectively verified, with due consideration to the availability of data and the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different types and scales of fisheries. The standard holder should define what it considers to be small scale, and what procedures apply to those fisheries. The great diversity of small-scale fisheries should be recognized, as well as the fact that there is no single, agreed definition of the subsector. Accordingly, GSSI does not prescribe a standard definition of small-scale fisheries. Rather it is important for the certifying body to ensure transparency and accountability by ascertaining which activities and operators are considered small-scale, taking into consideration relevant country views that have been guided by meaningful and substantive participatory, consultative, multi-level and objective-oriented processes. This should be undertaken at a regional, sub regional or national level according to the particular context in which a certifying body is working. Being data limited is not necessarily synonymous with being small scale, but the issues for fishery management may be similar. Accommodating governance and management systems for small scale and data limited fisheries does not mean standards are lowered; it relates to being able to take into consideration different kinds of information and utilize different fishery management approaches in a risk management context. In order to accommodate governance and management systems for small scale and data limited fisheries, the standard also needs to accommodate relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches used by the fisheries management organization or arrangement to manage the unit of certification, provided their performance can be objectively verified. Evidence to verify the performance of the relevant traditional, fisher or community approaches is to be established by the certification body implementing the standard and can be derived, for example, from the assessment of conformance with other GSSI benchmark indicators, in particular those covering the Stock and Ecosystem Status and Outcomes (D.6). The words "where appropriate" were added to allow for the situation where a standard is not relevant to any Small Scale Fisheries. Only those standards that might potentially be applied to Small Scale Fisheries need to develop a mechanism to accommodate them. 82 D.1 Governance and Fishery Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.1.05 Participatory Management The standard requires the governance and management system implemented by the fishery management organization or arrangement to be both participatory and transparent Principle 2.4 (2.5) of the FAO Guidelines requires ecolabelling schemes to be transparent, including balanced and fair participation by all interested parties. Requiring the standard also to require that the governance and management system being assessed is participatory and transparent (i.e. not just the scheme/ standard itself) is not specifically mentioned in the FAO Guidelines, but paragraph 6.13 of the FAO Code of Conduct states that: States should, to the extent permitted by national laws and regulations, ensure that decision making processes are transparent and achieve timely solutions to urgent matters. States, in accordance with appropriate procedures, should facilitate consultation and the effective participation of industry, fishworkers, environmental and other interested organizations in decision–making with respect to the development of laws and policies related to fisheries management, development, international lending and aid. To meet this indicator, the standard must require the fisheries management organization or arrangement to make information and advice used in its decision-making publicly available. While it is possible for an organization to be separately participatory or transparent, being one without the other is regarded as of much less value, hence both are needed to meet this indicator. A participatory approach to fisheries management requires there to be an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the management process. This does not mean that stakeholders are required to have specific decision rights in the fishery, but there should be a consultation process that regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including traditional, fisher or community knowledge and there is a transparent mechanism by which the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. See the Terms and Definitions for more details. D.1.06 Transboundary stocks Where the stock under consideration is a transboundary fish stock, straddling fish stock, highly migratory fish stock or high seas fish stock, the standard requires the existence of a management organisation or arrangement covering the stock under consideration throughout its range. In this context, the management organisation or arrangement is an institution or arrangement established (usually between two or more States) to be responsible for activities related to fisheries management, including consultation between parties to the agreement or arrangement, formulation of the fishery regulations and their implementation, allocation of resources, collection of information, stock assessment, as well as monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). (E.g. a Regional Fisheries Management Organization – RFMO). See also FAO Code of Conduct paragraph 7.1.3 et seq. D.1.07 Adaptive Management The standard requires that the fishery management organization or arrangement that manages the unit of certification convenes regularly to manage the integrated process of information collection, stock assessment, planning, formulation of the management objectives and targets, establishing management measures and enforcement of fishery rules and regulations. The constitution of the fishery management organization or arrangement (e.g. the rules of procedure) specifies a statutory requirement for regular meetings (note that "convenes" is not intended to require mandatory face to face meetings). Reports summarizing the results of the meetings of the fishery management organization or arrangement provide clear evidence that the meetings take place regularly. The frequency of meetings must be commensurate with the requirement in D.1.02 for the fishery management organization or arrangement to receive and respond to in a timely manner the best scientific evidence available regarding the status of the stock under consideration and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts of the unit of certification on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. Normally meetings would be expected to be held at least annually. Such an arrangement is common practice within well managed fisheries. 83 D.1 Governance and Fishery Management No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Legal Framework – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.1.08 Legal framework The standard requires that the fisheries management organization or arrangement manages the unit of certification under an effective legal framework at the local, national or regional (international) level as appropriate. Legal framework is defined in the Terms and Definitions. An effective legal framework is one that is shown to be fit for purpose, such that the fishery seeking certification proceeds in an orderly and well controlled manner. An effective legal framework should enable the fisheries management organization or arrangement to perform its functions without hindrance from systemic and repeated illegal activity. An effective legal framework can be one that incorporates traditional, fisher or community approaches (e.g. co-management under community approaches) provided their performance can be objectively verified. Evidence of the performance of the legal framework can be derived from the assessment of conformance with other GSSI benchmark indicators, in particular those covering compliance and enforcement (D.7) D.2 Management Objectives No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.2.01 Management objectives The standard requires the existence of management objectives that address the unit of certification and the stock under consideration and seek outcomes consistent with rational use of the resources under management. The term management objectives is defined in the Terms and Definitions. This indicator tests for the existence of clearly stated management objectives that meet the definition and are consistent with rational use. The effectiveness of those objectives in achieving desirable outcomes (and avoiding undesirable outcomes) is tested in other indicators, both in terms of their suitability as objectives, and their outcomes for the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. D.2.02 Best scientific evidence available The standard requires that the management objectives take into account the best scientific evidence available. The management objectives are those referred to in D.2.01. See Terms and Definitions for guidance on best scientific evidence available. 84 D.2 Management Objectives No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.2.03 Reference points The standard requires that the management objectives clearly define target and limit reference points, or proxies for the stock under consideration in accordance with the Precautionary Approach. See Terms and Definitions for definitions of target and limit reference points. Reference points must be set at levels consistent with providing the stock under consideration adequate protection from overfishing. To be effective, reference points must be incorporated within a framework of decision rules (See D.3.05). The words “or proxies” were included as a consideration for small scale and data limited fisheries, This should not be interpreted to mean that small scale or data limited fisheries do not require target and limit reference points, but that the methods used to develop them and monitor the stock status in relation to them may be less data intensive than for large scale fisheries. See also D.1.04 and D.5.05. D.2.04 Reference points The standard requires the existence of management objectives consistent with avoiding adverse impacts on the stock under consideration that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Recruitment overfishing is an example of an impact on the stock under consideration that is likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible D.2.05 Reference points The standard requires the determination of appropriate limit reference points for the stock under consideration that are consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average, or a lesser fishing mortality if that is optimal in the circumstances of the unit of certification (e.g. multi-species fisheries). This indicator requires that MSY is used as the limit reference point. In accordance with the Code of Conduct, ‘consistent with achieving MSY’ is interpreted as meaning 'designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing MSY’ – which means at or above MSY level, and thereby that MSY is an upper limit on fishing mortality. "On average” refers to a long term average. Caddy and Mahon (1995)[1] considered the use of MSY as a target reference point in the light of the performance of fishery management (i.e. with regard to preventing overfishing), and suggested that MSY and other reference points formerly used as targets, may be more appropriately applied as LRPs. D.2.06 Enhanced fisheries The standard requires, in the case of enhanced fisheries, the existence of management objectives consistent with avoiding significant negative impacts of enhancement activities on the natural reproductive stock component of the stock under consideration Any displacement of the naturally reproductive stock components of enhanced stocks must not reduce the natural reproductive stock components below abundance-based Target Reference Points or their proxies. Note that the Target Reference Points are for the natural reproductive stock component. For example, in the case of salmon fisheries, if the spawning stock is comprised of fish both from enhanced and natural origins, the escapement goal considers only the natural origin component. An example Target Reference Point would be an escapement target based on the natural reproductive stock component. 85 D.2 Management Objectives No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.2.07 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to avoid or mitigate the effects of fishing and any associated culture and enhancement activity on main non-target species that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought. Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches: Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20), Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5), Vulnerable species, High value species. Examples of irreversible or very slowly reversible effects on bycatch species include excessive depletion of very long-lived organisms. To mitigate effects that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible requires those effects to be made less severe such that they are no longer likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.2.08 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to avoid hindering the recovery of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species arising from the unit of certification. D.2.09 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management objectives seeking to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on essential habitats and on habitats that are highly vulnerable to damage by fishing gear. Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Examples of impacts on habitat that should be avoided include the destruction or severe modification of rare and/or vulnerable habitats. D.2.10 Food web The standard requires the existence of management objectives that consider the role of the stock under consideration in the food web. For example, if the stock under consideration is a key prey species in the ecosystem, the standard must require that management objectives are in place to avoid severe adverse impacts on dependent predators. See also following indicator. This indicator also requires the consideration of other indirect effects of fishing on the stock under consideration that propagate though food web interactions, including the removal of apex predators (e.g. in tuna fisheries). D.2.11 Dependent predators The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to avoid impacts of fishing on dependent predators that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Meeting this objective may require, for example, fishing mortality to be at a rate lower than that consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average (see D.2.05), if that is optimal to avoid severe adverse impacts of fishing on dependent predators or other indirect effects of fishing on the ecosystem. D.2.12 Ecosystem structure and function The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to conserve the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Examples of irreversible or very slowly reversible indirect effects on the ecosystem include genetic modification and changed ecological role. D.2.13 Biodiversity The standard requires the existence of management objectives that seek to conserve the biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems. The requirement to conserve biodiversity is not specifically required by the FAO guidelines, but it is included in the Code of Conduct, which states in paragraphs 7.2.01 and 7.2.02 that States and sub-regional or regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements should adopt appropriate measures, based on the best scientific evidence available to provide that inter alia biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved. 86 D.2 Management Objectives No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Improved Practice D.2.14 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize and address cumulative impacts on main non-target species. Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought. Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches: Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20), Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5), Vulnerable species, High value species. D.2.15 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize cumulative impacts on ETP species. ETP species are defined in the Terms and Definitions. All ETP species impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Leading Practice D.2.16 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize cumulative impacts on habitat. Any habitat impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.2.17 Ecosystem structure and function The standard requires the existence of management objectives that recognize cumulative impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem within which the unit of certification exists. Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Any aquatic ecosystem impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.3.01 Management measures The standard requires the existence of management measures for the unit of certification consistent with achieving management objectives for the stock under consideration. This is the partner indicator of D.2.01; the management objectives are those referred to in that Indicator. Achievement of the management objectives for the stock under consideration may not be entirely within the purview of the fishery management organization or arrangement that manages the fishery that is seeking certification. There may be other fisheries targeting the stock under consideration that fall under a separate administrative jurisdiction (potentially in another country). The management measures should therefore be consistent with achieving management objectives for the stock under consideration. 87 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.3.02 Non-fishing impacts The standard requires that management measures for the unit of certification that take into account the multipurpose nature of the use patterns in inland and marine waters. The multipurpose nature of the use patterns refers to the uncertainty of other (non-fishery) impacts on the stock under consideration. For example, if there are other users from other sectors, fishery management, although not being able to control those sectors, should take their impacts into account when devising the management plan. For example, if water is abstracted from rivers at certain times of the year, management should address that fact, although not being able to influence when and to what extent the water is abstracted. D.3.03 Best scientific evidence available The standard requires that management measures for the stock under consideration are in accordance with the best scientific evidence available. This is the partner indicator of D.2.02. Best scientific evidence available is defined in the Terms and Definitions as a process by which scientific advice is commissioned and solicited by the management system. It can come from assessments of stock status outside of the standard “stock assessment” (also defined in the Terms and Definitions), accommodating techniques for data limited fisheries and including traditional knowledge, providing its validity can be objectively verified (i.e. the knowledge has been collected and analysed though a systematic process, and is not simply hearsay). D.3.04 Cumulative Impacts The standard requires that management measures for the stock under consideration consider total fishing mortality on the stock under consideration from all sources Management measures for the stock under consideration must be based on an assessment of that stock which takes account of all removals over its entire area of distribution (as any reliable stock assessment should do); i.e. not just by the fishery that is seeking certification (i.e. the unit of certification), but by all fisheries that take fish from that stock, including bycatch, discards, unobserved mortality, incidental mortality, and unreported catches. D.3.05 Decision Rules The standard requires that management measures specify the actions to be taken in the event that the status of the stock under consideration drops below levels consistent with achieving management objectives, that allow for the restoration of the stock to such levels within a reasonable time frame. This requirement also pertains to species introductions or translocations that have occurred historically and which have become established as part of the natural ecosystem. This requires the specification of decision rules that mandate remedial management actions to be taken if limit reference / target points are approached or exceeded or the desired directions in key indicators of stock status are not achieved. For example, decreasing fishing mortality (or its proxy) if the stock size falls below its limit reference point. This is a central component of the Precautionary Approach (see D.3.22-D.3.26). D.3.06 Enhanced Fisheries In the case of enhanced fisheries, the standard requires the existence of management measures that avoid significant adverse impacts of enhancement activities associated with the unit of certification on the natural reproductive stock components of the stock under consideration and any other wild stocks from which the organisms for stocking originate. Standards that apply to enhanced components of the stock under consideration require that stocking of enhanced fisheries, whether sourced from aquaculture facilities or wild stocks, is undertaken in such a way as to maintain inter alia: i) The integrity of the environment; ii) The conservation of genetic diversity; iii) Disease control; and iv) Quality of stocking material v) The donor wild stocks In the case where organisms for stocking originate from wild stocks other than the stock under consideration, those stocks should be managed according to the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In particular, those stocks should be within biologically based limits , or if outside those limits, the removal of organisms for stocking purposes does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of those stocks 88 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.3.07 Recovery and rebuilding For stocks under consideration that become overfished or depleted due to non- fishing impacts the standard includes a requirement for the management system to specify and follow a well-defined rebuilding plan which is highly likely to restore overfished or depleted stocks to levels consistent with achieving management objectives within a reasonable time frame. Suggestions for a reasonable time frame are provided in the Terms and Definitions. Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Improved Practice D.3.08 Decision Rules The standard includes a requirement for clear evidence that remedial management actions to be taken if limit reference / target points are approached or exceeded or the desired directions in key indicators of stock status are not achieved are highly likely to prevent the stock under consideration from being subject to overfishing or becoming overfished. The clear evidence referred to in this indicator is likely to come from statistical analysis, including simulation models that quantify the likelihood of the management actions resulting in outcomes in accordance with management objectives. A track record of management interventions that resulted in the reversal of undesirable directions in key indicators of stock status would also be relevant. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.3.09 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to achieve management objectives seeking to avoid or mitigate the effects of fishing and any associated culture and enhancement activity on main non- target species that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. This is the partner indicator of D.2.07. The standard should require consideration of the most probable adverse impacts of the unit of certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on main non-target species, taking into account the best scientific evidence available. Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought. Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches: Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20), Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5), Vulnerable species, High value species. D.3.10 Non-target catches The standard requires that, where main non-target species are below the point where recruitment is impaired (or undergoing other impacts that are irreversible or very slowly reversible), there are management measures in place that ensure that the UoC is not hindering recovery. Recruitment overfishing is an example of an impact on non-target stocks that may be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Note that the term species is used in this indicator in the context of a stock that is being impacted by the unit of certification. Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought. Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches: Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20), Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5), Vulnerable species, High value species. 89 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.3.11 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures that minimize unwanted catch and discards, where appropriate, and maximize post-released survival where incidental catch is unavoidable. This indicator is not specifically required by the FAO Guidelines on ecolabelling. Paragraph 31.1 requires only that non-target catches and discards do not threaten those non-target stocks with a serious risk of extinction. However, under D.2.07-D.2.12 the standard requires the existence of management objectives intended to avoid or mitigate the direct effects of fishing and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem. Minimizing unwanted catch and discards is consistent with this objective. The words “where appropriate” were added to give a scheme the flexibility not to require a fishery to have bycatch avoidance if there is no risk of bycatch in the fishery. FAO’s International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards (2011) includes the objective of promotion of responsible fisheries by minimizing the capture and mortality of species and sizes which are not going to be used in a manner that is consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The code states (paragraph 6.6) that States and users of aquatic ecosystems should minimize waste, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on associated or dependent species. D.3.12 ETP Species The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to achieve the management objectives seeking to avoid hindering the recovery of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species arising from the unit of certification. The term protected species refers generally to any plant or animal that a government declares by law to warrant protection; most protected species are considered either threatened or endangered. By definition, therefore, ETP species are in a situation from which they need to recover; it is that recovery process that the fishery should not hinder. D.3.13 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to achieve the management objectives seeking to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on essential habitats and on habitats that are highly vulnerable to damage by fishing gear. Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions D.3.14 Food web The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to achieve the management objectives that consider the role of the stock under consideration in the food web. This is the partner indicator of D.2.10. It requires management measures that are designed to meet the management objectives that consider the role of the Stock under Consideration in the food web. For example allowable catches might be set at a lower level to allow additional escapement for dependent predators. D.3.15 Dependent predators The standard requires the existence of management measures that result in fishing mortality lower than that consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average, if that is optimal to avoid severe adverse impacts on dependent predators or other indirect effects of fishing on the ecosystem. This is the partner indicator of D.2.11. D.3.16 Ecosystem structure and function The standard requires the existence of management measures that minimise the adverse impacts of the unit of certification, including any enhancement activities, on ecosystem structure and function. 90 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.3.17 Biodiversity The standard requires the existence of management measures designed to achieve the management objectives that seek to conserve the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems. The requirement to conserve biological diversity is not specifically required by the FAO guidelines but it is included in the Code of Conduct, which states in paragraphs 7.2.01 and 7.2.02 that States and sub-regional or regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements should adopt appropriate measures, based on the best scientific evidence available to provide that inter alia biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems is conserved. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Improved Practice D.3.18 Non-target catches The standard requires the existence of management measures that address cumulative impacts on main non-target species. Main non-target species refers to stocks that are taken by the unit of certification other than the stock for which certification is being sought. Potential criteria for defining main/key non-target catches: Species constituting >X% total catch (e.g. X could be 20), Species constituting >Y% total landed catch (e.g. Y could be 5), Vulnerable species, High value species D.3.19 ETP species The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize cumulative impacts on ETP species. ETP species are defined in the Terms and Definitions. All ETP species impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Leading Practice D.3.20 Habitat The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize cumulative impacts on habitat. Any habitat impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.3.21 Ecosystem structure and function The standard requires the existence of management measures that recognize cumulative impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem within which the unit of certification exists. Ecosystem structure and function are defined in the Terms and Definitions. Any aquatic ecosystem impacted by the unit of certification should be considered for cumulative impacts, even if the impact of the unit of certification by itself is not likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Management under Uncertainty – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.3.22 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that the management system is applying the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. This is an overarching requirement. The standard must require all management measures referred to under D.3.01-D.3.21 to be developed and implemented in accordance with the Precautionary Approach and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as defined and elaborated by the FAO. The Precautionary Approach requires inter alia that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without delay, and that they should achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Code of Conduct, paragraph 7.5.1). The standard must apply this to all species (including by-catch species and non-target species), reduction of discards, habitat and enhancements procedures. A precautionary approach is a particular ´lens` used to identify risk that every prudent person possesses (Recuerda, 2008). 91 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.3.23 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that the management system uses a suitable method of risk management to take into account relevant uncertainties in the status of the stock under consideration and the impacts of the unit of certification on that stock and the ecosystem, including those associated with the use of introduced or translocated species. Risk management is defined in the Terms and Definitions. Much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing the possible ecosystem effects of fishing than in assessing the status of target stocks. The suitability of the method of risk management should be assessed by the technical team undertaking the assessment for certification. D.3.24 Precautionary Approach The standard requires that where the application of less quantitative and data demanding approaches results in greater uncertainty, the management system applies more precautionary approaches to managing fisheries, which may necessitate lower levels of utilization of the resource. The General Principles and Article 6.5 of the FAO International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) prescribe a precautionary approach to all fisheries, in all aquatic systems, regardless of their jurisdictional nature, recognizing that most problems affecting the fishing sector result from insufficiency of precaution in management regimes when faced with high levels of uncertainty. D.3.25 Non-fishing impacts The standard requires that the management system takes into account the multipurpose nature of the use patterns in inland and marine waters. The multipurpose nature of the use patterns refers to the uncertainty of other (non-fishery) impacts on the fishery. For example, if there are other users from other sectors, fishery management, although not being able to control those sectors, should take their impacts into account when devising the strategy for achieving management objectives. This is akin to taking into account all sources of mortality on the fish stock, from fishing and non-fishing sources. For example, if water is abstracted from rivers at certain times of the year and this has an adverse impact on the fish stock, management of the fishery should address that fact (perhaps by reducing fishing or having a closed season at this time), although not being able to influence when and to what extent the water is abstracted. In a coastal context, the fishery management should be integrated with coastal zone management to the extent necessary to account for non- fishing impacts. Management under Uncertainty – Requirements for Improved Practice D.3.26 Ecosystem Approach The standard requires that the management system is implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management (EAF) for the unit of certification that also takes into account the multipurpose nature of the use patterns in inland and marine waters. Fishery Management Documentation – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.3.27 Transparency The standard for the management system requires documented management approaches covering the unit of certification and the stock under consideration that are current and regularly updated. There is no uniform way that approaches need to be documented (for example they do not have to be all within one overarching Fishery Management Plan), but the standard must require the various elements of the management system to be present and identifiable and in use by the fishery management organization or arrangement (D.1.01) , including the constitution and rules and procedures of the Fisheries Management Organization or Arrangement (D.1.01-D.1.07); the legal framework (D.1.08); the management objectives (D.2); methodologies (D.5) and the compliance regime (D.7) although not necessarily all within one overarching Fishery Management Plan. The frequency of update should be consistent with the requirements of meeting the management objectives. 92 D.3 Management Approaches, Strategies and Plans No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Fishery Management Documentation – Requirements for Improved Practice D.3.28 Transparency The standard for the management system requires the existence of a current and regularly updated Fishery Management Plan (FMP), incorporating management objectives and management measures to achieve those objectives, for the stock under consideration and pertinent aspects of the ecosystem effects of fishing. Fishery Management Plan is defined in the Terms and Definitions. The frequency of update should be consistent with the requirements of meeting the management objectives. D.4 Data and Information No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Collection and Maintenance of Data – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.4.01 Target stock status The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information about the state and trends of the stock under consideration and the effects of the unit of certification, including any enhancement activities, on that stock are collected and maintained in accordance with applicable international standards and practices. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which are commensurate with the development and delivery of the best scientific evidence available. The requirements for data collection are focussed primarily on the unit of certification, however, data relating to the assessment of the stock under consideration also need to be sufficiently adequate, reliable and current to enable an assessment of the current status and trends of that stock (see Indicators D.5.01-D.5.04). Applicable international standards and practices include the output of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and the FAO Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382. D.4.02 Ecosystem effects The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information about the effects of the unit of certification, including any enhancement activities, on the ecosystem are collected and maintained in accordance with applicable international standards and practices. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which are commensurate with the development and delivery of the best scientific evidence available. The requirements for data collection are focussed on the effects of the unit of certification on the ecosystem, including direct and indirect effects. Applicable international standards and practices include the output of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and the FAO Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382. D.4.03 Non-target catches The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure effective monitoring of non-target catches and discards in the unit of certification. Effective monitoring means that data on non-target catches and discards are adequate, reliable and current. This includes ETP species. 93 D.4 Data and Information No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.4.04 Habitat The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure there is adequate knowledge of the essential habitats for the stock under consideration and those within the area of the unit of certification and potential fishery impacts on them. Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of habitats and fishery impacts on them to detect impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.4.05 Food web The standard requires the fishery management system to ensure data and information are collected on the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web. The data and information collected must be sufficient to provide adequate knowledge of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web. Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web to detect impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Collection and Maintenance of Data – Requirements for Improved Practice D.4.06 Ecosystem effects The standard requires the management system to be proactive in the collection of data and information to identify all potential adverse impacts of the unit of certification, including any enhancement activities, on the ecosystem. The distinction intended in this Tier 2 indicator is that the management system is required to actively seek out information on all potential impacts, including non-fishery impacts and those that that may not be immediately apparent. This would enable an assessment of cumulative impacts. For example, this might include strategic mapping of habitats to assess their distribution and rarity. Traditional, fisher or community knowledge – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.4.07 Traditional, fisher or community knowledge The standard requires that the management system facilitates, where appropriate, the collection of traditional, fisher or community knowledge regarding the unit of certification and its effects on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. The terms and Definitions specify that adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information (as required by D.4.01) may include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided that their validity can be objectively verified. Collection of this type of knowledge requires specific techniques that are often different to those used to collect more typical data on fish stocks and fisheries. It is the incorporation of those techniques into the management system that this Indicator is addressing. This requires a participatory approach (link to indicator D.1.05). D.4.08 Traditional, fisher or community knowledge The standard requires that the management system specifies the conditions under which traditional, fisher or community knowledge is collected, processed, organized and maintained. The standard should require the management system to specify how, when, why, and on what traditional, fisher or community knowledge is collected. Traditional, fisher or community knowledge – Requirements for Improved Practice D.4.09 Traditional, fisher or community knowledge The standard requires that the management system proactively seeks out traditional, fisher or community knowledge regarding the unit of certification and its effects on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. This Tier 2 indicator is distinct from D.4.07 in that the management system proactively solicits traditional, fisher or community knowledge, irrespective of whether the scientific knowledge base for managing the fishery is considered to be adequate without it. This requires a participatory approach (link to indicator D.1.05). 94 D.5 Assessment Methodologies No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.5.01 Stock assessment The standard requires management decisions to be based on an assessment of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration, using adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information. The purpose of the assessment is to provide the best scientific evidence available regarding the current status and trends of the stock under consideration. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information can include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided that their validity can be objectively verified. D.5.02 Cumulative impacts The standard requires that the assessment of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration considers total fishing mortality on that stock from all sources including discards, unobserved mortality, incidental mortality, unreported catches and catches in all fisheries over its entire area of distribution. D.5.03 Stock assessment The standard requires that the assessment of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration takes into account the structure and composition of that stock which contribute to its resilience. Resilience is defined in the Terms and Definitions D.5.04 Small scale and data limited fisheries In the absence of specific information on the stock under consideration, where there is low risk of overfishing, the standard allows the use of generic evidence based on similar stocks; where the risk to the stock under consideration is higher, the standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of increasingly specific evidence to ascertain the sustainability of fisheries. Low risk of overfishing can be ascertained (for example) from a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). D.5.05 Small scale and data limited fisheries In small scale and data limited fisheries, where there is a low risk of overfishing, the standard allows the use of less elaborate methods for assessment of the stock under consideration that are less quantitative and data-demanding; where the risk to the stock under consideration is higher, the standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of more elaborate methods of assessment. Low risk of overfishing can be ascertained (for example) from a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). D.5.06 Enhanced fisheries In the case of enhanced fisheries, the standard requires that the assessment of current status and trends includes an evaluation of whether there are significant negative impacts of enhancement activities on the naturally reproductive component of the stock under consideration. Stock assessment of fisheries that are enhanced through aquaculture inputs must consider the separate contributions from aquaculture and natural production. Significant negative impacts in this context would be, for example, impacts that are irreversible or very slowly reversible. Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Improved Practice D.5.07 Stock assessment The standard requires the stock under consideration to undergo a stock assessment that is regularly reviewed and scientific management advice based on this assessment is submitted to the fishery management organization or arrangement at least annually under the terms of a Fisheries Management Plan. This indicator requires a Fisheries Management Plan under which the fishery management organization or arrangement that manages the unit of certification receives management advice at least annually. This advice must be derived from a stock assessment, but this does not necessarily mean that the stock assessment is fully updated every year. The frequency of full updates of the stock assessment must be commensurate with the requirement in D.1.02 for the fishery management organization or arrangement to receive and respond to in a timely manner the best scientific evidence available regarding the status of the stock under consideration and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts of the unit of certification on the stock under consideration and the ecosystem. 95 D.5 Assessment Methodologies No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.5.08 Reference Points The standard includes a requirement for verifiable evidence that reference points have been set at a level that effectively protects the stock under consideration from overfishing. The reference points are those required under D.2.03-D.2.05. Verifiable evidence could come (for example) from simulation testing. D.5.09 Impact Assessment The standard requires an assessment of the risks of impacts to the stock under consideration from all sources. D.5.02 requires an assessment that considers total fishing mortality on the stock under consideration from all sources. This Tier 2 indicator includes non- fishing impacts. D.6.01 requires the outcome that at the point of first certification the stock under consideration is not overfished. It is possible to make an assessment of this outcome without necessarily having undertaken an assessment of the risks of impacts to the stock under consideration from all sources, as required by this Tier 2 indicator. Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Leading Practice D.5.10 Stock assessment The standard requires the stock under consideration to undergo a stock assessment that is regularly subject to independent peer review, and the results of this review are made public. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.5.11 Impact Assessment The standard requires the most probable adverse impacts of the unit of certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem to be identified and assessed using adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information. The assessment using adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information is intended to result in the best scientific evidence available regarding the ecosystem effects of fishing. This may include local, traditional or indigenous knowledge and research. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are described in the Terms and Definitions. D.5.12 Impact Assessment The standard allows significant scientific uncertainty in assessing possible adverse ecosystem effects of fishing to be addressed by taking a risk assessment approach that does not necessarily involve quantitative and data- demanding approaches commonly used e.g. for stock assessment in large scale fisheries commercial fisheries. Where there is low risk of severe adverse impacts on the ecosystem, the standard allows the use of generic evidence based on similar fishery situations; where the risk to the ecosystem is higher, the standard requires a more precautionary approach and the use of increasingly specific evidence to ascertain the adequacy of mitigation measures. Much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing the possible ecosystem effects of fishing than in assessing the status of target stocks. However, impacts on bycatch species are often more readily assessed than impacts on other ecosystem components. A risk assessment approach may require less quantitative data but must still ensure adequate control of negative impacts. D.5.13 Habitat The standard requires an assessment of the impacts of the unit of certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on essential habitats and vulnerable marine ecosystems and that this assessment considers the full spatial range of the relevant habitat, not just that part of the spatial range that is potentially affected by fishing. Essential habitats are defined in the Terms and Definitions D.5.14 Food web The standard requires that data and information on the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web are evaluated. The purpose of evaluating the data and information is to provide adequate knowledge of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web. Adequate knowledge means there is enough understanding of the role of the stock under consideration in the food-web to detect impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. 96 D.5 Assessment Methodologies No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Improved Practice D.5.15 Non-target catches The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on main non-target species impacted by the unit of certification. D.5.16 ETP species The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on ETP species impacted by the unit of certification. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Leading Practice D.5.17 Habitat The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on essential habitat impacted by the unit of certification. D.5.18 Food web The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on trophic interactions impacted by the unit of certification. D.5.19 Dependent predators The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on dependent predators impacted by the unit of certification. D.5.20 Ecosystem structure and function The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on ecosystem structure and function that is impacted by the unit of certification. D.5.21 Biodiversity The standard includes a requirement for an assessment of the cumulative impacts on biodiversity impacted by the unit of certification. Dissemination of Assessment Results – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.5.22 Transparency The Standard requires that the methodology and results of assessments of the current status and trends of the stock under consideration are made publicly available in a timely manner. This indicator goes beyond the requirements of the FAO guidelines in requiring assessments to be made publicly available in a timely manner, but this is now regarded as common practice for well managed fisheries. D.5.23 Transparency The Standard requires that the methodology and results of the analysis of the most probable adverse impacts of the unit of certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem are made publicly available in a timely manner. This indicator goes beyond the requirements of the FAO guidelines in requiring assessments to be made publicly available in a timely manner, but this is now regarded as common practice for well managed fisheries. 97 D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.6.01 Target stock status The standard requires that at the point of first certification and/or the point of re-certification the stock under consideration is not overfished. The stock under consideration is considered to be overfished if its stock size is below its limit reference point (or its proxy). A stock can become depleted for reasons other than fishing mortality; if this results in the stock under consideration becoming overfished but the fishery management organization or arrangement must be responding appropriately to the overfished status (D.3.05). D.6.02 Target stock status The standard contains outcome performance indicators consistent with achieving management objectives for the stock under consideration. The relevant management objectives are those referred to in Performance Area 2 and are for the whole of the stock under consideration. The FAO Guidelines do not include a blanket requirement for outcome performance indicators for all management objectives for the stock under consideration but the precedent is created by paragraph 30 (40) with contains the requirement that the stock under consideration is not overfished and is maintained at a level which promotes the objective of optimal utilization and maintains its availability for present and future generations. Common practice is now to have outcome performance indicators for all management objectives for the stock under consideration, which may include, for example, target levels that take into account the requirements of dependent predators. D.6.03 Enhanced Fisheries The standard requires that at the point of first certification the natural reproductive stock component of enhanced stocks is not overfished. See guidance for D.6.01. The natural reproductive stock component of enhanced stocks is described in the Terms and Definitions. D.6.04 Enhanced Fisheries The standard requires that the natural reproductive stock component of enhanced stocks is not substantially displaced by stocked components. In particular, displacement must not result in a reduction of the natural reproductive stock component below abundance-based target reference points (or their proxies). Stock under Consideration – Requirements for Improved Practice D.6.05 Reference Points The standard includes a requirement that the stock under consideration is fluctuating around its Target Reference Point. The expression "fluctuating around its Target Reference Point" refers to a situation where the stock size might dip below the Target level from time to time, but there is no suggestion in the data that (for example) the stock size is trending below its Target Reference Point towards the Limit Reference Point. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.6.06 ETP Species The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on ETP species. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. 98 D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence D.6.07 Habitat The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on habitat. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. D.6.08 Habitat The Standard requires that any modifications to the habitat for enhancing the stock under consideration are reversible and do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. D.6.09 Food web The standard includes outcome performance indicator(s) consistent with achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on trophic interactions. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. D.6.10 Ecosystem structure and function The standard contains outcome performance indicators consistent with achieving management objectives for the effects of fishing on ecosystem structure and function, including biodiversity. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Improved Practice D.6.11 Non-target species The standard includes a requirement that non-target stocks are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside those limits, the unit of certification does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of those stocks. The FAO Guidelines acknowledge that much greater scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks (paragraph 31 (41)), hence the outcome indicators might be expected to be less precise than those for the stock under consideration, but they should nevertheless be robust to risk and uncertainty. D.6.12 Ecosystem structure and function The standard requires that all potentially serious adverse impacts of the unit of certification and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem are demonstrably mitigated. The intended distinction at Tier 2 is that this outcome requires mitigation of all potentially serious adverse impacts. The objectives that would drive the outcome indicators required by D.6.06-D.6.10 (Tier 1) require avoidance or mitigation of ecosystem impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. D.6.13 Dependent predators The standard requires that populations of predators that are likely to be dependent on the stock under consideration as a key prey species (“dependent predators”) are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside those limits, the unit of certification does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. This specific outcome is not described in the FAO Guidelines but it is consistent with ecosystem based fishery management. 99 D.6 Stock and Ecosystem Outcomes No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Ecosystem Effects of Fishing – Requirements for Leading Practice D.6.14 Cumulative impacts The standard requires that cumulative impacts on the ecosystem within which the unit of certification exists (including non-target species and habitat) from all [fisheries / human activities] are not irreversible or very slowly reversible. Cumulative impacts are described in the Terms and Definitions. D.7 Compliance and Enforcement No. Element GSSI Requirement Guidance for Objective Evidence Compliance with Laws and Regulations – Requirements for Responsible Practice D.7.01 Compliance outcomes The standard requires that the unit of certification operates in compliance with local, national and international laws and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fishery management organisation that exercises internationally recognised management jurisdiction over the stock under consideration. There should be no evidence of systematic non-compliances by fishers in the unit of certification that undermine the objectives of the fishery management system. D.7.02 Monitoring Control and Surveillance The standard requires effective and suitable monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement of the unit of certification. Effective monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement is described in the Terms and Definitions. The suitability of monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement for the unit of certification should be assessed by the technical team undertaking the assessment for certification. 100 GSSI Terms and Definitions Term Definition Accreditation A process by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition of the competence of a certification body to provide certification services against an international standard. Accreditation body An agency having jurisdiction to formally recognise the competence of a certification body to provide certification services. Accreditation remediation procedure A process which is in place to specify how Certification Bodies are required to address non-compliances. Accreditation system System that has its own rules of procedure and management for carrying out accreditation. Adverse impacts See also Serious Adverse Impacts. Adverse impacts of fisheries and any associated culture and stock enhancement activity on the ecosystem include at least any one of the following effects of fisheries: i. Overfishing of the stock under consideration; ii. Overfishing of the stocks forming incidental catch, unobserved catch; unreported catch, unregulated catch or discards; iii. Reduction in abundance of dependent predators; iv. Harmful impacts on essential habitat; or v. Harmful impacts on any other part of the ecosystem. Agreement An arrangement between parties as to the proposed course of action. Alignment An arrangement in correct relative positions Animal welfare The avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain. FAO, 2010. Antimicrobial A naturally occurring, semi-synthetic or synthetic substance that at in vivo concentrations exhibits antimicrobial activity (kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms). Parasiticides, anthelmintics and substances classed as disinfectants or antiseptics are excluded from this definition. (Adapted from OIE) Appeal A request by a scheme owner for reconsideration of a decision made by the GSSI Steering Board, GSSI employee or person contracted to GSSI. Application A document confirming a scheme owner’s intention to seek recognition by the GSSI for a scope of recognition. Aquaculture The farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated, the planning, development and operation of aquaculture systems, sites, facilities and practices, and the production and transport. FAO, 2010. Aquaculture establishment/ system Concept identified by what is being cultured, giving also hints on how this is done, and possibly the aquaculture milieu in which it takes place, such as for example land- based trout culture, suspended rope culture of mussel, intensive eel culture, pond culture of Nile tilapia and intensive catfish raceway culture. FAO, 2010. Aquatic ingredients Components of feed from aquatic animals, such as fish and crustaceans, harvested from the marine environment. Aquatic animal products Non-viable aquatic animals and products from aquatic animals. FAO, 2010. 101 Term Definition Aquatic animal health professional A person who, for the purposes of the Aquatic Code, is authorised by the Competent Authority to carry out the actions identified in Article 6.3.7. of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code 2014 (or latest version) including identifying, preventing and treating aquatic animal diseases, as well as the promotion of sound animal husbandry methods, hygiene procedures, vaccination and other alternative strategies to minimise the need for antimicrobial use inaquatic animals. They are authorised to prescribe veterinary medicines should only prescribe, dispense or administer a specific course of treatment with an antimicrobial agent for aquatic animals under their care. (Adapted from the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code. 2014). Aquatic animals All life stages (including eggs and gametes) of fish, molluscs, crustaceans and amphibians originating from aquaculture establishments or removed from the wild, for farming purposes, for release into the environment, for human consumption or for ornamental purposes. FAO, 2010. Area management system (AMS) A contractual or legally enforceable agreement for shared activities by aquaculture establishments (and possibly other polluting industries) within a defined area or zone. The AMS boundary must be defined to meet the objectives of the AMS. Alternative terms include zonal management agreement, area management agreements, single bay management. Arrangement A cooperative mechanism established by two or more parties be they governmental, private or non-governmental entities. Audit A systematic and functionally independent examination to determine whether activities and related results comply with a conforming scheme. Auditor A person qualified to carry out audits for or on behalf of a certification body. Balanced decision- making A decision making process which ensures proportionate representation of interested parties in the standard development, revision and approval process. Balanced participation The participation by proportionate representation of interested parties in the standard development, revision and approval process. Benchmark committee A team of registered technical experts who have been appointed by GSSI to undertake the benchmarking process of a specific food safety scheme. Benchmark committee member A person who has the required qualifications and experience and has undergone selection for the membership of a Benchmark Committee. Benchmark process A mechanism by which a seafood certification scheme can be objectively assessed, against a series of defined requirements laid down in the GSSI Framework Document, to determine if formal recognition by the GSSI Steering Board can be gained. 102 Term Definition Best scientific evidence available The "best scientific evidence available" is required by UNCLOS as the basis for management decision-making, including for the application of the precautionary approach. The "best scientific evidence available" can include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified. Objective verification of validity implies that the knowledge has been collected and analysed though a systematic, objective and well-designed process (See also Effective Data Collection) , and is not simply hearsay. Publication of results in the peer-reviewed literature could be one form of objective verification. What is actually the best scientific evidence available in any given fishery or for any given stock under consideration will vary between fisheries and stocks and will also vary over time and information levels fluctuate. What is important, therefore, is that the management system is designed in such a way that the mechanism by which it commissions science and solicits scientific advice results in it receiving the best scientific evidence available. Achieving the best scientific evidence available requires inter alia: i. Questions to be clearly stated, ii. Scientific investigation to be well designed, and iii. Results to be analysed logically, documented clearly, and subjected to peer review. Even science that has been developed through an open, transparent, and well-communicated process may not be fully adequate for addressing management issues. Scientists must often rely on incomplete information in offering their best expert advice. To adequately implement the best available science, it is essential that policymakers clearly articulate the purpose of regulations and laws, clearly specify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing them, endeavour to identify and reduce conflicts of interest, and recognize differences in the knowledge base and values of scientists, managers, and other stakeholders. Better management practice(s) (bmp(s) Management practices aimed at improving the quantity, safety and quality of products taking into consideration animal health and welfare, food safety, environmental and socio-economical sustainability. BMP implementation is generally voluntary. The term “better” is preferred rather than “best” because aquaculture practices are continuously improving (today’s ‘best’ is tomorrow’s ‘norm’). FAO, 2010. Biodiversity Biodiversity is the degree of variation of life. This can refer to genetic variation, species variation, or ecosystem variation within an area, biome, or planet. Biologically based limits Generally considered to be the point of serious or irreversible harm. Biologically Acceptable Limit: A value of a critical biological indicator (e.g. spawning biomass) considered as the limit below which the stock sustainability cannot be ensured, or below which the probability of a negative outcome (e.g. stock collapse) is unacceptable. Also referred to as Biologically Safe Limit. Biomass Or standing stock. The total weight of a group (or stock) of living organisms (e.g. fish, plankton) or of some defined fraction of it (e.g. spawners), in an area, at a particular time. Biosecurity Measures which are being, or will be, applied to mitigate the risks to introduce and spread disease, taking into consideration the recommendations in the OIE Aquatic Code. Adapted from the OIE> BMSY (biomass at MSY) Biomass at MSY. Biomass corresponding to Maximum Sustainable Yield from a production model or from an age-based analysis using a stock recruitment model. Often used as a biological reference point in fisheries management, it is the calculated long-term average biomass value expected if fishing at FMSY. Bycatch Or by-catch. Part of a catch of a fishing unit taken incidentally in addition to the target species towards which fishing effort is directed. Some or all of it may be returned to the sea as discards, usually dead or dying. Central focal point A person, location or address that is put in place to ensure standards-related enquiries and comments are gathered. Certification A process by which accredited certification bodies, based on an audit, provide written assurance that food safety requirements and management systems and their implementation conform to requirements. Certification body A provider of certification services, accredited to do so by an Accreditation Body. Certification decision The granting, continuing , expanding the scope of, reducing the scope of, suspending, restoring , withdrawing or refusing of certification by a Certification Body. Certification scheme The processes, systems, procedures and activities related to standard setting, accreditation and implementation of certification. 103 Term Definition Chain of custody The set of measures that verify that a certified product originates from a certified aquaculture production chain, and is not mixed with non-certified products. Chain of custody verification measures should cover the tracking/traceability of the product all along the production, processing, distribution and marketing chain, the tracking of documentation, and the quantity concerned. Chemicals In food technology: any substance either natural or synthetic, which can affect live fish, its pathogens, water, equipment used for production or at land within the aquaculture establishment. Co-management A process of management in which government shares power with resource users, with each given specific rights and responsibilities relating to information and decision-making. Competence The demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results. Competent authority Means the Veterinary Authority or other Governmental Authority of a country having the responsibility and competence for ensuring or supervising the implementation of animal health and welfare measures, international veterinary certification and other standards and recommendations in the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code in the region. Adapted from the OIE. Complaint A legal document that is an expression of displeasure or dissatisfaction, but is not an appeal. Conflict of interest Where either a Certification Body or an individual is in a position of trust requiring them to exercise judgement on behalf of others and also have interests or obligations (whether financial or otherwise) of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of that judgment. Conforming scheme A seafood certification scheme that has successfully completed the GSSI Benchmark Process. Conformity assessment body An organisation that performs assessment services and that can be the object of accreditation. Conformity assessment program A defined and documented program by which the scheme owner monitors the performance of Accreditation Bodies, Certification Bodies and participating organisations against defined criteria. Consensus General agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important concerned party and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity. Contingency plan Means a documented work plan designed to ensure that all needed actions, requirements and resources are provided in order to eradicate or bring under control outbreaks of specified diseases of aquatic animals. Corrective action An action to eliminate the cause of a detected non conformity or other undesirable matters. Culture practices Concept comprising not only the production facilities but also a description of the culture practices applied. Cumulative impacts The combined, incremental effects of human activity. While they may be insignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts accumulate over time, from one or more sources, and can result in the degradation of important resources. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. Cumulative impact analysis focusses on the combination of these effects and any resulting environmental degradation. While impacts can be differentiated by direct, indirect, and cumulative, the concept of cumulative impacts takes into account all disturbances since cumulative impacts result in the compounding of the effects of all actions over time. Thus the cumulative impacts of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a resource, ecosystem, or human community of that action and all other activities affecting that resource no matter what entity (governmental, non-governmental, private) is taking the actions. 104 Term Definition Data (information): adequate, reliable, current See also effective data collection Data are facts that result from measurements or observations. Adequate, reliable and current data and/or other information are those which are fit for purpose and commensurate with the development and delivery of the best scientific evidence available. This may include traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided that their validity can be objectively verified. Assessment of the adequacy of data for different purposes would generally be part of an assessment against the certification standard. Applicable international standards and practices for fisheries data and statistics include the output of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP): http://www.fao.org/fishery/cwp/en and the FAO Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data (1998) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 382. The adequacy of data relates primarily to the quantity and type of data collected (including sampling coverage) and depends crucially on the nature of the systems being monitored and purposes to which the data are being put. Some assessment of the adequacy of sampling coverage should be undertaken to demonstrate adequacy. For example, in regards to observer coverage, adequate coverage depends on a range of factors including the distribution of fishing and the rarity and distribution of the species and habitats being encountered by the fishing gear. The reliability of data relates to the quality of the data collected, and also the level and representativeness of sampling coverage. Inadequate sampling can lead to high uncertainty and hence poor reliability, however, high sampling coverage does not necessarily mean the data collected are of high quality and hence reliable. Bias can result from a poorly designed survey plan (e.g. if the gear and seasons of a fishery are not well sampled). Reliability depends on the design and execution of an effective data collection program (see also Effective Data Collection). The currency of data relates to how recently the data were collected relative to the application of the conclusions that are being drawn from them. Catch data generally need to be of the highest currency in order for management to function effectively (e.g. to close fisheries when catch limits are reached) and for assessments to provide a reliable estimate of current stock size. A survey conducted several years in the past for assessing abundance of a short lived species with highly variable stock size may not be regarded as current. Data from surveys of longer lived species with less variability may have greater longevity for drawing conclusions about current abundance. Data limited fishery Data-limited fishery – A fishery where limited data are available to inform management, e.g. fisheries for species where baseline biological data such as size at maturity, fishing mortality and growth rates are unknown. Data limited fisheries are those fisheries where stock assessments are not feasible, yet they provide continuing yields for fisheries. Data deficient – An IUCN category for listing endangered species. A taxon is considered “Data Deficient” (DD) when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. Data limited fisheries assessment: Inputs – Approximate catches, some life history information Outputs – Incomplete, imprecise status and some MRPs; often as broad probability distributions, with no clear answer. Decision rule Specification of how pre-agreed management actions will respond to perceived or estimated states of nature. Dependent predators Dependent Species – In general, species within the food chain (e.g. a predator) which depends heavily on another (e.g. a prey species) for its maintenance. Dependency may also be generated by other factors than predation (e.g. commensalism; habitat). UNCLOS refers to “associated and dependent species”. Dependent Predator – In general, a species within the aquatic or terrestrial food chain which depends heavily on an aquatic prey species for its maintenance. Dependency may also be generated by other factors than predation (e.g. commensalism; habitat). Desk top review An assessment carried out on documentation away for the location of the organisation being assessed. Direct effects of fishing Direct effects of fishing arise from increasing the mortality of target and by-catch species and disturbing marine habitats. Actively (e.g. trawls and dredges) or passively (e.g. static gears such as nets and longlines) fished surface, midwater and bottom fishing gears can have direct effects on non-target animals such as birds, marine mammals and reptiles and fishes which are taken as by-catch. In addition, the actions of fishers and their gears can extensively modify seabed habitats and their associated benthic communities. 105 Term Definition Discards Discard – To release or return fish to the sea, dead or alive, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing vessel. Discards – Those components of a fish stock thrown back after capture. Normally, most of the discards can be assumed not to survive. Discarded Catch – That portion of the catch returned to the sea as a result of economic, legal, or personal considerations. Ecolabelling scheme Ecolabelling schemes entitle a product to bear a distinctive logo or statement which certifies that the product has been produced in compliance with conservation and sustainability standards. The logo or statement is intended to make provision for informed decisions of purchasers whose choice can be relied upon to promote and stimulate the sustainable use of resources. (Adapted from FAO Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries, revision 1, 2009) Ecosystem (structure and function) A spatio-temporal system of the biosphere, including its living components (plants, animals, micro-organisms) and the non-living components of their environment, with their relationships, as determined by past and present environmental forcing functions and interactions amongst biota. Structure: Pattern of the interrelations of organisms in time and in spatial arrangements. Structure: Attributes related to the instantaneous physical state of an ecosystem; examples include species population density, species richness or evenness, and standing crop biomass. Function – An intrinsic ecosystem characteristic related to the set of conditions and processes whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity (such as primary productivity, food chain, biogeochemical cycles). Ecosystem functions include such processes as decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and energy. Ecosystem approach to fisheries Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries – Ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems Ecosystem considerations Taking into account the ability for an ecosystem to be maintained in a healthy, productive and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and need - [Note this refers back to ecosystem approach to management definition.] Ecosystem effects of fishing The direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems. Effective data analysis Effective data analysis is a system that includes at least the following: i. The institutions and stakeholders responsible for data analyses are specified in a FMP. ii. The reasons for collecting each type of data are specified in a FMP. iii. The types of data analyses to be completed are specified in a FMP. iv. The timing and frequency of data analyses are specified in a FMP. v. The methodologies of data analyses are documented by the FMO. vi. Data are analysed in accordance with planned timing, frequency and methodologies. vii. The designs of a data analyses are reviewed annually by the FMO. See also best scientific evidence available. Effective data collection Effective data collection is a system that includes at least the following: i. Specification of the institutions and stakeholders responsible for collecting data; ii. Specification of the types of data to be collected; iii. Specification of the timing and frequency of data collections. iv. Documentation of the methodologies for collecting each type of data; v. Collection of data in accordance with planned timing, frequency and methodologies. vi. Regular review and assessment of the design of a data collection. Collection and organization of traditional, fisher or community knowledge may be an important component of effective data collection. 106 Term Definition Effective deterrent An effective deterrent IUU fishing includes penalties for a specified infringement of a magnitude that reflects the damage and potential damage of the infringement on the stock under consideration, stocks providing any incidental catch or discards due to the infringement and on the ecosystem. The OECD has identified a range of actions that help to deter IUU fishing. These include: i. International MCS Network ii. Global information system on high seas fishing vessels iii. Participation in UNFSA and FAO compliance agreement iv. Better high seas governance v. Adopt and promote guidelines on flag state performance vi. Greater use of port and import measure vii. Better use of technological solutions Effective monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement actions Monitoring – The continuous requirement for the measurement of fishing effort characteristics and resource yields. Control – The regulatory conditions under which the exploitation of the resource may be conducted. This is generally considered to include the juridical component. Surveillance – The degree and types of observations required to maintain compliance with the regulatory controls imposed on fishing activities. Effective monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement actions include at least the following: i. There exists an awareness raising programme that ensures that all those involved in fisheries on the stock under consideration have access to and are aware of all relevant fisheries laws, regulations and rules regulating such fisheries. ii. There exists a designated process and code of conduct for undertaking fisheries inspections and patrols on land and water. iii. Fisheries inspections and patrols are undertaken on land and water to detect, deter and control illegal fisheries activities in accordance with an agreed code of conduct. iv. The timing and frequency of fisheries inspections and patrols on land and water are reviewed and at least annually to respond to prevailing illegalities. v. There exists a judicial system that provides an effective deterrent against illegal fisheries activities. There exists evidence of reduced or typically negligible illegal activities due to the monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement actions. Endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species A species that is recognised by national legislation, affording it legal protection due to its population decline in the wild. The decline could be as a result of human or other causes. “Protected” refers generally to any plant or animal that a government declares by law to warrant protection; most protected species are considered either threatened or endangered. Endangered – Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa whose numbers have been drastically reduced to a critical level or whole habitats have been so drastically impaired that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Also included are those that possibly are already extinct, in so far as they definitely have not been seen in the wild in the past 50 years. i. Endangered species are of particular concern for CITES which regulates their trade. ii. A taxon is considered “Endangered” (EN) by IUCN when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the relevant IUCN criteria. Threatened: A category of organisms listed in CITES Annex 1. The vulnerability of a species to threats of extinction depends on its population demographics, biological characteristics, such as body size, trophic level, life cycle, breeding structure or social structure requirements for successful reproduction, and vulnerability due to aggregating habits, natural fluctuations in population size (dimensions of time and magnitude), residency/migratory patterns. This makes it impossible to give numerical values for population size or area of distribution that are applicable to all taxa. Enhanced fisheries See Fishery Enhancement Enhancement activities See Fishery Enhancement Entire area of distribution The complete geographical range over which a fish stock is distributed, including all life history stages; The entire area of distribution may have changed over time due to natural fluctuations in conditions, or modification of habitats due to human activity, including fishing. 107 Term Definition Environmental impact assessment (EIA) A set of activities designed to identify and predict the impacts of a proposed action on the biogeophysical environment and on man's health and wellbeing, and to interpret and communicate information about the impacts, including mitigation measures that are likely to eliminate the risks. In many countries, organizations planning new projects are required by law to conduct EIA. Usually it is carried out by three parties, the developer, the public authorities and the planning authorities. Environmental impacts A result of activity which has influence upon or changes the environment. Equivalence Equivalence is the capability of different inspection and certification systems to meet the same objectives Escapes A term used to describe specimens of cultured species, which escape from the rearing system into the ambient environment. There are potential impacts through interbreeding with wild conspecifics and through disease transfer. Essential habitat (essential fish habitat) Habitat for a fish is the environment in which it lives, including everything that surrounds and affects its life: e.g., water quality; bottom; vegetation; associated species (including food supplies). Essential fish habitat (EFH) is those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” In the context of impacts on habitat (whether from fishing or other activities or phenomena), essential habitat may have a time component – i.e. there may be areas that previously constituted essential habitat, but no longer do because they have been degraded to the extent that they no longer fulfil the ecological function for the fish that they once did. Waters – Aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; Substrate - sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary - the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity - stages representing a species’ full life cycle. Evaluation An examination of production facilities or services in order to verify that they conform to requirements. Exotic species Species that are not native to a particular area or a native species that has been genetically adapted, such as through polyploidy, hybridization, or intensively genetically selected but is not a GMO. Adapted from FAO 2010. Species not native to a particular area, which may pose a risk to endemic species. Expert A person appointed by GSSI who has demonstrable specific knowledge and expertise with respect to seafood certification schemes. FAO Guidelines Where in this document there is a reference to FAO Guidelines without further specification it refers to all of the below listed documents: i. FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, ii. FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries, and iii. FAO Technical Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification Feed Fodder intended for the aquatic animal in aquaculture establishments, in any form and of any composition. Adapted from FAO, 2010. Feed additives Chemicals other than nutrients for fish that are approved for addition to their feed. Feed ingredients A component, part or constituent of any combination or mixture making up a feed, including feed additives, whether or not it has a nutritional value in the animal’s diet. Ingredients may be of terrestrial or aquatic, plant or animal origin and may be organic or inorganic substances. Field audit An audit carried out at the location of a participating organisation. Fish in fish out ratio A calculation to determine the ratio of wild harvested marine ingredients used per unit mass of farmed aquatic animal, usually on a wet weight basis. Alternative terms include Forage Fish Dependency Ratio, or Forage Fish Equivalency Ratio. 108 Term Definition Fish stock The living resources in the community or population from which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the particular population is more or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining. In a particular fishery, the fish stock may be one or several species of fish but here is also intended to include commercial invertebrates and plants. Fisheries management The integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, decision making, allocation of resources and formulation and enforcement of fishery regulations by which the fisheries management authority controls the present and future behaviours of the interested parties in the fishery, in order to ensure the continued productivity of the living resources Fisheries management organisation or arrangement Institution responsible for fisheries management, including the formulation of the rules that govern fishing activities. The fishery management organization, and its subsidiary bodies, may also be responsible for all ancillary services, such as the collection of information, its analysis, stock assessment, monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), consultation with interested parties, application and/or determination of the rules of access to the fishery, and resource allocation. Also called: Fishery management arrangement. Fisheries management authority is the legal entity which has been assigned by a State or States with a mandate to perform certain specified fisheries management functions. Fishery enhancement Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment, or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilization or combinations of any of these practices. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, Inland fisheries. 1997. Page 4. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/W6930e/W6930e00.pdf Fishery management plan A fishery management plan is a formal or informal arrangement between a fishery management authority and interested parties which identifies the partners in the fishery and their respective roles, details the agreed objectives for the fishery and specifies the management rules and regulations which apply to it and provides other details about the fishery which are relevant to the task of the management authority. In the context of the GSSI benchmarking, certain aspects of a fishery management plan (e.g. regulations and enforcement) may be delegated to another governmental department and incorporated by reference in the fishery management plan. Fishing mortality A technical term which refers to the proportion of the fish available being removed by fishing in a small unit of time; e.g. a fishing mortality rate of 0.2 implies that approximately 20 percent of the average population will be removed in a year due to fishing. Fishing mortality can be translated into a yearly exploitation rate (see above) expressed as a percentage, using a mathematical formula. Fit for purpose (Of an institution, facility, etc.) Well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose. Generic evidence Generic evidence is generally information such as life history parameters taken from similar stocks/species when specific information on the target stock is not available. The risk that this information is inaccurate is higher, hence the focus on the level of risk to the stock. Genetically modified organism (GMO) An organism that has been transformed by the insertion of one or amore transgenes. Group certification Certification for a group of farmers, normally considered for small-scale aquaculture farmers, for whom individual certification is cost- prohibitive and who have key characteristics in common, e.g. common marketing of the produce as a group, homogeneity of members in terms of location, production system, products, the group has an Internal Control System to ensure compliance with the standards by all members of the group. The group of facilities or operations that are considered collectively may: i. Be in close proximity to each other, ii. Share resources or infrastructure (e.g. water sources or effluent discharge system), iii. Share a landscape unit (e.g. watershed), iv. Have the same production system, v. Involve the same farmed species; or vi. Other common characteristics as appropriate. FAO, 2010. Guidelines/ technical guidelines Documents that provide guidance on implementation of Codes of Conduct, Codes of Practice, certification principles, criteria and standards. FAO, 2010. 109 Term Definition Habitat A specific place with its environmental conditions occupied by and covering the requirements of an organism, a population or a community. High conservation value habitat/ biodiversity High conservation value is used in terms of habitat and/or biodiversity that are of biological, ecological values which are considered outstandingly significant or critically important, at the local, national, regional or global level. Adapted from the High Conservation Value Network. Relevant examples in aquaculture include, but are not limited to include mangrove and wetland forests, supported by the Ramsar Convention , International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed species and Protected Areas, High Conservation Value areas defined by the High Conservation Value Area Network, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Highly likely 70% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined by analogy from similar systems when supported by limited data from the fishery and no scientific controversy exists Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing refers to fishing conducted in violation of national laws or internationally agreed conservation and management measures in effect in oceans around the world. Illegal fishing refers to activities: i. Conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws and regulations; ii. Conducted by vessels flying the flag of States that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organization but operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted by that organization and by which the States are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable international law; or iii. In violation of national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken by cooperating States to a relevant regional fisheries management organization. Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities: i. Which have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations; or ii. Undertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries management organization which have not been reported or have been misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of that organization. Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities: i. In the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organization that are conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying The flag of a State not party to that organization, or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that organization; or ii. In areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law. Impartiality The actual and perceived presence of objectivity. Imprecision Lacking exactness and accuracy of expression or detail Incidental mortality See bycatch Independence A state of being free from outside control and not subject to another’s authority. Independent expert A competent trained person, appointed by GSSI, who is assigned to manage the benchmarking process for a specific scheme application. Indirect effects of fishing The direct effects of fishing have many indirect implications for other species and habitats. Fishers may remove some of the prey that piscivorous fishes, birds and mammals would otherwise consume, or may remove predators that would otherwise control prey populations. Reductions in the density of some species may affect competitive interactions and result in the proliferation of non-target species. The activities of fishers also provide food for scavenging species in the form of discarded fishes, benthic organisms and other unwanted by-catch, and organisms displaced and/or killed, but not retained, by towed gears. Indirect effects consider inter alia the functional role of fishes within the marine ecosystem and the indirect effects of changes in their abundance or diversity arising from fishing. Changes in the structure of fish and benthic communities may affect the growth of those organisms which are responsible for structuring habitats. The resuspension, transport and subsequent deposition of sediment may affect the settlement and feeding of the biota in other areas. 110 Term Definition Individual production unit An individual tank, cage, or pond holding a single batch of aquatic animals. Internal audit A systematic and documented process carried out by competent staff (company or contracted) to obtain evidence and evaluate the evidence to determine compliance with defined food safety policy, system or procedures. Internal review An evaluation, undertaken on a regular basis by representatives of a company's management, to assess the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the company's management system and to identify improvement opportunities. The evaluation shall also be used to identify and assess any changes needed to policy, objectives, resource needs and improvement to product or services. Introduction Of a fish species: intentional or accidental transport and release by humans into an environment beyond its present range. Irreversible or very slowly reversible Examples of slowly reversible or irreversible effects of fishing are recruitment overfishing (reduced age structure with consequences to the quality of spawning), genetic modification, changed ecological role such as in food-web dynamics, and excessive depletion of very long-lived organisms. Serious or Irreversible Harm: Impacts that compromise ecosystems integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that: i. Impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves; ii. Degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats; or iii. Causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types. Key performance indicators A series of criteria which are quantifiable measurements, agreed to beforehand, that reflect the critical success factors of an organization. Key prey species Species which is depended upon, through predator-prey relationships, by another species within the ecosystem. See Dependent Predator definition Legal entity Any entity recognized by the law, including both juristic and natural persons. Legal framework A broad system of rules that governs and regulates decision making, agreements, laws etc. It includes a set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. Likely 60% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined according to expert judgment and/or plausible argument Local applicability The process of adaptation by a scheme owner of standards or rules for direct application at the national or regional level. Low risk of overfishing A low risk of overfishing includes at least the following: i. No evidence of overfishing in the past five years. ii. No reported concerns by the fisheries management iii. Organisation of excessive fishing effort in the previous two years. iv. No reported concerns by the fisheries management organisation of excessive illegal fisheries activities in the previous two years. v. In cases where the fisheries have been certified previously, there has been no formal objection to the certification on the grounds of overfishing or fisheries illegalities. Low risk of serious adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries A low risk of serious adverse ecosystem impacts by fisheries on the stock under consideration includes at least the following: i. No evidence of harmful effects on the ecosystem in the past five years. ii. No reported concerns by the fisheries management organisation of harmful effects on the ecosystem in the previous two years. iii. In cases where the fisheries have been certified previously, iv. There has been no formal objection to the certification on the grounds of harmful effects on the ecosystem by them. 111 Term Definition Management measures A management measure is the smallest unit of the fishery manager’s tool kit and consists of any type of control implemented to contribute to achieving the management objectives. Management measures are classified as technical measures, input (effort) and output (catch) controls, and any access rights designed around input and output controls. Technical measures can be sub-divided into regulations on gear-type or gear design (e.g. on mesh size to improve the selective properties of a fishing gear) and closed areas and closed seasons. A minimum legal mesh size, a seasonal closure of the fishery, a total allowable catch (TAC), a limit on the total number of vessels in a fishery, and a licensing scheme to achieve the limit are all examples of management measures. The sum of all the management measures constitutes the management strategy designed to achieve the biological, ecological, economic and social objectives of the fishery. It is possible that in a single species fishery a management strategy could consist of a single management measure, such as a specified total allowable catch (TAC), but in practice the great majority of management strategies consist of a number of management measures, encompassing technical, input and output controls and a system of user rights. An effective management strategy, however, should not contain so many management measures that compliance and enforcement become so difficult as to be practically impossible. Management objectives A formally established, more or less quantitative target that is actively sought and provides a direction for management action. The FAO Code of Conduct provides that: “Fisheries management should promote the maintenance of the quality, diversity and availability of fishery resources in sufficient quantities for present and future generations in the context of food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Management measures should not only ensure the conservation of the target species but also of species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target species (FAO 1995, Article 6.2). It also provides that management “maintains or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors.” FAO (1995, Article 7.2). Fisheries policy is translated into goals and the goals into objectives that indicate precisely what is expected to be achieved from the fishery. The objectives are achieved through the implementation of a management strategy which will also be a central element of a management plan. The over-riding goal of fisheries management is the long-term sustainable use of the fisheries resources (Code of Conduct, Paragraph 7.2.1). Subordinate goals can be divided into four subsets: biological; ecological; economic and social, where social includes political and cultural goals. The biological and ecological goals may be more correctly thought of as constraints in achieving desired economic and social benefits. Examples of goals under each of these categories include: i. To maintain the target species at or above the levels necessary to ensure their continued productivity (biological); ii. To minimise the impacts of fishing on the physical environment and on non-target (bycatch), associated and dependent species (ecological); iii. To maximise the net incomes of the participating fishers (economic); and iv. To maximise employment opportunities for those dependent on the fishery for their livelihoods (social). It is necessary to refine these goals further and to develop operational objectives for each fishery. Operational objectives are very precise and are formulated in such a way that they should be simultaneously achievable in that fishery. In other words, the trade-offs between the biological, ecological, economic and social goals must have been agreed upon and the conflicts and contradictions resolved. The following two examples illustrate the difference between goals and operational objectives: i. To maintain the stock at all times above 50% of its mean unexploited level (biological); ii. To maintain all non-targets, associated and dependent species above 50% of their mean biomass levels in the absence of fishing activities (ecological). Management system The framework of processes and procedures used to ensure that an organization can fulfil all tasks required to achieve its objectives. In a fisheries context this includes agencies involved in the management of the fishery, the legislative framework within which the fishery is undertaken, and the core management measures implemented. - Management targets See ‘Reference Point, Biological’ Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting significantly the reproduction process. Also referred to sometimes as potential yield. The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. For species with fluctuating recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in others. Also called: maximum equilibrium catch (MEC); maximum sustained yield; sustainable catch. - Ricker W.E. (1975): Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 191: 2-6 Monitoring A planned sequence of observations or measurements to assess compliance with requirements. Multi-site certification Certification covering multi-site organisations including several sites (when applying the square root rule) and where sampling of these sites may be used by a certification body in its conformity assessment work. The scope of certification covers the actual products and processes as defined in the normative documents describing the scheme in question. Every site covered by this certification is mentioned on the main certificate documentation and every site is entitled to get its own sub-certificate. 112 Term Definition Multi-site organisation An organisation having an identified central function ( a central office, but not necessarily the headquarters of the organisation) at which certain activities are planned, controlled and managed and a network of local offices or branches or sites at which such activities are fully or partially carried out. Natural reproductive stock component of enhanced stocks The survival of fish stocks that are not enhanced depends entirely on their natural reproductive component. Stocks that are enhanced may have a natural reproductive component that contributes to the production of new generations. Non-conformity A deviation of product or process from specified requirements, or the absence of, or failure to implement and maintain, one or more required management system elements, or a situation which would, on the basis of available objective evidence, raise significant doubt as to the conformity of what the supplier is supplying. Non-target catch and stock Species for which the gear is not specifically set, although they may have immediate commercial value and be a desirable component of the catch. OECD (1996), Synthesis report for the study on the economic aspects of the management of marine living resources. AGR/FI(96)12 Normative documents Referenced documents which are indispensable for the correct application of a scheme. Office audit An audit carried out at the office or designated centres of a Certification Body or participating organisation. Operational In or ready for use. Organisation A group of people or other legal entity (ies) that is responsible for ensuring that products meet and, if applicable, continue to meet the requirements on which the certification is based. Overfished A stock is considered “overfished” when exploited beyond an explicit limit beyond which its abundance is considered "too low" to ensure safe reproduction. In many fisheries fora the term is used when biomass has been estimated to be below a limit biological reference point that is used as the signpost defining an "overfished condition". This sign post is often taken as being FMSY but the usage of the term may not always be consistent. A stock is considered “overfished” when exploited beyond an explicit limit beyond which its abundance is considered "too low" to ensure safe reproduction. In many fisheries fora the term is used when biomass has been estimated to be below a limit biological reference point that is used as the signpost defining an "overfished condition". - Mace, P.M. 1998. The status of ICCAT species relative to optimum yield and overfishing criteria recently proposed in the United States, also with consideration of the precautionary approach. ICCAT SCRS/97/074. 113 Term Definition Overfishing (including recruitment overfishing) Overfishing – A generic term used to refer to the state of a stock subject to a level of fishing effort or fishing mortality such that a reduction of effort would, in the medium term, lead to an increase in the total catch. Often referred to as overexploitation and equated to biological overfishing, it results from a combination of growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing and occurs often together with ecosystem overfishing and economic overfishing. Biological Overfishing - Catching such a high proportion of one or all age classes in a fishery as to reduce yields and drive stock biomass, and spawning potential below safe levels. Can involve both growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing. With reference to a surplus production model, biological overfishing occurs when fishing levels are higher than those required for extracting the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of a resource. Recruitment Overfishing – A situation in which the rate of fishing is (or has been) such that annual recruitment to the exploitable stock has become significantly reduced. The situation is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year after year. If prolonged, recruitment overfishing can lead to stock collapse, particularly under unfavourable environmental conditions. Recruitment Overfishing – A situation in which the rate of fishing is (or has been) such that annual recruitment to the exploitable stock has become significantly reduced. The situation is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year after year. Restrepo, V. 1999. Annotated Glossary of Terms in Executive Summary Reports of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas’ Standing Committee on Research and Statistics SCRS). ICCAT, Madrid, Spain Growth Overfishing – Occurs when too many small fish are being harvested too early, through excessive fishing effort and poor selectivity (e.g. too small mesh sizes) and the fish are not given enough time to grow to the size at which the maximum yield-per-recruit from the stock would be obtained. A reduction of fishing mortality on juveniles, or their outright protection, would lead to an increase in yield from the fishery. Economic Overfishing – Occurs when a fishery is generating no economic rent, primarily because an excessive level of fishing effort is applied in the fishery and does not always imply biological overfishing. Ecosystem Overfishing – Occurs when the historical species balance (composition and dominance) is significantly modified by fishing (e.g. with reductions of large, long-lived, demersal predators and increases of small, short-lived species at lower trophic levels). Ecosystem Overfishing – A generic term used to refer to the state of a stock subject to a level of fishing effort or fishing mortality such that a reduction of effort would, in the medium term, lead to an increase in the total catch. Often referred to as overexploitation and equated to biological overfishing, it results from a combination of growth overfishing and recruitment overfishing and occurs often together with ecosystem overfishing and economic overfishing. - Garcia, S.M. (Comp.). 2009. Glossary. In Cochrane, K. and S.M. Garcia. (Eds). A fishery managers’ handbook. FAO and Wiley-Blackwell:473-505 Participatory approaches to management A participatory approach to fisheries management requires there to be an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the management process. This does not mean that stakeholders are required to have specific decision rights in the fishery, but there should be a consultation process that regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including traditional, fisher or community knowledge and there is a transparent mechanism by which the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. Consultation processes must be inclusive and provide opportunities for interested and effected parties to be involved. A participatory approach further requires that all major stakeholders have been identified and that the functions, roles and responsibilities of the key organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. Pollution The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances, or energy into the aquatic environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and aquatic life, hazards to human health, hindrance to aquatic activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the aquatic environment and unacceptable impairment of local water quality. Adapted from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). Polyculture The rearing of two or more non-competitive species in the same culture unit. Precautionary approach A set of agreed measures and actions, including future courses of action that ensures prudent foresight and reduces or avoids risk to the resource, the environment, and the people, to the extent possible, taking into account existing uncertainties and the potential consequences of being wrong. 114 Term Definition Precautionary approach to fisheries management The precautionary approach involves the application of prudent foresight, taking account of the uncertainties in fisheries systems and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge. It requires, inter alia: (i) consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are not potentially reversible; (ii) prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid them or correct them promptly; (iii) that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without delay, and that they should achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades; (iv) that where the likely impact of resource use is uncertain, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; (v) that harvesting and processing capacity should be commensurate with estimated sustainable levels of resource, and that increases in capacity should be further contained when resource productivity is highly uncertain; (vi) all fishing activities must have prior management authorization and be subject to periodic review; (viii) an established legal and institutional framework for fishery management, within which management plans that implement the above points are instituted for each fishery, and (ix) appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the requirements above (FAO, 1996, para 6). Process A set of interrelated or interacting activities which result in an outcome. Production system Concept identified by what is being cultured, giving also hints on how this is done, and possibly the aquaculture milieu in which it takes place, such as for example land- based trout culture, suspended rope culture of mussel, intensive eel culture, pond culture of Nile tilapia and intensive catfish raceway culture. Proxy A surrogate or substitute approach that results in equivalent outcomes to the primary approach. See also Reference Point (proxy). Quarantine The facility and/or process by which live organisms and of their accompanying organisms can be held or reared in isolation from the surrounding environment. Maintenance of a group of aquatic animals in isolation with no direct or indirect contact with other aquatic animals, in order to undergo observation for a specified length of time and, if appropriate, testing and treatment, including proper treatment of the effluent waters. Reasonable time frames (for restoration of overfished stocks) The time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding an overfished stock should be as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the overfished stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations exercising jurisdiction over the overfished stock, and the interaction of the overfished stock within the marine ecosystem. In any event is should not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an applicable international agreement dictate otherwise. Ordinarily, for stocks being considered for certification under an ecolabelling or other sustainability standard, the time period should not be longer than the duration of the certification period. Re-benchmarking The process of benchmarking a scheme that was previously recognised by the GSSI and that is seeking renewed recognition. Recovery plan Need to define the required components of a Recovery Plan, including timeline, milestones, trajectory, monitoring, course corrections etc. Recovery rate The percentage of the number of aquatic animals recovered at harvest divided by the number stocked. Intended as an indicator of mortality, incorporate both known and unknown losses. Reference point (biological) Biological Reference Point – A biological benchmark against which the abundance of the stock or the fishing mortality rate can be measured in order to determine its status. These reference points can be used as limits or targets, depending on their intended usage. Reference point (limit) Limit Reference Point – Indicates the limit beyond which the state of a fishery and / or a resource is not considered desirable. Fishery development should be stopped before reaching it. If a LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop fishery development, as appropriate, and corrective action should be taken. Stock rehabilitation programmes should consider and LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are relaxed or the fishery is re-opened". If a LRP is well established, he probability to reach inadvertently is very low and indeed below a formally agreed level. A value of a critical biological indicator (e.g. spawning biomass) considered as the limit below which the stock sustainability cannot be ensured, or below which the probability of a negative outcome (e.g. stock collapse) is unacceptable. Indicates the limit beyond which the state of a fishery and / or a resource is not considered desirable. Fishery development should be stopped before reaching it. If a LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop fishery development, as appropriate, and corrective action should be taken. Stock rehabilitation programmes should consider and LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are relaxed or the fishery is re- opened". If a LRP is well established, the probability to reach inadvertently is very low and indeed below a formally agreed level. - Garcia S.M. (1996)The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 350.2: 1-76 The point where recruitment would be impaired. Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass limit reference points (LRPs) should be no less than ½ BMSY, or ½ an appropriate target reference point such as B40%. LRPs below about B20% or ½ BMSY require strong scientific rationale. 115 Term Definition Reference point (target) Target Reference Point – Corresponds to a state of a fishery and / or a resource which is considered desirable. Management action, whether during a fishery development or a stock rebuilding process should aim at bringing and maintaining the fishery system at this level. In most cases a TRP will be expressed in a desired level of output for the fishery (e.g. in terms of catch) or of fishing effort or capacity and will be reflected as an explicit management objective for the fishery. Garcia S.M. (1996) The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 350.2: 1-76 Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass target reference points (TRPs) should generally not be lower than BMSY or approximately B35–B40%. TRPs below about B35% should require strong scientific rationale for harvesting at that level Regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) An institution or arrangement established (usually between two or more States) to be responsible for activities related to fisheries management, including consultation between parties to the agreement or arrangement, formulation of the fishery regulations and their implementation, allocation of resources, collection of information, stock assessment, as well as monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). RFMOs are generally established by two or more interested States to establish a common strategy for managing transboundary, shared or high seas fish stocks. Examples include the five tuna RFMOs that manage highly migratory fish stocks (see for example http://www.tuna-org.org/). Register of benchmark committee members A document containing the names of experts selected by GSSI, who may carry out benchmarking activities on their behalf. Remedial action A fisheries management measure intended to stop and/or reverse an adverse trend in stock status in response to an analysis indicating reference points are being approached or exceeded or the desired directions are not being achieved (codified in one or more decision rules) (see also management measure). Resilience Capacity of a natural system (fisheries community or ecosystem) to recover from heavy disturbance such as intensive fishing. The ability to recover from or to resist being affected by some shock or disturbance The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as still to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks. Responsible aquaculture Aquaculture conducted according to the principles provided in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO 2010. Review The systematic, documented process undertaken by GSSI to assess the compliance of a scheme against the requirements of the GSSI Framework Document. Risk assessment The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs Risk assessment/ Risk management Risk Assessment is a component of risk management which comprises all processes concerned with identification, estimation and qualitative and quantitative evaluation of risks. Risk assessment consists of hazard identification, hazard assessment, risk estimation and risk reduction. Risk based programme A documented programme developed by a competent person(s) based on risk assessment principles. Scheme A documented food safety scheme, which has specified requirements, specific rules and procedures. Scheme owner An organisation, which is responsible for the development, management and maintenance of a scheme. Scope The extent of the area or subject matter that a scheme applies to or to which it is relevant Senior management A person or persons who have the authority and accountability to develop, implement or amend organisational policies and procedures 116 Term Definition Serious adverse impacts The severity of adverse impacts is related to their potential reversibility. Serious adverse impacts can be regarded as those that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible. Serious adverse impacts of fisheries and any associated culture and stock enhancement activity on the ecosystem shall include at least any one of the following effects of fisheries where such effects are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible: i. Overfishing of the stock under consideration; ii. Overfishing of the stocks forming incidental catch, unobserved catch; iii. Unreported catch, unregulated catch or discards; reduction in abundance of dependent predators; iv. Harmful impacts on essential habitat; or v. Harmful impacts on any other part of the ecosystem. Site A permanent location where an organisation carries out work or activity’ Small scale fisheries This term tends to imply the use of a relatively small size gear and vessel. The term has sometimes the added connotation of low levels of technology and capital investment per fisher although that may not always be the case. Small-scale fisheries are social units with porous boundaries that individual fishers can cross. In fact, fishers can unconsciously or deliberately blur the boundaries between the various fisheries (see also data limited fisheries, although data limited is not the same as small scale; large scale fisheries can also be data limited and not all small scale fisheries are data limited). Producers operating at a small scale, used to distinguish from industrialized producers. In truth, the line separating small and large scale producers is arbitrary. What is considered small scale in one country or region may be considered large scale in another Similar to Artisanal fisheries: A term of Latin origin with a socio-economic foundation. It tends to imply a simple, individual (self-employed) or family type of enterprise (as opposed to an industrial company), most often operated by the owner (even though the vessels may sometimes belong to the fishmonger or some external investor), with the support of the household. The term has no obvious reference to size but tends to have the same connotation of relatively low levels of technology and this may not always be the case Small-scale aquaculture Aquaculture farms with small production volume, and/or relatively small surface area, mainly without permanent labour, and typically lacking technical and financial capacity to support individual certification. Depending on the production systems used, other considerations include production technology; resources; number of workers, including owner; economics, including annual income; relative importance of aquaculture as contributor to total income; ownership. Small-scale aquaculture farms are typically: i. family-sized operations; ii. using family labour; iii. based on the family’s land; and iv. owner-operated v. Small-scale aquaculture may be diffused through a local area or district, or highly concentrated around specific resources (e.g. water supply or processing plant). Socially responsible aquaculture Aquaculture that is developed and operated in a responsible manner, i.e. that benefits the farm, the local communities and the country; that contributes effectively to rural development, and particularly poverty alleviation; has employees who are treated fairly; maximizes benefits and equity; minimizes conflicts with local communities; ensures worker welfare and fair working conditions; minimizes risks to smallholders; and provides training to workers in responsible aquaculture practices. Stakeholder An individual or group of individuals, whether at institutional or personal level, who has an interest or claim that has the potential of being impacted by or having an impact on a given activity. This interest or claim can be stated or implied and direct or indirect. Stakeholders and stakeholder groups can be at the household, community, local, regional, national, or international levels. Standard Document approved by a recognized organization or arrangement, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory under international trade rules. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. Stock The living resources in the community or population from which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the particular population is more or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining. In a particular fishery, the fish stock may be one or several species of fish but here is also intended to include commercial invertebrates and plants. A group of individuals in a species occupying a well-defined spatial range independent of other stocks of the same species. Random dispersal and directed migrations due to seasonal or reproductive activity can occur. Such a group can be regarded as an entity for management or assessment purposes. 117 Term Definition Stock assessment The process of collecting and analysing biological and statistical information to determine the changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing, and, to the extent possible, to predict future trends of stock abundance. Stock assessments are based on resource surveys; knowledge of the habitat requirements, life history, and behaviour of the species; the use of environmental indices to determine impacts on stocks; and catch statistics. Stock assessments are used as a basis to assess and specify the present and probable future condition of a fishery. There are many ways in which state and trends in stocks may be evaluated, that fall short of the highly quantitative and data-demanding approaches to stock assessment that are often used for large scale fisheries in developed countries. The process of collecting and analysing biological and statistical information to determine the changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing, and, to the extent possible, to predict future trends of stock abundance. Stock assessments are based on resource surveys; knowledge of the habitat requirements, life history, and behaviour of the species; the use of environmental indices to determine impacts on stocks; and catch statistics. Stock assessments are used as a basis to assess and specify the present and probable future condition of a fishery. Stock enhancement See Fisheries Enhancement. Stock recovery plan A strategy of selecting fishing mortality rates or equivalent catches that will increase the status measure (e.g. biomass) above some minimum standard threshold within a specified period of time. Stock structure and composition The (spatial) organisation of a species in terms of separate stocks genetic structure of the stock, (e.g., a species of large pelagic fish may be comprised of three separate stocks in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea). The structure of a particular stock, in terms of its size or age composition or in terms of its species composition (for a multispecies stock). The genetic/ age /size /sex make up of a fish stock, measured on spatial and temporal bases. Stock under consideration The “stock under consideration” exploited by this fishery (unit of certification) may be one or more biological stocks as specified by the stakeholders for certification. The certification applies only to products derived from the “stock under consideration” (see paragraph 30). In assessing compliance with certification standards, the impacts on the “stock under consideration” of all the fisheries utilizing that “stock under consideration” over its entire area of distribution are to be considered. Subcontracting A firm, company or individual carrying out a process on products on the behalf of the site audited. Supplier An organisation supplying food, feed or a service. Surveillance Follow‐up audit(s) to assess compliance with the specific requirements of a scheme’s standard and to verify the validity of an issued certificate. Suspension The process by which a scheme is temporarily not recognised by GSSI. Sustainability indicators A defined series of criteria which are quantifiable measurements relating to sustainability. Systematic non- compliance Fishery regulations and/or controls are being regularly and repeatedly violated to an extent that threatens the effective implementation of the management strategy (see Management Measures). Non-compliance is closely related to the commonly used term illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. According to the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (See Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing) Technical committee A committee of competent technical persons who are representative of an area of work or activity. Third party certification Procedure by which an accredited external, independent, certification body which is not involved in standards setting or has any other conflict of interest, analyses the performance of involved parties, and reports on compliance. This is in contrast to first party certification (by which a single company or stakeholder group develops its own standards, analyses its own performance, and reports on its compliance and second party certification (by which an industry or trade association or NGO develops standards, analyses the performance of involved parties, and reports on compliance). 118 Term Definition Traceability The ability to follow the movement of a product of aquaculture or inputs such as feed and seed, through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution i. The ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications. ii. The ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration. iii. (NB: For both i) & ii) there is an additional clause which states that when relating to products, traceability specifically entails ‘the origin of materials and parts, the processing history, and the distribution and location of the product after delivery). iv. Ability to follow the movement of feed or food through specified stage/s of production, processing and distribution v. Property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty. vi. The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution. vii. The ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution. Traceability The ability to follow the movement of a product of aquaculture or inputs such as feed and seed, through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution. Transfer The movement of individuals of a species or population of an aquatic organism from one location to another within its present range. Transition period for compliance A defined period of time by which an organisation shall comply to a series of requirements or standard. Trash fish Small fish species, damaged catch and juvenile fish are sometimes referred to as 'trash fish' because of its low market value. Usually part of a (shrimp) trawler's bycatch. Often it is discarded at sea although an increasing proportion is used as human food or as feed in aquaculture and livestock feed. Uncertainty / uncertainties Uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge. The abundance of fish and their productivity is estimated always with some level of uncertainty, which may be considerable. Forecasting the abundance of fish in the future and how the stock, fish community or fishers will respond to management actions introduces further uncertainty. Sources of uncertainty in fisheries stock assessment and management can be summarised as follows: i. process uncertainty, or random variability, in the biological and ecological processes themselves, such as in recruitment to a stock; ii. observation uncertainty, from attempts to measure factors such as total catch, biomass (e.g. through a survey), or effective effort in a fishery; iii. estimation uncertainty in our final estimates of quantities, such as the status of the stock or BMEY, arises from process and observation uncertainty above and also because our models are usually simplifications of the true ecological processes; iv. implementation uncertainty arising in the implementation of management measures, including how effective they will be and how well the fishers will comply with them; and v. institutional uncertainty which refers to the uncertainty in how well participants in the process can communicate with each other, to what extent people are willing to compromise and how the scientific information is understood, all influencing how decisions will be made and therefore how good those decisions will be. Unit of certification The scale or extent of the aquaculture operation(s) assessed and monitored for compliance. The unit of certification could consist of a single farm, production unit or other aquaculture facility. The certification unit could also consist of a group or cluster of farms that should be assessed and monitored collectively. Unit of certification The fishery for which ecolabelling certification is sought, as specified by the stakeholders who are seeking certification. A unit of certification comprises the stock(s) under consideration and the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel/s) targeting that/those stock(s). The fishery on the stock under consideration may include more than one unit of certification Unobserved mortality Mortality imposed on a species by the encounter with fishing gear that does not result in capture. Unreported catches Unreported catches fall under the umbrella of unreported fishing. Unreported fishing is defined in the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. (See Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) Unscheduled supplier audit Audits planned within a defined programme, but without the allocation of a specified programme date. 119 Term Definition Unwanted catch Unwanted catches are those that are discarded (returned to the sea) dead or alive, either because they are the wrong size (usually too small), the wrong species, the fisherman has no quota, or keeping them violates other rules about catch composition. Validation The application of methods, procedures, tests and other evaluations, in addition to monitoring to determine compliance with the standards or plan. Validation An activity to obtain evidence that a requirement is controlled effectively. Verification A confirmation, through the review of objective evidence that requirements have been fulfilled. Veterinarian See Aquatic Animal Health Professional Veterinary drugs Definitions of veterinary drugs vary from source-to-source. In this document veterinary drugs as considered to include antimicrobials, antibacterials, therapeutants, antibiotics, and veterinary medicinal products, if misused, can result in food safety implications, including residues, as well environmental implications, such as the spread of resistance to treatments in pathogenic organisms. Vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME) The FAO Guidelines adopted a list of criteria for the identification of VMEs: i. Uniqueness or rarity due to the species, communities or habitats they contain; ii. Functional significance of the habitat necessary for the survival, function, spawning/reproduction or recovery of fish stocks, particular life history stages (e.g. nursery grounds or rearing areas), or of rare, threatened or endangered marine species; iii. Fragility; iv. Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult; or v. Structural complexity. Water quality criteria Specific levels of water quality desired for identified uses, including drinking, recreation, farming, aquaculture production, propagation of other aquatic life, and agricultural and industrial processes. Wet-fish Unprocessed, uncooked whole or chopped fish. Sometimes referred to as trash fish. Work program A defined series of activity to be carried out within a defined time period. 120 GSSI GLOBAL BENCHMARK TOOL PART III: REFERENCE MATRIX TO THE FAO GUIDELINES Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative 121 Part III: Reference Matrix to the FAO Guidelines GSSI will publish a detailed reference matrix to the FAO Guidelines that enables readers of the Benchmark Framework to track the linkages that exist between GSSI requirements and the paragraphs of the relevant FAO Guidelines. This matrix is included in the separate excel file distributed as part of the consultation documents to submit comments. If you have not received the excel file, please contact the GSSI Secretariat at [email protected] and they will make sure you will be provided with a complete set of documents and files.