PLOS Sustain Transform plos plosst PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 2767-3197 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124 PSTR-D-23-00112 Research Article Biology and life sciencesMarine biologyFisheries science Earth sciencesMarine and aquatic sciencesMarine biologyFisheries science Biology and life sciencesAgricultureAquaculture Biology and life sciencesOrganismsEukaryotaAnimalsVertebratesFishMarine fish Biology and life sciencesZoologyAnimalsVertebratesFishMarine fish Biology and life sciencesMarine biologyMarine fish Earth sciencesMarine and aquatic sciencesMarine biologyMarine fish Ecology and environmental sciencesSustainability science Biology and life sciencesAgricultureAgricultural methodsSustainable agriculture Ecology and environmental sciencesSustainability scienceSustainable agriculture Ecology and environmental sciencesSpecies colonizationInvasive species Biology and life sciencesEcologyCommunity ecologyEcological risk Ecology and environmental sciencesEcologyCommunity ecologyEcological risk Social sciencesLaw and legal sciencesRegulations Framework assessment of sustainability: Methodology for evaluating the conformance of fishery and aquaculture management systems to FAO guidelines Sustainable Management System Assessment https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6641-2225 Walsh Michelle L. Conceptualization Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 ‡ * Thorbjørnsen Thoren L. Conceptualization Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 2 ¤a ‡ Jones Robert C. Conceptualization Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – review & editing 3 Division of Marine Science and Technology The College of the Florida Keys Key West, Florida, United States of America Ocean Trust Science & Sustainability Forum Reston, Virginia, United States of America The Nature Conservancy Arlington, Virginia, United States of America Spínola Hélder Editor University of Madeira, PORTUGAL

Concurrent with his duties as the Director of Global Aquatic Food Systems at The Nature Conservancy, Robert Jones serves on the Board of Directors of the Global Aquaculture Alliance in an individual capacity. Both Robert Jones and Michelle Walsh have served on the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Technical Committee to review and modify existing Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification standards and guidelines for Finfish and Crustacean Farms. Thoren Thorbjørnsen has no competing interests.

Current Address: Kirkland, Washington, United States of America

‡ These authors are joint senior authors on this work.

 * E-mail: michelle.lynn.walsh@gmail.com 25 9 2024 9 2024 3 9 e0000124 3 9 2023 15 8 2024 2024 Walsh et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Sustainability is about meeting the needs of current generations without compromising those of future generations. For fished and aquacultured products, sustainability is often gauged on an individual fishery or farm basis but can be driven by a well-designed and implemented regulatory management system, or set of laws, rules, and policies promulgated by a governmental entity. To achieve global coverage via current assessment approaches requires enormous effort and resources due to the sheer number of individual operating units. System assessments are well established in assuring seafood safety, but much less so in regard to sustainability. This paper presents a tool to measure sustainability based on the prevailing regulatory management system and invites other researchers and practitioners to gauge the applicability of the methodology to new contexts. Evaluating how management systems support sustainable practices is key for assessing current reality and planning change. The methodology presented is based on international criteria for sustainability set forth in United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products as well as aquaculture certification. The assessment tools are the distillation of qualitative criteria found within the FAO guidelines into simple propositions called “Topics of Pertinence” that enable a straightforward cross-checking of whether the requirements and provisions of regulatory management systems reflect broadly accepted sustainability criteria in fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Assessments document what management systems aim to do via laws, regulations, and policies, and verify mechanisms within the systems that support implementation and compliance. While other sustainability assessments exist, the methodology described here is unique in that it is the only process that provides a system-based approach targeting higher management levels, which can increase global coverage of sustainability assessment from the current lower-tiered approach of certifying at individual production entities.

 Author summary

Sustainability certifications generally address individual fishery or aquaculture operations. Only 16% of global fishery and 5% of global aquaculture production have been assessed sustainable by independent third-party organizations. An FAO-based assessment tool for fishery and aquaculture regulatory management systems is presented that applies benchmarking indicators and an evaluation framework that were developed through an FAO expert consultation. The process described enables evaluation of a regulatory management system and its associated governance processes as well as development of options for addressing areas that lack strong evidence of conformance. Assessing management systems is a valid measure of fisheries and aquaculture sustainability. A system approach can increase sustainability assessment coverage of global seafood production.

 http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100020658 NOAA Sea Grant NOAA-OAR-SG-2016-2004807 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6641-2225 Walsh Michelle L. This research was funded in part by a grant to the College of the Florida Keys in 2016 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Grant Aquaculture Research Program (NOAA-OAR-SG-2016-2004807; MW and RJ). The study sponsor (NOAA Sea Grant; https://seagrant.noaa.gov/how-we-work/topics/fisheries-aquaculture/aquaculture/) had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data Availability All data are in the manuscript and in publicly accessible documents cited within. 1. Introduction

Sustainability has become a central component in the production and marketing of fish and seafood products, but the criteria for determining it vary among stakeholders [1]. In its simplest form, “sustainability” is about meeting the needs and wants of current generations without compromising those of the future [2,3]. Current assessments of sustainability, such as those conducted by seafood certification or eco-labeling schemes, primarily focus on the operational management and environmental impacts of a single fishery or farm. These types of assessment processes are viewed by some as inefficient, costly, confusing, and unpredictable especially because the criteria and conditions for approval vary depending upon the scheme [4,5]. Alternatively, one can view sustainability as the result of a well-designed and implemented regulatory management (governance) system, not on a snapshot of an individual operation at any given point in time. A more efficient assessment approach is to focus on the capacity of the governance system to identify and address impacts through management measures that are applicable to all operations under the system’s jurisdiction. A system approach to assessment offers the potential to promote sustainable practices across all fishery and aquaculture operations managed under a national or state regulatory program.

Achieving global coverage via current sustainability assessment approaches requires enormous effort and resources due to the sheer number of individual operating units. Certification schemes have been challenged to achieve significant coverage of global seafood production. After 25 years of operation, approximately 16% of global fishery products have been Marine Stewardship Council certified [6], while only a small proportion of world aquaculture production (5%) has been certified [7,8,9] (although more operations may already be enacting sustainability provisions or have the potential to be certified with some level of improvements). Of relevance to fishery certifications, there are 125 nations that participate in FAO’s Committee on Fisheries [10], twenty-five of which make up 80% of total marine capture fisheries production [11], which is a significantly smaller population to assess than the 2,144 harvested fishery species listed in the FAO global capture database [12]. Aquaculture certifications face similar obstacles in the sheer number of aquaculture operations, which challenges evaluation at a global scale. In the United States alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service reports that there were 3,456 aquaculture farms in 2018 [13], yet U.S. farms represent less than one percent of global aquaculture production by volume (0.56% in 2017) [11]. In comparison, the FAO maintains data on 107 national aquaculture programs, which may present a more manageable number of units for sustainability assessment [14].

Many certification organizations include an assessment of the management system as one criterion in the certification process. However, current certification programs are primarily based on a “bottom-up” approach to evaluating fisheries or farm sites, and then examine the management structure for those individual operations. Incorporating elements of the “top-down” approach presented here may enable seafood certification schemes to assess a greater share of global seafood production without sacrificing the quality or credibility of these schemes.

Like the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) approach to food safety, the assessment methodology presented here takes a system approach to sustainability focused on process rather than an “end product inspection.” The HACCP system is a science-based and systematic process that identifies specific hazards and control points in seafood production to ensure the safety of food. A critical control point is a specific step in a process where control can be applied to prevent, eliminate, or reduce hazards to an acceptable level (e.g., the cooking temperature and duration for raw meat). HACCP is a tool to assess the entire food production process and establish measures that focus on prevention rather than relying mainly on end-product evaluation. Based on risk-assessments of the system, HACCP promotes efficiency by both industry and government in the establishment and audit of safe food production processes. The HACCP method provides flexibility for product control and has been successful in meeting the objectives of ensuring safe seafood acceptable to food control agencies [15].

The tools presented here are designed to evaluate the sustainability of fishery and aquaculture management systems based on criteria set forth by the FAO in two separate documents: Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (Fisheries Guidelines) [16] and Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification (Aquaculture Guidelines) [17]. The sections on “Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria for Ecolabels” (in the Fisheries Guidelines) and “Minimum Substantive Criteria” (in the Aquaculture Guidelines) describe criteria for assessing whether resources of an individual fishery or aquaculture operation are well-managed and sustainable, and are based on international agreements (including FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries [18]; S1 Box). Both Guidelines concentrate on evaluating discrete operational management techniques implemented on a fishery-by-fishery or farm-by-farm basis.

The assessment tools we present are the distillation of criteria found within the FAO Guidelines into simple propositions called “Topics of Pertinence.” Assessments are based on qualitative data paralleling how criteria have been set by FAO. Our approach considers sustainability criteria in the Guidelines as proxies for baseline sustainable practices and focuses on assessing the standards and procedures of the regulatory management system as a whole. Thus, if a management system ensures that individual operations under its jurisdiction are conducted in conformance with sustainable practices, then the production processes and products are more likely to be sustainable. This type of system assessment would foster regulatory management systems that are proactive and preventative in regard to issues affecting sustainability rather than reactive and recuperative.

This paper develops qualitative tools to enable a straightforward cross-checking of whether the requirements and provisions of regulatory management systems reflect broadly accepted sustainability criteria for fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The structure of this assessment methodology for management systems is unique in that it: (1) is based on a series of FAO Guidelines and an Expert Consultation that provide both globally-reviewed criteria for sustainability as well as a benchmarking framework for assessing conformance, (2) provides a system-based approach to sustainability versus a single-operation approach, and (3) offers a basis to assess sustainability at a higher governance level following a HACCP-like model that can increase global coverage of sustainability assessments from the current lower-tiered approach of individual certified production. This approach is a significant step towards improving management systems by providing a process to document, communicate, and guide the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture in accordance with criteria published by the FAO.

 2. Methods 2.1. Research approach

We developed two qualitative tools based on FAO documents (Table 1) to enable a straightforward cross-checking of whether requirements and provisions of regulatory management systems reflect internationally accepted sustainability criteria for fisheries and aquaculture. The assessment tools are a distillation of the “Minimum Substantive” criteria found within FAO Guidelines into simple propositions called “Topics of Pertinence” (Tables 2 and 3). We worked with intra-agency and multi-stakeholder teams to identify the “Topics of Pertinence” for fisheries and aquaculture, respectively, then to test the tools by applying them to U.S. fisheries and aquaculture management systems (Fig 1). The assessment methodology is based on an FAO evaluation framework for assessing conformance of ecolabeling schemes with FAO Fisheries Guidelines, which describes types of evidence (internal, outcome, independent) that can be documented to verify conformance.

10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.t001 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guiding documents used to develop the system assessment tools.
Title Description Reference
Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries (2009) “Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria for Ecolabels” to evaluate the sustainability of marine capture fisheries. Includes procedural and institutional aspects for establishing such an ecolabelling scheme http://www.fao.org/3/i1119t/i1119t.pdf
Technical guidelines on aquaculture certification (2011) “Minimum Substantive Criteria” to evaluate the sustainability of aquaculture operations for certification. Includes procedural and institutional aspects for establishing such a certification scheme. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2296t.pdf
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) International principles and standards for sustainable management and conservation of aquatic resources. Provides basis for development of the FAO Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries and Technical guidelines on aquaculture certification. http://www.fao.org/3/v9878e/V9878E.pdf
Report of the Expert Consultation to develop an FAO evaluation framework to assess the conformity of public and private ecolabelling schemes with the FAO ‘Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries’ (2010) Benchmarking framework for assessing conformance of ecolabelling schemes with FAO Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2021e/i2021e00.pdf
10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.g001 Progression of assessment tool development, testing, and validation.

“Topics of Pertinence” of the assessment tools were tracked by highlighting and coding each sustainability provision within FAO Guidelines first by the authors, then discussed, debated, and refined within teams (intra-agency and multi-stakeholder with all authors for fisheries and aquaculture, respectively), then independently reviewed (in the case of the fisheries tool) or agreed upon by consensus (in the case of the aquaculture tool) to ensure validity. The fishery management assessment tool was developed in collaboration with Ocean Trust, which independently applied the tool with state agency teams and review.

 2.2. Development of the assessment tools

“Topics of Pertinence” were determined for each distinct sustainability provision identified within “Minimum Substantive” criteria paragraphs of the FAO Guidelines. We phrased each as mutually exclusive as practicable while mirroring FAO verbiage to mitigate bias and minimize inadvertent interpretation of FAO’s intent by the end user. “Topics of Pertinence” were tracked by highlighting and coding each sustainability provision within the FAO documents (Tables 2 and 3); first by the primary author (Walsh), then discussed, debated, and refined within teams (intra-agency and multi-stakeholder with all authors for fisheries and aquaculture, respectively), then independently reviewed (in the case of the fisheries tool) or agreed upon by consensus (in the case of the aquaculture tool) to ensure validity (Fig 1).

2.2.1. Fishery assessment tool

For the fisheries tool, “Topics of Pertinence” were identified, discussed, and reviewed collaboratively with staff from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and Ocean Trust, a former ocean conservation foundation that focused on building science, conservation, and industry partnerships for ocean sustainability. International perspectives on the tool and methodology were provided by members of the NOAA Fisheries Office of International Affairs, FAO representatives, and fishery managers from the international community (including Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand). Then, the fishery assessment tool was peer-reviewed by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE).

 2.2.2. Aquaculture assessment tool

For the aquaculture assessment tool, the authors identified, reviewed, and applied “Topics of Pertinence” collaboratively through a multi-stakeholder steering committee representing diverse aquaculture interests. Eight steering committee members were identified by the authors based on their expertise in aquaculture across the diversity of issues considered in the FAO Guidelines: animal health and welfare, food safety, environmental integrity, and socio-economic aspects. In addition to topical knowledge, the make-up of the steering committee was designed to represent a diversity of perspectives in U.S. aquaculture by including individuals from federal and state agencies, industry, sustainable seafood policy and certification systems, non-governmental organizations, and academia. “Topics of Pertinence” were discussed and debated by the steering committee and authors, and were determined by consensus.

 2.3. Assessment steps

For each “Topic of Pertinence” the methodology presents a four-step assessment process to evaluate conformance of a management system to the FAO Guidelines:

Describe relevant statutes, regulations, policies, guidance, etc. that are applicable to operations under the management system’s jurisdiction.

Provide evidence of conformance (three types—internal, outcome, and independent; described below in 2.3.1), i.e., how well is the “Topic of Pertinence” being addressed by the management system.

Rate conformance via a Harvey Ball symbol system (described below in 2.3.2).

Provide future considerations for how the management system may address gaps or weaknesses in conformance.

The identification of statutes, regulations, policies, guidance, etc. is followed by a discussion section that further describes how these governance mechanisms manage in conformance with the FAO Guidelines, such as providing case studies or clarification in layman’s terms. Documentation of conformance verifies what management systems say they do and tracks those assertions by evaluating evidence as suggested by an FAO Expert Consultation that developed an for assessing the conformity of ecolabelling schemes to the FAO Fisheries Guidelines (Evaluation Framework) [19].

2.3.1. Evidence of conformance

The Evaluation Framework does not provide specific guidance on how evaluators should make a determination of conformance but it does discuss three types of objective evidence that might be used:

Internal evidence (i.e. the scheme says it does something);

Outcome evidence (i.e. the scheme demonstrably does what it says it does); and

Independent evidence (i.e. an independent expert has determined that the scheme does what it says it does) [19].

For our methodology, internal evidence illustrates how management systems address “Topics of Pertinence” in an official written form. For example, a federal or state constitution, statute, regulation, standard, or strategic plan may state that certain actions will be taken that conform to the FAO Guidelines.

Outcome evidence provides additional support that the management system demonstrably does what it says it does. Examples of outcome evidence include administrative protocols, permitting and reporting procedures that ensure that data are collected and assessments are conducted, evidence that agencies take management action or that laws are enforced, etc.

Independent evidence includes independent expert determinations that the management system does what it says it does. For example, courts have made rulings through the judicial system, open-access evidence that can be confirmed by the general public, or performance that is inspected, reviewed, or verified by an independent or independently-accredited entity or third-party.

 2.3.2. Harvey Ball conformance rating

Conformance of the management system to each “Topic of Pertinence” is rated via a Harvey Ball symbol system for each form of evidence (i.e., internal, outcome, and independent evidence). Harvey ball systems visually communicate qualitative information by assigning round icons to represent the degree to which criteria are being met. Solid symbols (●) indicate conformance to all aspects of the “Topic of Pertinence” and strong evidence for all operations under jurisdiction of the management system, semi-solid symbols (◒) indicate partial conformance with some aspects of the “Topic of Pertinence” and/or variable evidence among operations under jurisdiction of the management system (i.e., strong evidence for some but not for others). An empty symbol (○) in the conformance column indicates a lack of evidence to support strong or partial conformance to the FAO Guidelines. This is not necessarily an indication of nonconformance; it simply demonstrates a lack of evidence available to verify or refute conformance within the management system.

The resultant rating for each “Topic of Pertinence” can be used to identify gaps between the management system and the FAO Guidelines. To lay the foundation for further improvement, a section follows with recommendations for future consideration. In some instances, these future considerations may focus on areas with weaker conformance evidence identified by the process. Suggestions could be provided in a manner that would promote higher conformance on a subsequent assessment. In other instances, particularly for “Topics of Pertinence” in which the management system has scored three solid black symbols (i.e., the highest rating), future considerations may be provided beyond the scope of FAO Guidelines since sustainability may be better envisioned as an ongoing process and not a definitive endpoint. The provided future considerations are not exhaustive, but rather supply potential examples for moving fishery and aquaculture management forward. The most constructive future considerations are those that are applicable, clear, and concrete.

 2.4. Testing the assessment tools

In addition to developing the assessment tools, we tested the tools by conducting pilot assessments via within-agency teams and multi-stakeholder steering committees for fisheries and aquaculture, respectively. The assessment tools were applied to the U.S. federal marine fishery management system, to U.S. state marine fishery management systems, and to management systems for aquaculture in the United States.

2.4.1. Assessing U.S. marine fishery management

From 2012 to 2015 as an agency self-assessment, the first author (Walsh) and colleagues applied the fishery assessment tool to U.S. federal marine fishery management under the auspices of NOAA Fisheries [20]. The self-assessment was reviewed internally within the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, then by representatives of NOAA Regional Offices (West Coast Region, Alaska Region) and by a representative of the Office of Protected Resources. CIE experts were contracted not only to review the assessment tool, but also the NOAA Fisheries self-assessment as well as to generate novel assessments of U.S. federal marine fishery management to further test application of the tool.

Assessments of state fishery management systems were conducted concurrently by the second author (Thorbjørnsen) via Ocean Trust with support from the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. The states assessed were Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Governing laws, regulations, and enforcement actions of each state were assessed, presented to each state management agency for review, and finalized based on state agency comments.

 2.4.2. Assessing U.S. aquaculture management

With support from the NOAA Sea Grant Aquaculture Research Program, the authors coordinated application of the aquaculture assessment tool to the regulatory processes by which aquaculture is managed in the United States [21]. The eight-person steering committee that identified “Topics of Pertinence” for the tool (with minor substitution of members over time) also provided input on the governance and management of U.S. aquaculture and assisted in the identification and evaluation of conformance evidence to the FAO Aquaculture Guidelines.

The steering committee played an integral role in ensuring that necessary and pertinent information regarding U.S. aquaculture management was compiled and available for analysis and rating. Bi-annual meetings of the steering committee were held between November 2016 and August 2019, including two in-person workshops in June 2018 and August 2019. During the August 2019 workshop, the steering committee and authors met to review compiled information on the U.S. management system and assess conformance for internal, outcome, and independent evidence for each “Topic of Pertinence”. The steering committee and authors discussed, debated, and voted on how to rate each “Topic of Pertinence”, and consensus was sought and achieved in each case.

 3. Results 3.1. Development of the conformance assessment tools

The fishery assessment tool comprises 24 “Topics of Pertinence” covering considerations for management systems, stocks under consideration, and ecosystem considerations (Table 2). The aquaculture assessment tool comprises 23 “Topics of Pertinence” covering animal health and welfare, food safety, environmental integrity, and socio-economic aspects (Table 3). These subjects mirror those defined in “Minimum Substantive” criteria of FAO Guidelines [16,17]. Application of the assessment approach by those not involved in tool generation (i.e., CIE) verified that the methodology can be applied by independent researchers [22,23,24]. One CIE reviewer stated: “The framework itself is relatively straightforward and closely linked to the FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling” [22].

10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.t002 “Topics of Pertinence” derived from the FAO Fisheries Guidelines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref016">16</xref>] and a related Expert Consultation report on an evaluation framework for assessing ecolabelling schemes to the Guidelines (Evaluation Framework) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref013">13</xref>].

“Topic of Pertinence” content is tracked as bolded and underlined text (with respective superscript) within the FAO document excerpts.

Fisheries Guidelines Paragraph Assessing Conformance via the Evaluation Framework Topic(s) of Pertinence
Comments Benchmark Indicator
26. The following sets forth the minimum substantive requirements and criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and an ecolabel awarded to a fishery. Ecolabelling schemes may apply additional or more stringent requirements and criteria related to sustainable use of the resources. The requirements and criteria presented below are to be based on and interpreted in accordance with the current suite of agreed international instruments addressing fisheries, in particular the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as well as related documentation including the 2001 Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Not necessary as part of benchmarking.Not necessary for benchmarking. See benchmarks for Guideline Paragraph 2.1 (see FAO, 2009). N/A None
27. Requirements are specified for each of three areas: the management systems, the fishery and associated “stock under consideration” for which certification is being sought, and consideration of serious impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Criteria and related measurable performance indicators and a corresponding monitoring system should be established in order to assess the conformity of the fishery concerned with the requirements and the criteria of the ecolabelling scheme. In developing and applying the criteria and assessing the conformity of the fishery with the standard of certification, the views and opinions of States, RFMOs and FAO should be fully considered. The certification standard must be accompanied by a series of criteria and/or performance indicators that enable independent certifiers to assess compliance with the standard in an auditable and repeatable way.For details on the certification assessment and monitoring procedure see Area 3.3: Paragraphs 100–151 (see FAO, 2009). The standard specifies requirements for three main areas: (1) the management systems; (2) the fishery and associated “stock under consideration” for which certification is being sought; and (3) consideration of serious impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.The standard establishes criteria and related measurable performance indicators to assess conformity.In developing and applying the criteria and assessing the conformity of the fishery with the standard of certification, the views and opinions of States, RFBs (Regional Fishery Bodies), relevant regional commissions or other organizations or arrangements, RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management Organizations) and FAO are fully considered. None
28. Requirement: The fishery is conducted under a management system which is based upon good practice and that ensures the satisfaction of the requirements and criteria described in Paragraph 29. The management system and the fishery operate in (1)compliance with the requirements of local, national and international law and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fisheries management organization that manages the fisheries on the “stock under consideration”. The standard should include consideration of the management system (see also above–paragraph 27). The standard for the management system is based on current international norms with respect to good practice and satisfies benchmarking requirements established under Guideline Paragraphs 29 and 31The standard for the management system requires (1)compliance with local, national and international laws and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fisheries management agreement that directs the management of the fisheries on the “stock under consideration”. (1) Management system is in compliance with relevant local, national, and international laws
28.1 For the “stock under consideration” there are (2)documented management approaches with a well based expectation that (3)management will be successful taking into account uncertainty and imprecision. None None (2) There are documented management approaches for the “stock under consideration”(3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach
28.2 There are objectives, and as necessary, management measures to (4)address pertinent aspects of the ecosystem effects of fishing as per paragraph 31. None None (4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed
29. The following criteria will apply to management systems for any fisheries, but it must be recognized that special consideration needs to be given to small-scale fisheries with respect to the availability of data and with respect to the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different (5)types and scales of fisheries (e.g. small scale through to large scale commercial fisheries). None The standard is applicable to management systems for any fisheries, with due consideration to availability of data and the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different (5)types and scales of fisheries. (5) Types and scales of fisheries considered in management
29.1 (6)Adequate data and/or information are collected, maintained and assessed in accordance with applicable international standards and practices for evaluation of the current state and trends of the stocks (see below: Methodological aspects). This can include relevant (7)traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified. Whether the standard assesses if the management system ensures that reliable data are collected about the fishery. The standard includes a requirement for the management system to ensure (6)reliable and current data and/or other information about the fishery are collected and maintained to assess the current status and trends of the stocks. (6) Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed(7) Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered
29.2 In determining suitable conservation and management measures, the (8)best scientific evidence available is taken into account by the designated authority, as well as consideration of relevant (7)traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified, in order to evaluate the current state of the “stock under consideration” in relation to, where appropriate, stock specific target and limit reference points. The management system must evaluate the state of the stock. Whether management and conservation measures are determined for the fishery is covered in paragraph 29.4 below. The standard includes a requirement for the management system to take into account the (8)best scientific evidence available and consider relevant valid and (7)verifiable traditional, fisher and community knowledge in evaluating the state of the stocks in relation to stock-specific target and limit reference points, where appropriate. (7) Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered(8) Best scientific evidence used in management measures
29.2bis Taking due account of paragraph 32, for the “stock under consideration” the determination of suitable conservation and management measures should include or take account of:−(9)Total fishing mortality from all sources is considered in assessing the state of the “stock under consideration”, including discards, unobserved mortality, incidental mortality, unreported catches and catches in other fisheries.–Management targets are consistent with achieving (10)maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (or a suitable proxy) on average, (11)or a lesser fishing mortality if that is optimal in the circumstances of the fishery (e.g. multispecies fisheries) or (4)to avoid severe adverse impacts on (12)dependent predators.–The management system should (13)specify limits or directions in key performance indicators (see 30.2), consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing or other impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible, and specify the (14)actions to be taken if the limits are approached or the desired directions are not achieved. None The standard includes a requirement for the management system, in assessing the status of the stock under consideration and determining suitable conservation and management measures, to take account of:• (9)Total fishing mortality from all sources including discards, unobserved mortality, incidental mortality, unreported catches and catches in other fisheries.• Management targets consistent with achieving (10)MSY (or a suitable proxy) on average, (11)or a lesser fishing mortality if that is optimal in the circumstances of the fishery (e.g. multi-species fisheries) or (4)to avoid severe adverse impacts on (12)dependent predators.The standard includes a requirement for the management system to (13)specify limits or directions in key performance indicators (see Indicators under Guideline Paragraph 30.2), consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing or other impacts that are likely to be irreversible or very slowly reversible.The standard includes a requirement for the management system to determine sustainability reference points and to specify in advance remedial (14)actions to be taken if reference points are approached or exceeded or the desired directions are not achieved, including the specification of a recovery plan for stocks that become overfished. (4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(9) Total fishing mortality from all sources considered for the managed stock under consideration(10) Maximum sustainable yield or proxy used for management targets(11) Optimal utilization is promoted in management(12) Food-web ecosystem considerations considered(13) Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g. overfishing(14) Actions taken if limits approached or exceeded
29.3 Similarly, (6)data and information, including relevant (7)traditional, fisher or community knowledge, provided its validity can be objectively verified, are used to (4)identify adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and (8)timely scientific advice is provided on the likelihood and magnitude of identified impacts (see paragraph 31). The standard should assesswhether management considers ecosystem impacts. The standard includes a requirement for the management system to receive (8)timely scientific advice regarding the likelihood and magnitude of (4)adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, taking into account relevant and objectively (7)verified traditional fisher or community knowledge. (4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(6) Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed(7) Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered(8) Best scientific evidence used in management measures
29.4 The designated authorities adopt and effectively implement appropriate measures for the conservation and sustainable use of the “stock under consideration” (6)based on the data, information, and (8)scientific advice referred to in the preceding bullets. (15)Short-term considerations should not compromise the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources. Refer to the best scientific evidence available–as per Guidelines Paragraph 2.10. The standard includes a requirement for appropriate management measures for the conservation and sustainable use of the stock under consideration and the protection of the aquatic environment to be adopted and implemented, (8)based on the best scientific evidence available and the (3)precautionary approach. (3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary(6) Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed(8) Best scientific evidence used in management measures(15) Goal of long-term sustainability present
29.5 An effective legal and administrative (16)framework at the local, national or regional level, as appropriate, is established for the fishery and (17)compliance is ensured through effective mechanisms for monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement (see paragraph 6). None The standard includes a requirement for an effective (16)legal and administrative framework for the fishery, including relevant (7)traditional, fisher or community approaches, provided their performance can be objectively verified.The standard includes a requirement for suitable (17)monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement, including relevant (7)traditional, fisher or community approaches, provided their performance can be objectively verified. (7) Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered(16) Framework for fisheries at local, national or regional level(17) Compliance ensured via monitoring and enforcement
29.6 In accordance with the Code of Conduct Article 7.5, the (3)precautionary approach is being implemented to protect the “stock under consideration” and to preserve the aquatic environment. Inter alia this will require that the (8)absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures. Further, relevant uncertainties are being taken into account through a suitable method of risk assessment. (13)Appropriate reference points are determined and (14)remedial actions to be taken if reference points are approached or exceeded are specified. Precautionary Approach covered in conjunction with paragraph 29.4.Reference points covered under paragraph 29.2bis. The standard includes a requirement for relevant (3)uncertainties to be taken into account through a suitable method of risk assessment. (3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(8) Best scientific evidence used in management measures(13) Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g. overfishing(14) Actions taken if limits approached or exceeded
30. Requirement: The (18)“stock under consideration” is not overfished, and is maintained at a level which promotes the objective of (11)optimal utilization and maintains its (15)availability for present and future generations, (19)taking into account that longer term changes in productivity can occur due to natural variability and/or impacts other than fishing. In the event that biomass drops well below such (13)target levels, management measures (Code of Conduct Article 7.6) should allow for (20)restoration within reasonable time frames of the stocks to such levels (see also paragraph 29.2.bis). The following criteria are applicable: See also paragraph 29.2bis with respect to the specification of levels and a recovery plan. The standard includes an assessment of the state of the stock under consideration (see also paragraph 27)The standard includes the requirement that the (18)stock under consideration is not overfished and promotes the objective of (11)optimal utilization and maintains its (15)availability for present and future generations The standard includes a clear understanding of what is meant by overfished and overfishing, conforming to current international norms (e.g. Code of Conduct) through the (13)specification of levels (reference points).In the event that biomass drops well below a (13)specified level consistent with the objective of (11)optimal utilization and (15)availability for present and future generations (19)due to natural variability and/or impacts other than fishing, management measures (Code of Conduct Article 7.6), should allow for (20)restoration of the stocks to such levels within reasonable time frames. (11) Optimal utilization is promoted in management(13) Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g. overfishing(15) Goal of long-term sustainability present(18) Stock is not overfished(19) Long-term changes in productivity considered(20) Restoration of stocks required within reasonable timeframes
30.1 The (18) “stock under consideration” is not overfished if it is above the (13)associated limit reference point (or its proxy). If the size of the stock under consideration is above its limit reference point (or its proxy), the standard does not consider it to be overfished. None (13) Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g. overfishing(18) Stock is not overfished
30.2 If fishing mortality (or its proxy) is above the (13)associated limit reference point, (14)actions should be taken to decrease the fishing mortality (or its proxy) below that limit reference point. This language relates to the requirement for restoration of the stocks above. If management measures are in place and are working, then all should be well. If not, the certificate may need to be suspended or revoked. If fishing mortality (or its proxy) is above the (13)associated limit reference point, the standard requires (14)actions to be taken to decrease the fishing mortality (or its proxy) below that limit reference point. (13) Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g. overfishing(14) Actions taken if limits approached or exceeded
30.3 The (21)structure and composition of the “stock under consideration” which contribute to its resilience are taken into account. None The standard requires that the assessment of the stock under consideration takes into account the (21)structure and composition of that stock which contribute to its resilience. (21) Stock structure contributing to resilience considered
30.4 In the absence of specific information on the “stock under consideration”, (22)generic evidence based on similar stocks can be used for fisheries with low risk to that “stock under consideration”. However, (3)the greater the risk the more specific evidence is necessary to ascertain the sustainability of intensive fisheries. None For fisheries with low risk, when specific information on the “stock under consideration” is lacking, the standard allows for the (22)use of generic evidence based on similar stocks. (3)Where the risk is greater, the standard requires more specific evidence to ascertain the sustainability of intensive fisheries. (3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(22) Generic evidence based on similar stock situations
31. Requirement: (4)Adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem should be appropriately assessed and effectively addressed. Much greater (3)scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries than in assessing the state of target stocks. This issue can be addressed by (3)taking a “risk assessment/risk management approach”. For the purpose of development of ecolabelling schemes, the most probable adverse impacts should be considered, taking into account (6,8)available scientific information, and (7)traditional, fisher or community knowledge provided that its validity can be objectively verified. Those (4)impacts that are likely to have serious consequences should be addressed. This may take the form of an immediate management response or further analysis of the identified risk. In this context, (5)full recognition should be given to the special circumstances and requirements in developing countries and countries in transition, including financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, and training and scientific cooperation. The following criteria are to be interpreted in the context of avoiding high risk of severe adverse impacts: Basic requirement for inclusion of assessment and management of impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem covered under paragraph29.3.Could cover risk assessment procedures and recognition of special circumstances of developing countries, etc. The standard includes a requirement that (4)adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem are assessed and addressed by management, and satisfied benchmarking requirements established under paragraphs 31.1–31.3. This issue can be addressed by (3)taking a “risk assessment / risk management approach”.The standard requires that (5)full recognition is given to the special circumstances and requirements in developing countries and countries in transition with respect to the management response to serious consequences to the ecosystem, which may depend on financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, and training and scientific cooperation. (3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(5) Types and scales of fisheries considered in management(6) Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed(7) Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered(8) Best scientific evidence used in management measures
31.1 (23)Non-target catches, including discards, of stocks other than the “stock under consideration” (17)are monitored and (23)should not threaten these non-target stocks with serious risk of extinction; (14, 20)if serious risks of extinction arise, effective remedial action should be taken. None The standard includes a requirement that (23)non-target catches, including discards, (17)are monitored, and such catches (23)do not threaten these non-target stocks with serious risk of extinction.The standard requires that (14, 20)effective remedial action be taken. (14) Actions taken if limits approached or exceeded(17) Compliance ensured via monitoring and enforcement(20) Restoration of stocks required within reasonable timeframes(23) Non-target catch and discards not threatened by target fishery
31.2 (12)The role of the “stock under consideration” in the food-web is considered, and if it is a key prey species in the ecosystem, management measures are in place (4)to avoid severe adverse impacts on (12)dependent predators. None The standard requires that (12)the role of the “stock under consideration” in the food-web is considered, and if it is a key prey species in the ecosystem, management measures are in place (4)to avoid severe adverse impacts on (12)dependent predators. (4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(12) Food-web ecosystem considerations considered
31.3 There is (24)knowledge of the essential habitats for the “stock under consideration” and potential fishery impacts on them. (4)Impacts on essential habitats and on habitats that are highly vulnerable to damage by the fishing gear involved are avoided, minimized or mitigated (Code of Conduct 7.2.2; FAO 1995). In assessing fishery impacts, the full spatial range of the relevant habitat should be considered, not just that part of the spatial range that is potentially affected by fishing. None The standard includes a requirement that (4)impacts on essential habitat for the stock under consideration and on habitats that are highly vulnerable to damage by the fishing gear involved are avoided, minimized or mitigated. In assessing fishery impacts, the standard full spatial range of the relevant habitat should be considered, not just that part of the spatial range that is potentially affected by fishing. (4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(24) Knowledge of the essential habitats for managed stocks
31.4 In the absence of specific information on the (4)ecosystem impacts of fishing for the unit of certification, (22)generic evidence based on similar fishery situations can be used for fisheries with low risk of severe adverse impact. However, (3)the greater the risk the more specific evidence is necessary to ascertain the adequacy of mitigation measures. None When specific information on the (4)ecosystem impacts is lacking, the standard allows for the use of (22)generic evidence based on similar fishery situations for fisheries with low risk.(3)Where the risk of ecosystem impacts is greater, the standard requires more specific evidence to ascertain the adequacy of mitigation measures. (3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(4) Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed(22) Generic evidence based on similar stock situations
32. 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. (6,10)Use of less elaborate methods for stock assessment should not preclude fisheries from possible certification for ecolabelling. However it should be noted that, to the extent that the application of such methods results in greater uncertainty about the state of the “stock under consideration”, more (3)precautionary approaches to managing fisheries on such resources will be required which may necessitate lower levels of utilization of the resource. There is a variety of (5)management measures commonly used in small scale or low value fisheries that nonetheless can achieve quite adequate levels of protection for stocks in the face of uncertainty about the state of the resource. (2)A past record of good management performance could be considered as supporting evidence of the adequacy of the management measures and the management system. Ecolabelling schemes should have measures in place that facilitate participation by fisheries that use methods for stock assessment that are less quantitative and data demanding as approaches often used for large scale fisheries in developed countries. Certification of fisheries against the standard allows for the (6,10)consideration of fisheries whose stock status is assessed using less quantitative and data-demanding approaches, but requires fisheries that fall into this category to demonstrate more (3)precautionary approaches to management.The standard recognizes that (2)a record of good management performance can be considered as supporting evidence of the adequacy of the management measures and the management system. (2) There are documented management approaches for the “stock under consideration”(3) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(5) Types and scales of fisheries considered in management(6) Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed(10) Maximum sustainable yield or proxy used for management targets
10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.t003 “Topics of Pertinence” derived from the FAO Aquaculture Guidelines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref017">17</xref>].

“Topic of Pertinence” content is tracked as bolded and underlined text (with respective superscript) within the FAO document excerpt.

Aquaculture Guidelines Paragraph Topic(s) of Pertinence
18. Minimum substantive criteria for developing aquaculture certification standards are provided in this section for a) animal health and welfare; b) food safety; c) environmental integrity; and d) socio-economic aspects. The extent to which a certification scheme seeks to address the issues depends on the objectives of the scheme, which should be explicitly and transparently stated by the scheme. Development of certification schemes should consider the importance of being able to measure performance of aquaculture systems and practices, and the ability to assess conformity with certification standards. None
19. Aquaculture activities should be conducted in a manner that assures the health and welfare of farmed aquatic animals, by optimizing health through (1)minimizing stress, (2)reducing aquatic animal disease risks and (3)maintaining a healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle. Guidelines and standards set by OIE should be the specific normative basis. (1) Minimize stress on farmed aquatic animals(2) Reduce animal disease risk (includes introduction and transfer/spread)(3) Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised
20. Aquaculture operations should implement aquatic animal health management programmes set up in (4)compliance with relevant national legislation and regulations, taking into account the FAO CCRF Technical Guidelines on Health Management for Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals and relevant OIE standards. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards
21. (5)Movement of aquatic animals, animal genetic material and animal products should take place in accordance with the relevant provisions in the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code to (2)prevent introduction or transfer of diseases and infectious agents pathogenic to aquatic animals while (6)avoiding unwarranted sanitary measures. (2) Reduce animal disease risk (includes introduction and transfer/spread)(5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(6) Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures
22. (3)A culture environment should be maintained at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised, to (1,2)benefit aquatic animal health and welfare, and (2)reduce the risks of introduction and spread of aquatic animal diseases. In particular, by • (2)allowing for quarantining of stock where appropriate; • (7)routine monitoring of stock and environmental conditions for early detection of aquatic animal health problems; and • implementation of management practices that (3)reduce the likelihood of disease transmission (5)within and between aquaculture facilities and natural aquatic fauna, and (1)reduce stress on animals for the purpose of optimizing health. (1) Minimize stress on farmed aquatic animals(2) Reduce animal disease risk (includes introduction and transfer/spread)(3) Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised(5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(7) Routine monitoring of stock and environmental conditions
23. (6)Veterinary medicines should be used in a responsible manner and (4)in accordance with applicable national legislation or relevant international agreements that ensure effectiveness, safety of public and animal health, and protection of the environment. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(6) Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures
24. (3)Use of species in polyculture or integrated multitrophic aquaculture should be carefully considered in order to (2)reduce potential disease transmission between cultured species. (2) Reduce animal disease risk (includes introduction and transfer/spread)(3) Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised
25. Aquaculture animals should be (3)kept under farming conditions suitable for the species concerned, in particular taking into account water temperature and quality. (3) Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised
26. (8)Workers should be trained on good aquatic animal health and welfare management practices to ensure they are aware of their roles and responsibilities in maintaining aquatic animal health and welfare in aquaculture. (8) Workers should be trained on good aquatic health and hygiene
27. Aquaculture activities should be conducted in a manner that ensures food safety by (4)implementing appropriate national or international standards and regulations including those defined by FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Although Codex Alimentarius covers both safety and quality issues concerning aquatic products, for the purpose of these guidelines, quality aspects are not currently addressed in detail. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards
28. (9)Aquaculture facilities should be located in areas where the risk of contamination is minimized and where sources of pollution can be controlled or mitigated. (9) Aquaculture facilities located in areas that reduce risk of contamination and potential human health hazards
29. Where feed is used, aquaculture operations should (10)include procedures for avoiding feed contamination (4)in compliance with national regulations or as determined by internationally agreed standards. Aquaculture operations should use feeds and feed ingredients which do not contain unsafe levels of pesticides, biological, chemical and physical contaminants and/or other adulterated substances. (4,10)Feed which is manufactured or prepared on the farm should contain only substances permitted by the national competent authorities. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)
30. (6)All veterinary drugs and chemicals for use in aquaculture shall (4)comply with national regulations, as well as international guidelines. Wherever applicable, veterinary drugs and chemicals should be registered with the competent national authority. Veterinary drugs should be scheduled (classified). (6)Control of diseases with veterinary drugs and antimicrobials should be carried out only on the basis of an accurate diagnosis and knowledge that the drug is effective for control or treatment of a specific disease. In some classifications, (4)veterinary drugs may only be prescribed and distributed by personnel authorized under national regulations. All veterinary drugs and chemicals or medicated feeds should be used according to the instructions of the manufacturer or other competent authority, with particular attention to withdrawal periods. (4)Banned non-registered and/or non-permitted antimicrobial agents, veterinary drugs and/or chemicals must not be used in aquaculture production, transportation or product processing. (6)Prophylactic use of veterinary medicinal products, particularly antimicrobial agents{Antimicrobial agents do not include vaccines.}, should not take place. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(6) Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures
31. (11)Water used for aquaculture should be of a quality suitable for the production of food which is safe for human consumption. Wastewater should not be used in aquaculture. If wastewater is used, the WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater and excreta in aquaculture should be followed. (11) Water quality suitable to produce food safe for human consumption
32. The (5)source of broodstock and seed for culture (larvae, post-larvae, fry and fingerling, etc.) should be such to reduce the risk of carryover of potential human health hazards (e.g. antibiotics, parasites, etc.) into the growing stocks. (5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)
33. (12)Traceability and record-keeping of farming activities and inputs which impact food safety should be ensured by documenting, inter alia: • (5,6,10)the source of inputs such as feed, seed, veterinary drugs and antibacterials, additives, chemicals; and • (6)type, concentration, dosage, method of administration and withdrawal times of chemicals, veterinary drugs and antibacterials and the rationale for their use. (5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(6) Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)(12) Traceability and record-keeping of farming activities and inputs
34. Aquaculture facilities and operations should (3)maintain good culture and hygienic conditions, including: • Good hygiene practices in the farm surroundings should be applied aiming at (11)minimizing contamination of growing water, particularly from waste materials or faecal matter from animals or humans. • Good Aquaculture Practices should be applied during culture to (3)ensure good hygienic culture conditions and safety and quality of aquaculture produce. • (10)Farms should institute a pest control programme, so that rodents, birds and other wild and domesticated animals are controlled, especially around feed storage areas. • (10)Farm grounds should be well maintained to reduce or eliminate food and feed safety hazards. • (5)Appropriate techniques for harvesting, storing and transportation of aquaculture products should be applied to (9,11)minimize contamination and physical damage. (3) Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised(5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(9) Aquaculture facilities located in areas that reduce risk of contamination and potential human health hazards(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)(11) Water quality suitable to produce food safe for human consumption
35. (7)Identification, classification, integrated management and monitoring programmes should be implemented in bivalve molluscs growing areas to (9)prevent microbiological, chemical and reduce biotoxin contamination. (10)Relaying and depuration of bivalve molluscs to remove microbial contamination should be carried in accordance with the requirements of the Codex. (7) Routine monitoring of stock and environmental conditions(9) Aquaculture facilities located in areas that reduce risk of contamination and potential human health hazards(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)
36. (8)Workers should be trained in good hygienic practices to ensure they are aware of their roles and responsibilities for (10)protecting aquaculture products from contamination and deterioration. (8) Workers should be trained on good aquatic health and hygiene(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)
37. Aquaculture should be planned and practised in an environmentally responsible manner, (4)in accordance with appropriate local, national and international laws and regulations. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards
38. Aquaculture certification schemes should (13)encourage restoration of habitats and sites damaged by previous uses in aquaculture. (13) Encourage restoration of habitats and sites previously damaged by aquaculture
39. Aquaculture can impact on the environment and aquaculture certification schemes should (14)ensure these impacts are identified and (15)adverse impacts are managed or mitigated (16)to an acceptable level (4)in accordance with local and national laws. Whenever possible, native species should be used for culture and measures should be taken to (5)minimize unintentional release or escape of cultured species into natural environments. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(14) Identify environmental impacts(15) Adverse environmental impacts managed or mitigated(16) Benchmarks or references points for acceptable, measurable levels of environmental impact are specified
40. Management practices that address environmental impacts of aquaculture differ substantially for different types of scale of aquaculture and for different aquaculture farming systems. Certification schemes should not be overly prescriptive, but set (16)measurable benchmarks that encourage improvement and innovation in environmental performance of aquaculture. (16) Benchmarks or references points for acceptable, measurable levels of environmental impact are specified
41. Certification schemes may consider (17)application of the “precautionary approach” in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. (17) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach
42. In (17)undertaking risk analysis, risks should be addressed through a suitable (18)scientific method of assessing the likelihood of events and the magnitude of impacts, and (17)take into account relevant uncertainties. (16)Appropriate reference points should be determined and (19)remedial actions taken if reference points are approached or exceeded. (16) Benchmarks or references points for acceptable, measurable levels of environmental impact are specified(17) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(18) Scientific method used in undertaking risk analysis(19) Actions taken if environmental impact limits are approached or exceeded
43. Certification schemes should endeavour to promote the (20)internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment{Based on Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, June 1992.}. (20) Internalize environmental costs (e.g., polluter should bear the cost of pollution)
44. (14)Environmental impact assessments should be conducted, (4)according to national legislation, prior to approval of establishment of aquaculture operations. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(14) Identify environmental impacts
45. (7)Regular monitoring of on-farm and off-farm environmental quality should be carried out, combined with (12)good record-keeping and use of appropriate methodologies. (7) Routine monitoring of stock and environmental conditions(12) Traceability and record-keeping of farming activities and inputs
46. (14,15)Evaluation and mitigation of the adverse impacts on surrounding natural ecosystems, including fauna, flora and habitats should be carried out. (14) Identify environmental impacts(15) Adverse environmental impacts managed or mitigated
47. Measures should be adopted to promote efficient water management and use, as well as (21)proper management of effluents to reduce impacts on surrounding land, and water resources should be adopted. (21) Adopt efficient water management measures to reduce impacts on surrounding land and water resources (includes sourcing and effluents)
48. (5)Where possible, hatchery produced seed should be used for culture. When wild seeds are used, they should be collected using responsible practices. (5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)
49. (5)Exotic species are to be used only when they pose an acceptable level of risk to the natural environment, biodiversity and ecosystem health. (5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)
50. With reference to paragraph 9.3.1 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, (5)where genetic material of an aquatic organism has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally, (18)science-based (17)risk assessment should be used to (17)address possible risks on a case-by-case basis. Induction of polyploidy is not included. (5) Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.)(17) Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach(18) Scientific method used in undertaking risk analysis
51. (22)Infrastructure construction and waste disposal should be conducted responsibly. (22) Infrastructure construction and waste disposal conducted responsibly
52. (6,10)Feeds, feed additives, chemicals, veterinary drugs, including antimicrobials, manure and fertilizer, should be used responsibly (15)to minimize their adverse impacts on the environment and to promote economic viability. (6) Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures(10) Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control)(15) Adverse environmental impacts managed or mitigated
53. Aquaculture should be conducted in a socially responsible manner, (4)within national rules and regulations, having regard to the ILO-convention on labour rights, (23)not jeopardizing the livelihood of aquaculture workers and local communities. Aquaculture contributes to rural development, enhances benefits and equity in local communities, alleviates poverty and promotes food security. As a result, socio-economic issues should be considered at all stages of aquaculture planning, development and operation. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(23) Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay
54. The importance of (23)corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities should be recognized. (23) Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay
55. (23)Workers should be treated responsibly and (4)in accordance with national labour rules and regulations and, where appropriate, relevant ILO conventions. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(23) Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay
56. Workers should be (23)paid wages and provided benefits and working conditions (4)according to national laws and regulations. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(23) Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay
57. (23)Child labour should not be used in a manner inconsistent with (4)ILO conventions and international standards. (4) Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards(23) Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay
3.2. Testing of the assessment tools

The fishery assessment tool was applied by five entities: NOAA Fisheries [20], three CIE experts [22,23,24], and Ocean Trust. The aquaculture assessment tool was applied by one multi-stakeholder steering committee in cooperation with the authors [21]. All assessments indicated high levels of conformance with the FAO Guidelines [20,21,22,23,24].

3.2.1. NOAA Fisheries self-assessment of U.S. federal marine fisheries

The NOAA Fisheries self-assessment concluded that the U.S. federal marine fishery management system addressed all FAO “Minimum Substantive Requirements and Criteria for Ecolabelling” [20], i.e., all “Topics of Pertinence” indicated evidence of conformance (Table 4). Overall, the percentage of maximum conformance available was very high across all three evidence categories: 97% for internal evidence, 93% for outcome evidence, and 89% for independent evidence (Fig 2). In reviewing the NOAA Fisheries self-assessment, one CIE reviewer stated: “The document contained a very thorough presentation of the extent to which U.S. law and fisheries management meet the requirements of the FAO guidelines [23].

10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.t004 Summary of conformance of U.S. federal marine fisheries management to the FAO Fisheries Guidelines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref016">16</xref>] based on NOAA Fisheries self-assessment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref020">20</xref>].

“Topics of Pertinence” are extracted from the FAO Fisheries Guidelines and benchmark indicators of FAO’s Evaluation Framework [19]. Conformance of each “Topic of Pertinence” is described with ● indicating conformance verified by internal evidence, ●● by outcome evidence, and ●●● by independent evidence. Solid symbols (●) indicate strong evidence in all regions and for all fisheries under the management system’s jurisdiction, and semi-solid symbols (◒) indicate conformance with variable evidence among regions or fisheries (i.e., strong evidence in some but not in others). INT = internal evidence; OUT = outcome evidence; IND = independent evidence.

Topic of Pertinence Description Evidence
INT OUT IND
1. Management system is in compliance with relevant local, national, and international laws ● ● ●
2. There are documented management approaches for the “stock under consideration” ● ● ●
3. Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach ● ● ●
4. Ecosystem effects of fishing are assessed and adverse effects addressed ● ● ◒
5. Types and scales of fisheries considered in management ● ◒ ◒
6. Adequate/reliable data are collected, maintained and assessed ● ◒ ◒
7. Verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge considered ● ● ●
8. Best scientific evidence used in management measures ● ● ●
9. Total fishing mortality from all sources considered for the managed stock under consideration ● ● ●
10. Maximum sustainable yield or proxy used for management targets ● ● ●
11. Optimal utilization is promoted in management ● ● ●
12. Food-web ecosystem considerations considered ◒ ◒ ◒
13. Management should specify limits or directions in key performance indicators, e.g., overfishing ● ● ●
14. Actions taken if limits approached or exceeded ● ● ●
15. Goal of long-term sustainability present ● ● ●
16. Framework for fisheries at local, national or regional level ● ● ●
17. Compliance ensured via monitoring and enforcement ● ● ◒
18. Stock is not overfished ◒ ◒ ◒
19. Long-term changes in productivity considered ● ◒ ◒
20. Restoration of stocks required within reasonable timeframes ● ● ●
21. Stock structure contributing to resilience considered ● ● ●
22. Generic evidence based on similar stock situations ● ● ●
23. Non-target catch and discards not threatened by target fishery ● ● ◒
24. Knowledge of the essential habitats for managed stocks ● ● ●
10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.g002 Overall NOAA Fisheries and the two conservative combined ratings (Lowest Minimum and Consolidated Numeric).

Internal, outcome and independent evidence from Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines: A Self-Assessment [20]. NOAA Fisheries contracted three designees from the Center for Independent Experts to peer review the self-assessment and requested that each CIE Reviewer apply the same methodology to conduct an independent assessment of U.S. federal fisheries management. To consolidate the ratings provided by NOAA Fisheries and CIE assessments, two conservative approaches were applied: Lowest Minimum combined rating is the absolute lowest rating of all assessors combined; Consolidated Numeric combined rating averages ratings across reviewers.

The areas of strongest conformance (denoted by three solid symbols), included attributes of the U.S.’s participatory and science-based fishery management system, specifically:

complying with local, national and international laws

developing and abiding by documented management approaches with frameworks at local, national or regional levels

incorporating uncertainty into stock reference points and catch limits while taking actions if those limits are exceeded

taking into account the best scientific evidence in determining suitable conservation and management measures with the goal of long-term sustainability

restoring stocks within reasonable timeframes

using generic evidence of stock resilience (when necessary)

The areas to be further developed (denoted by semi-solid and/or fewer solid symbols) pertained to the lack of clear, nationwide implementation of ecosystem-based approaches to management, such as incorporating the broad role of the “stock under consideration” in the food-web, and considering long-term changes in productivity.

 3.2.2. Center for Independent Experts assessments of U.S. federal marine fisheries

Through a desk review process, the CIE produced three additional assessments of U.S. federal marine fishery management [20,22,23,24]. For some “Topics of Pertinence,” CIE reviewers rated the performance of U.S. federal fishery management higher than NOAA Fisheries did. For example, all three reviewers felt that there is strong independent evidence available that the U.S. considers types and scales of fisheries in management (Topic of Pertinence #5 of fishery assessment tool), with one CIE reviewer commenting that "Taking into account the types and scales of fisheries in fisheries management does not imply a redistribution of access rights to smaller operators…" [22] and another adding that "Lawsuits in federal and state courts to change allocation between recreational and commercial fisheries" have ensued [23]. All three reviewers also felt that there is sufficient internal evidence by U.S. federal fishery management that stocks are not overfished (Topic of Pertinence #18 of fishery assessment tool).

For some “Topics of Pertinence,” CIE reviewers rated the performance of U.S. federal fishery management lower than NOAA Fisheries did. For example, regarding whether verified traditional, fisher or community knowledge is considered in management, all three reviewers felt there is insufficient independent evidence to that claim. A CIE reviewer noted: "There are no mechanisms for including traditional, fisher or community knowledge in the scientific process. It is an add-on once the scientific advice has been produced and reviewed" [22].

 3.2.3. Assessment of U.S. Gulf of Mexico states marine fishery management

Finalized assessments based on state agency comments were submitted to the respective state agencies (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas). Detailed state assessments were not released publicly, but the state assessment process was included in presentations to fishery science conferences and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2014 Committee on Fisheries 31st Session in Rome. According to Ocean Trust, there was general overall conformance to the FAO Fisheries Guidelines.

 2.3.4. Assessment of U.S. aquaculture management

The assessment indicated that the U.S. aquaculture management system addresses all the FAO’s “Minimum Substantive Criteria” [21]; all “Topics of Pertinence” were supported by evidence of conformance (Table 5). The areas of strongest conformance (i.e., “Topics of Pertinence” given full solid circle ratings unanimously by the steering committee and authors for internal, outcome, and independent evidence) include attributes of the U.S. management system’s participatory and science-based aquaculture management system, specifically:

compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards

responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures

aquaculture facilities located in areas that reduce risk of contamination and potential human health hazards

aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated

water quality suitable to produce food safe for human consumption

identification of environmental impacts

adverse environmental impacts managed or mitigated

scientific method used in undertaking risk analysis

actions taken if environmental impact limits are approached or exceeded

adoption of efficient water management measures to reduce impacts on surrounding land and water resources

infrastructure construction and waste disposal conducted responsibly

recognizing corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay

 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.t005 Summary of conformance of U.S. aquaculture management to the FAO Aquaculture Guidelines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref017">17</xref>] based on an assessment conducted by a multi-stakeholder steering committee and the authors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="pstr.0000124.ref021">21</xref>].

“Topics of Pertinence” are extracted from the FAO Aquaculture Guidelines. Conformance of each “Topic of Pertinence” is described with ● indicating conformance verified by internal evidence, ●● by outcome evidence, and ●●● by independent evidence. Solid symbols (●) indicate strong evidence in all regions and for all sectors under U.S. management jurisdiction, semi-solid symbols (◒) indicate conformance with variable evidence among regions or sectors (i.e., strong evidence in some but not in others), and empty symbols (○) indicate lack of evidence. INT = internal evidence; OUT = outcome evidence; IND = independent evidence.

Topic of Pertinence Description Evidence
INT OUT IND
1. Minimize stress on farmed aquatic animals ◒ ● ●
2. Reduce animal disease risk (includes introduction and transfer/spread) ● ● ●
3. Maintain healthy culture environment at all phases of the production cycle adapted to the species raised ● ● ●
4. Compliance with relevant local, national, or international legislation, regulations, and standards ● ● ●
5. Movement and sourcing of cultured species and derivatives (includes minimizing escape and invasive spp.) ● ● ●
6. Routine monitoring of stock and environmental conditions ● ● ●
7. Responsible use of veterinary medicines, chemicals, sanitary measures ● ● ●
8. Workers should be trained on good aquatic health and hygiene ● ● ◒
9. Aquaculture facilities located in areas that reduce risk of contamination and potential human health hazards ● ● ●
10. Aquatic animal feed safety hazards reduced or eliminated (includes sourcing and pest control) targets ● ● ●
11. Water quality suitable to produce food safe for human consumption ● ● ●
12. Traceability and record-keeping of farming activities and inputs which impact food safety and environmental quality ● ● ●
13. Encourage restoration of habitats and sites previously damaged by aquaculture ◒ ● ◒
14. Identify environmental impacts ● ● ●
15. Adverse environmental impacts managed or mitigated ● ● ●
16. Benchmarks or reference points for acceptable, measurable levels of environmental impact are specified ● ● ●
17. Uncertainty taken into account via risk assessment or precautionary approach ● ● ●
18. Scientific method used in undertaking risk analysis ● ● ●
19. Actions taken if environmental impact limits are approached or exceeded ● ● ●
20. Internalize environmental costs (e.g., polluter should bear the cost of pollution) ◒ ◒ ○
21. Adopt efficient water management measures to reduce impacts on surrounding land and water resources (includes sourcing and effluents) ● ● ●
22. Infrastructure construction and waste disposal conducted responsibly ● ● ●
23. Recognize corporate social responsibility from aquaculture to local communities by ensuring fair labor treatment and pay ● ● ●

The areas to be further developed (i.e., semi-solid or empty symbols) pertain to more explicitly formalizing guidance for minimizing stress on all types of farmed aquatic animals; providing measures to better enable independent verification that workers are trained on good aquatic health and hygiene; proposing incentives to encourage restoration of habitats and sites previously damaged by aquaculture; and establishing policies to internalize the environmental costs of aquaculture operations.

 4. Discussion

We designed a system approach to assessing the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, which rather than focusing on individual fisheries or aquaculture operations, focuses on evaluating overarching management systems. We based our assessment framework on FAO guidance documents often referred to in the determination of whether fishery and aquaculture operations are sustainable. We tested our tools and methodology by applying them to the U.S. federal marine fishery management system, U.S. state fishery management systems, and to U.S. aquaculture management. All assessments indicated high levels of conformance with criteria set forth by FAO.

4.1. “Topic of Pertinence” approach to tracking FAO criteria

The FAO Guidelines are written in such a way that makes systematic scoring of conformance difficult [20], as noted similarly for the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries [25,26]. Therefore, in 2010 the FAO conducted an Expert Consultation to develop an evaluation framework to assess the conformity of ecolabelling schemes with the FAO Fisheries Guidelines [19]. The Evaluation Framework contains a description of “benchmark indicators” that assessors may use to document conformance with the Guidelines. However, benchmark indicators in the Evaluation Framework are not well defined, are duplicative in places, and are not numbered or cataloged, which makes a conformance assessment using these indicators particularly difficult to perform and track.

The conformance assessment tools presented here identify “Topics of Pertinence,” which are key concepts and principles derived directly from the FAO Guidelines and the Evaluation Framework (Tables 2 and 3). Because these FAO documents are internally redundant, similar key concepts and principles reoccur within multiple guidelines or benchmark indicators, respectively. Consolidating key concepts into “Topics of Pertinence” provides an efficient assessment process without losing the substance of the FAO Guidelines. The “Topics of Pertinence” approach thus provides a concise and straightforward assessment strategy against broader language common within United Nations and FAO documents − decreasing the likelihood that evidence for claims of ‘in compliance’ with the FAO Guidelines will be hidden in the details of the overarching text, an issue identified in a FAO briefing document on the utilization of the FAO’s Evaluation Framework for assessing conformance of ecolabeling schemes with FAO Fisheries Guidelines [27]. Like the FAO Evaluation Framework, the current methodology does not weight benchmark indicators.

This conformance assessment methodology is qualitative in nature, as it relies on assessors to identify relevant evidence and rate “Topics of Pertinence.” As a result, the assessment process is susceptible to scoring bias [28,29,30,31]. To mitigate such bias, the phrasing of each “Topic of Pertinence” mirrors the text from the FAO Guidelines and Evaluation Framework (Tables 2 and 3) as closely as practicable to reiterate FAO’s intent, guide assessors, and reduce subjectivity. It is also recommended that assessments and ratings be peer reviewed by independent experts, as we arranged for the NOAA Fisheries self-assessment. Beyond peer review, other strategies can be applied such as employing multiple assessors and merging ratings using a Delphi-method [32,33], which is a structured process for gathering feedback from a panel of experts anonymously through a series of surveys leading to a collective decision.

 4.2. Applicability of a system approach to assessing sustainability

The use of system assessments in food production has a long history that created the foundation upon which food safety analyses in the United States and around the world rely. System assessments for food production were conceived in the 1960s when the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) asked the Pillsbury Company to design and manufacture the first foods for space flights [15]. NASA’s use of critical control points in engineering management was adapted to identifying and controlling critical control points in food production. The importance of critical control points in food production systems was further highlighted at a 1971 National Conference on Food Protection and used by Pillsbury to organize the first training program on Food Safety through the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System in 1972 [15,34]. The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the use of HACCP compliance audits in place of infrequent and brief food processing site inspections to verify compliance with HACCP criteria in 1982 [15,35]. The application of HACCP to seafood production began shortly thereafter in the early 1980s and led to a global shift in how seafood safety is evaluated: from inspections on the condition of individual end products to a system-based assessment under a HACCP approach.

A system approach to sustainability offers the same potential benefit that seafood safety now enjoys with high compliance across the global seafood production market. The most recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration Evaluation of the Seafood HACCP Program for Fiscal Years 2006–2014 shows that 80 percent of domestic processors are in compliance with HACCP food safety requirements and 81 percent of foreign processors exporting seafood to the United States are in conformance with HACCP requirements [36]. HACCP is a system-based assessment program to ensure food safety that shares the responsibility with seafood producers to be trained in seafood safety criteria and establish HACCP plans. All seafood producers that are HACCP compliant have quality control personnel, many who now also assume responsibility for seafood sustainability. Shifting the responsibility for sustainable seafood production to each individual producer offers the industry an opportunity to be involved in meeting sustainability goals and reduces the inspection burden of certifiers to focus audits on the compliance documents for all producers. Like HACCP, this will require the development and introduction of a training program based on FAO criteria for the development of sustainability plans and implemented globally following the HACCP model.

 4.3. Applicability of the current assessment tools and methodology

Incorporating a “top-down” approach to sustainability can enable significant steps to strengthen management systems that have been identified as having gaps in conformance with FAO criteria. In these cases, operations within such management systems could be subject to additional sustainability provisions or conditions, such as more frequent audits, much as in the tiered risk-based approach required under HACCP. In addition to the structured framework that enables evaluation of entire management systems and identification of paths to increased conformance with FAO criteria, additional analyses may be useful to provide greater specificity and clarity needed to address shortcomings (e.g., white papers on specific “Topics of Pertinence” for which there is variable or insufficient conformance evidence). Policymakers, managers, and civil society may identify and consider undertaking a range of actions that can result in full conformance, which could range from less-resource intensive and more feasible actions to major government action that require a broad base of support from its constituency. These may include the development of decision-support tools for use by managers; enhancing, expanding, or creating new management programs or capabilities; reforming or developing new policies or guidance documents; or major changes such as new or revised regulations or legislation.

Our approach is not about competing with traditional ecolabelling or certification schemes: those approaches have merit for the fisheries and aquaculture operations that apply them. Rather, as similarly described for the FAO Evaluation Framework [19], our approach may allow assessment by management systems or third parties that have interest in improving the conformity of a management system with the FAO Guidelines. As described for FAO’s A Checklist for Fisheries Resource Management Issues Seen from the Perspective of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries [25], the assessment tool may be used “as a focus for discussion by those concerned with management of a given fishery, to be sure that the relevant issues are touched upon” or “for seeing that the fishery in question meets the requirements… which can be updated regularly to see whether progress is being made in approximating the fisheries management system currently in place.” This methodology can be applied at multiple levels of the management system from the national level (or higher), to regional, state/provincial, or local management plan levels. Users may include governments, consumers, retailers, processors or harvesters [19]. We invite other researchers and practitioners to gauge the applicability of the methodology to new contexts, particularly to non-U.S. fisheries and aquaculture management systems such as those of developing world countries with emerging management systems.

 5. Conclusion

The assessment methodology presented in this paper provides a means for evaluating management systems to minimum substantive criteria of sustainability put forth by the FAO. This approach is the only comprehensive assessment process based on the FAO Evaluation Framework for evaluating the sustainable performance of management and governance systems while tracking evidence of compliance/conformance that upholds that performance. This process provides a significant tool for assessing management systems to systematically document, communicate, and guide sustainability.

A system approach to sustainability may offer a means to achieve higher conformance to FAO Guidelines in global production. FAO has established an evaluation framework to assess conformance to sustainability criteria that this project refined and tested to show that assessing management systems is an effective tool to evaluate sustainability. Like food safety and the HACCP model, a system approach based on training and producer-developed sustainability plans shares responsibility with the industry that may provide similar comprehensive advancements in seafood sustainability.

 Supporting information Development of FAO Guidelines for fisheries and aquaculture.

(DOCX)

This work was inspired by recommendations from the 2010 and 2012 Science and Sustainability Forums hosted by Ocean Trust and the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2015 pilot application of the methodology in “Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines: A Self-Assessment” authored by Michelle L. Walsh, Galen R. Tromble, Wesley S. Patrick, and Wendy E. Morrison from the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries. For the fisheries assessment tool, numerous colleagues from within NOAA Fisheries contributed their knowledge and guidance to the formulation and clearance of this assessment. International perspectives on the structure and methodology of the framework were supplied by Greg Schneider, Dean Swanson, Mark Wildman, Ross Shotten, Grimur Valdimarsson, Jorge Csirke, Richard Beamish, and Kevin Sullivan. Additional feedback on our approach was provided by Randy Rice and Steve Cadrin. External peer review of the NOAA Fisheries self-assessment was conducted by Susan Hanna, Cynthia M. Jones, and Jean-Jacques Maguire via the Center for Independent Experts. A dedicated steering committee helped identify and phrase “Topics of Pertinence” for the aquaculture assessment tool as well as apply it to U.S. aquaculture: Benjamin Beck, Robert Bullis, Susan Bunsick, John Hargreaves, Gene Kim, Robert Rheault, Tj Tate, Michael Tlusty, Jonathan van Senten, and Paul Zajicek. Administrative staff at both the College of the Florida Keys (Jonathan Gueverra, Heather Margiotta, Patrick Rice, John Rouge, Brittany Snyder) and The Nature Conservancy (Luann Rudolph, Tiffany Waters) were vital to the flow and completion of the project. We are forever grateful to Christopher Morett of Co|Here Campus and Workplace for his review and editing acumen in making this manuscript more readable to a general audience.

 References Sainsbury KJ. Review of Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Products from Capture Fisheries, and Recommended Minimum Substantive Requirements. Report for the Expert Consultation on Ecolabelling Guidelines for Fish and Fishery Products, Rome. 2008 March 3–5. WCED. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International Co-operation: Environment. 1987 August 2. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 1987 December 11. Lassen T, Shotten R, Valdimarsson G, Csirke J. Assessing Coastal State Fishery Management Systems. Terms of Reference. Briefing Note on the FAO Framework Assessment. Ocean Trust. Reston, VA. 2013. Ethier V. Certification–Is It Worth The Cost? Aquaculture North America. 2014 December 29 [Cited 2023 September 3]. Available from: https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/certification-is-it-worth-the-cost-1179/ Marine Stewardship Council. Celebrating Sustainable Seafood: The Marine Stewardship Council Annual Report 2022–23. 2023. Available from: https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/about-the-msc/msc-annual-report-2022-2023.pdf Bush SR, Belton B, Hall D, Vandergeest P, Murray FJ, Ponte S, et al. Certify Sustainable Aquaculture? Science. 2013; 341: 1067–1068. Aquaculture Stewardship Council. Setting The Standard for Seafood Annual Impacts Report (2022). 2022. Available from: https://asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Annual-Impacts-Report-2022.pdf Global Seafood Alliance. Annual Report 2022. [Cited 2024 July 19]. Available from: https://info.globalseafood.org/2022-annual-report COFI (Committee on Fisheries ‐ Fisheries and Aquaculture Department). Governing and Statutory Bodies Website. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. [Cited 19 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/gsbhome/committee-fi/en/ FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 ‐ Meeting the sustainable development goals. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Italy. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. ISBN 978-92-5-130562-1. 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf FAO. FAO yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2017/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des pêches et de l’aquaculture 2017/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca y acuicultura 2017. Rome/Roma. 2019. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fishery/static/Yearbook/YB2017_USBcard/booklet/CA5495T_web.pdf USDA. 2017 Census of Agriculture: 2018 Census of Aquaculture. Volume 3. Special Studies. Part 2 AC-17-SS-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Services. 2019. Available from: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/Aqua.pdf FAO. National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Geographic profiles. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Italy. [Cited 2024 July 19]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/naso/search Sperber WH, Stier RF. Happy 50th Birthday to HACCP: Retrospective and Prospective. Food Safety Magazine. 2010;15: 44–46. [Cited 2023 September 3]. Available from: http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2009january-2010/happy-50th-birthday-to-haccp-retrospective-and-prospective/ FAO. Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 2009. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/i1119t/i1119t.pdf FAO. Technical guidelines on aquaculture certification. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 2011. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2296t.pdf FAO. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 1995. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/v9878e/V9878E.pdf FAO. Report of the Expert Consultation to develop an FAO evaluation framework to assess the conformity of public and private ecolabelling schemes with the FAO ‘Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries’, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 958. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Italy. 2010. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2021e/i2021e00.pdf Walsh ML, Tromble GR, Patrick WS, Morrison WE. Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines: A Self-Assessment. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-1, 2015. doi: 10.7289/VSDF6P70 Available from: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/9062 Walsh, ML, Jones RC, Thorbjørnsen TL. Comparative Analysis of U.S. Aquaculture Management to the FAO Certification Guidelines: An Assessment. 2023 [Cited 2023 September 3]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/view/usaquacultureassessment Maguire J. External Independent Peer Review of the Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines. For the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). CIE Peer Review Reports. Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. Available from: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Quality-Assurance/documents/peer-review-reports/2014/2014_10_31%20Maguire%20US-FAO%20ecolabelling%20review%20report.pdf Jones CM. Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines. External Independent Peer Review Prepared for Center for Independent Experts (CIE). CIE Peer Review Reports. Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. Available from: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Quality-Assurance/documents/peer-review-reports/2014/2014_10_31%20Jones%20US-FAO%20ecolabelling%20review%20report.pdf Hanna S. Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Fishery Management to the FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines Completed for the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). CIE Peer Review Reports. Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. Available from: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Quality-Assurance/documents/peer-review-reports/2014/2014_10_31%20Hanna%20US-FAO%20ecolabelling%20review%20report.pdf Caddy JF. A Checklist for Fisheries Resource Management Issues Seen from the Perspective of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Series title: FAO Fisheries Circular ‐ C917. 1996. W3140/E. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w3140e/w3140e00.htm Pitcher TJ, Kalikoski D, Pramod G. Evaluations of compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Executive Summary, Introduction, and Methods. Fisheries Centre Research Reports. 2006;14(2). Available from: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/facultyresearchandpublications/52383/items/1.0058147 FAO. Evidence on utilization of the FAO Draft Evaluation Framework and the economic impact from ecolabelling on returns to the fisheries sector. Briefing document for Sub-Committee on Fish Trade. Committee on Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bergen, Norway. 2014 February 24–28. COFI:FT/XIV/2014/Inf.9 Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/bc431e Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press; 1982. Janis I. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin Company; 1983. VonWinterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press; 1986. Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tverskey A. Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press; 1988. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management. 2004;42: 15–29. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2006;73: 467–482. Atkin L, Bauman H, Jezeski J, Silliker J. Prevention of contamination of commercially processed foods. In: Proceedings of the 1971 National Conference on Food Protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1972. pp. 57–83. National Research Council Committee on Food Protection. An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food Ingredients. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985. FDA. FDA’s Evaluation of the Seafood HACCP Program for Fiscal Years 2006–2014. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. College Park, MD. [Cited 2019 August 26]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/130272/download 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.r001 Decision Letter 0 Spínola Hélder Academic Editor Gasparatos Alexandros Section Editor 2024 Spínola, Gasparatos This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

22 Nov 2023

PSTR-D-23-00112

Framework Assessment of Sustainability: Methodology for Evaluating the Conformance of Fishery and Aquaculture Management Systems to FAO Guidelines

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Walsh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Although the paper’s language is fluent and thematically it fits within PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, from an Editorial perspective it does not convey well what is done and what is the academic importance.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Jan 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alexandros Gasparatos

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The paper develops qualitive tools to enable a straightforward cross-checking of whether the requirements and provisions of national fisheries and aquaculture programmes/initiatives reflect broadly accepted sustainability practices/principles in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

The paper’s language is fluent and thematically it fits within PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. However, from an Editorial perspective I found that it does not convey well what is done and what is the academic importance (especially for non-expert readers considering the broad audience of PLOS Sustainability and Transformation).

Overall, focusing on these Editorial aspects, the paper would require Major Revisions to increase clarity and articulate its academic importance. Below I offer some of the main comments, but the Authors are recommended to think much more broadly about the readability of their paper.

Scope and research approach

The paper is quite well-written but, in my opinion, is unnecessarily wordy and uses unnecessarily complicated language. After reading the paper multiple times, two very basic things are still not clear to me.

First, what is the qualitative assessment tool(s). Is the assessment tool the distillation of the requirements found in the FAO guidelines in the simple propositions (called topics of pertinence) outlined in Tables 1-2? Or is it something else? There needs to be very clear articulation of what is the assessment tool at least in the Abstract, end of Introduction, and Methodology, as well as rest of paper (where necessary).

Second, it is not clear whether the Authors (a) undertook the conformance assessment, distillation of topics of pertinence and developed the tools on their own, (b) organized multi-stakeholder processes to undertake the conformance assessments, or (c) report on the findings of such conformance assessment processes undertook by other entities. The tone throughout the paper implies (a)+(b), but when reading some parts of the Methods and Results it feels like (c).

If the Authors did the conformance assessment they should clearly explain how this was done in the Methodology and reflect it properly in the Results. Towards this end, the paper would require some additions in the Results and a good streamlining of the Methodology. I provide comments for both below.

Results section

If the Authors developed the conformance assessment tools, this should be included in a new dedicated first sub-section of the Results, built around a more summary version of Table 1-2 (see also comments below).

My understanding is that current Section 3.1 and 3.2 are the testing of the assessment tools through two different case studies. In this case the current content is fine (though still clear who did and what), but should be come as different sub-sections under the same sub-section (e.g. 3.2 Testing of the assessment tools).

When it comes to Table 1-2, please consider that in their current length they are unreadable. Tables 3-4 are much easier to navigate. One possibility could be to have in Tables 1-2 only the number of paragraph in 1st column and add the full formulation in the Supplementary Material. Consider also summarizing to some extent the content of Columns 2-3.

Methodology section

The methods section needs substantial streamlining. A lot of information does not relate to Methodology (but is background information), while at the same time significant methodological information about the development of the assessment tools is missing or found in other parts of the text.

First, start the methodology with a sub-section (called Research Approach or similar) that outlines the broader research approach and the basic steps you followed. This can be complemented with a Figure that can help the reader navigate what was done. The sub-sequent sub-sections should contain comprehensive information about the data collection and analysis processes for each step.

Second, for the sub-section that describes the development of the assessment tool please describe how the topics of pertinence were identified and distilled by the Authors. Was it done though expert judgment, thematic coding or did you follow some other protocol/methodology. Who extracted the themes (e.g. first Author, all authors), and what steps were taken within the team to ensure validity, avoid bias, avoid overlapping, etc.

Third, for the sub-section that describes the testing, please provide more information how this was done. Did the Authors design the workshops? Did the workshops use their assessment tool? All of these are very unclear. This might require moving some of the material found in Results.

Somewhere in the Methodology please create a Table outlining the main documents used in this study (i.e. the base FAO documents, etc). This should include the title of the document, some basic information about the content, and a reference. This will be important for the non-expert reader to be able to refer back and understand what is discussed at any given point of the paper.

Beyond the above please consider omitting current section 2.1. This does not contain sustainability criteria but the timeline of the FAO Guidelines and other base documents. Consider instead of text either (a) moving to a Box in the Supplementary Material, (b) creating a figure and moving in Introduction with minimal explanation (1-2 sentences). The latter would be more preferable as the paper is already very wordy.

Academic contribution and Discussion

While the practical and policy relevance of this work can be substantial, the academic originality and contribution is not clear. In contrast to PLOS One, originality is a criterion for publication

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/journal-information

The Authors should add a paragraph in the Introduction on the main knowledge gaps with proper citations, and revisit some of this in the Discussion. Personally, a large part of the Discussion does not seem to undertake a critical discussion of the final results (e.g. Section 4.1-4.3) but read more like background information. Section 4.4-4.5 contain a lot of interesting information and views that can form the basis of a good Discussion, but again it is difficult to follow, as it is unclear from previous steps what was done and how. Some better streamlining of this content and cross-referencing with the Results (together with the streaming in Methodology and Results) can reflect the results and academic importance better.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

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

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

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

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper by Walsh et al. outlined a qualitatitive framework for evaluating the sustainability of fishery and aquaculture management to the FAO guidelines. The topics of pertinence derived from the FAO Aquaculture provided a very concise summary for comprehending the FAO guidelines in securing sustainable seafood supply, which offered novel knowledge. The considered indicators and use of internal, outcome and independent evidence were highly duplicable to other fisheries/aquaculture systems. I have no comments for this version. The only suggestion would be to condense Table 3 and 4 somehow, as they are across several pages at the moment.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a methodological tool inspired by the HACCP model to qualitatively assess compliance with the minimum substantive criteria for sustainability proposed by FAO. The value of the tool lies in having synthesized the discourse contained in the FAO guidelines into short phrases “Topic of pertinence” that allow a qualitative assessment of the approach of fisheries and aquaculture systems towards sustainability. Although, it would be desirable to scale up to a more quantitative assessment.

I agree with the authors that this tool may be used “as a focus for discussion by those concerned with management of a given fishery, to be sure that the relevant issues are touched upon” or “for seeing that the fishery in question meets the requirements…, which can be updated regularly to see whether progress is being made in approximating the fisheries management system currently in place to its provisions.” The same uses hold true for aquaculture. The current methodology can be applied at multiple levels of the management system from the national-level systems, to a regional, state/provincial, or local management plan level. Users may include governments, consumers, retailers, processors or harvesters.

Brief comments

Line 136

The word "through" is repeated, please correct

2.1 Sustainability criteria

The heading should be modified as it does not correspond to the content of the section. The sustainability criteria are not marked, only reference is made to the documents that provide the basis for the FAO guidelines.

Line 281

It is recommended to include a brief description of the Delphi-method

Please include the section: Data availability statement

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

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jiménez-Badillo Maria de Lourdes

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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version 1

31 Jul 2024

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers [PSTR-D-23-00112].docx

 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000124.r003 Decision Letter 1 Spínola Hélder Academic Editor Omotayo Abiodun Olusola Section Editor 2024 Spínola, Omotayo This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

15 Aug 2024

Framework Assessment of Sustainability: Methodology for Evaluating the Conformance of Fishery and Aquaculture Management Systems to FAO Guidelines

PSTR-D-23-00112R1

Dear Dr. Walsh,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Framework Assessment of Sustainability: Methodology for Evaluating the Conformance of Fishery and Aquaculture Management Systems to FAO Guidelines' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Hélder Spínola, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):