FishSource is a publicly available online resource on the sustainability status of fisheries and fish stocks. FishSource consolidates and summarizes the main scientific and technical information needed by seafood buyers to gauge the sustainability of the fisheries they are sourcing from and take actions to help improve them.
FishSource is directed at seafood businesses in order to help them source sustainable product and encourage improvements towards more sustainable practices in the fisheries they source from.
FishSource compiles and summarizes publicly available scientific and technical information about the status of fisheries, seafood stocks and aquaculture production industries into an easily interpretable form. It aims to make this information more accessible to seafood buyers and help them take actions to improve the sustainability of the seafood they purchase.
No. FishSource provides both qualitative and quantitative information about specific variables which are key across international standards of fisheries’ sustainability such as biomass and fishing mortality levels, impact of fishing upon habitat or bycatch, but does not define a level above which a fishery is “sustainable.” FishSource leaves it to the users of the FishSource data to do that themselves, according to whichever standard of definition of sustainability they are using. FishSource is like a thermometer – it reports a reading, but it’s up to the user to determine whether its “too hot, too cold, or just right”.
FishSource is maintained and content is added using funding from a variety of sources.
Philanthropic foundations and corporate partner funding were essential to FishSource’s early development and growth. These two groups continue to fund FishSource, with the recent addition of international development agencies as a funder. Increasingly, seafood companies (e.g., suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors) are funding FishSource to ensure unbiased and high quality evaluations conducted by independent analysts are available in the public domain.
FishSource pools sponsorship from SFP corporate partners and Seafood Metrics customers to update the FishSource scores for the main Target 75 fisheries, and some additional fisheries that supply a large number of our partners. This approach ensures baseline sustainability information is available for the largest possible number of fisheries our partners are working to improve.
FishSource seeks additional funding from Supply Chain Roundtable (SR) participating companies to develop comprehensive profiles for the Target 75 fisheries each roundtable is working on. This gives SRs a rich understanding of the fisheries they are working to improve, and a way to independently verify the progress being delivered by improvement efforts they are supporting.
SFP works with other donors to fill in gaps in the completeness of these Target 75 FishSource profiles.
Profiles for all other fisheries are developed based on funding and interest from foundation donors, international development agencies, NGOs, seafood companies and others.
FishSource is committed to providing the highest possible quality data on fisheries. Our controls include:
If we are made aware that there is incorrect or missing information in a profile, we take the following corrective steps depending on the situation:
If the mistake or omission has been raised by a comment on the profile supported by reliable public sources, we will respond publicly to that comment, acknowledging and detailing what actions have been taken, if any. We review all comments quickly and aim to respond within 2-3 days. Comments remain public on the profile, even after the issue has been resolved.
Most profiles are developed or updated by our established internal team of scientists, using only publicly, reliable sources of information. All of our methodology is public and our scores are based on internationally accepted measures of fisheries' sustainability such as biomass and fishing mortality levels. Whenever the data is available, the scores are determined quantitatively, using objective scoring algorithms, detailed in the guidance. Also ensuring transparency, all sections display the date of last update and all sources used are cited and listed as references, and must be publicly available. Our commenting feature allows anyone to post public comments or questions on any of our profiles, which if supported by reliable public sources will trigger a review of the accuracy of the content. We encourage an open debate on the content in our profiles, and all comments, moderated for spam and relevance, and responses, remain public on the profile.
As our capacity to develop or update profiles is constrained by the small size of our team, we started a program to allow companies to pay for the development of profiles of particular interest to them which are not currently on our priority list. We have recently update the program but continue to maintain and grow a roster of trained and approved contractors who are available to work on FishSource content in a fishery within their area of expertise, when interest arises from a company. All communications and transactions now take place entirely through SFP, with no contact between the requesting company and the contractor, and neither's identity is disclosed to the other. Content developed by the contractor is always reviewed by internal staff for quality and clarity and is not accepted until any and all questions raised by the reviewer are resolved.
Our proposed general citation for FishSource is:
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP).[Name of profile]. FishSource profile. In: FishSource [online]. Updated [DD Month YYYY]. Accessed [DD Month YYYY].
The citation for a specific FishSource profile can be generated by clicking the "Cite this profile" button on the top right-hand corner of any profile.
FishSource profiles are named as:
Common name of taxon – name of resource
The lowest taxonomic level possible is used, preferably a species. When species are not differentiated in catches or assessments, structuring a profile at a higher taxon, such as genus or family, may be inevitable. Wherever possible, the common name in English from FAO’s ASFIS list is used. Occasionally, where more recent taxonomic knowledge supersedes the latest version of ASFIS, or where no common name is defined, other names may be used instead.
Whenever the biological stock structure is known, this will be chosen as the resource. When the stock is unknown but an assessment is available, this assessment unit is considered as the resource. When the stock structure is unknown and no assessment is performed, the resource is structured at the management level.
FishSource strives to use the best available science and, whenever possible, structures its information around biological stocks, as this is the level at which status is most reliably assessed and management measures are most effective. FishSource then captures a further level of information, including the fisheries operating on that stock and their impacts on its sustainability and the sustainability of the surrounding ecosystem. Profiles are structured to allow users two different perspectives. One is to view general content on a particular resource and on the multiple fisheries which may operate on it; the other is to focus on a specific fishery and to approach the effects on the resource from this perspective.
Besides providing a choice of perspective, FishSource also allows users access to information at the depth they require. Scientific and technical numerical data and narrative content are available on the main aspects of sustainability, and this information is further summarized into FishSource scores – simple indicators of stock status, management effectiveness, and fishers’ compliance, reflecting internationally accepted standards of these metrics.
FishSource scores provide users with simplified indicators of how fisheries are performing according to globally accepted measures of sustainability. Scores 1 to 3 reflect the quality of the management and scores 4 and 5 communicate the state of the resource. Scores on environmental impacts of the fishery are under development and will be rolled out soon. The scores are each calculated on a scale from zero to ten with information obtained from stock assessment reports and from management measures adopted in the fishery. By identifying strengths and challenges in the fishery, they can help to prioritize and implement improvements needed in the fishery.
Cut-off points of “6” and “8” on the scores’ scale intend to map to scores of “60” and “80” in the more detailed and nuanced MSC standard, reflecting “acceptable standard but with improvements required” and “unconditional pass,” respectively.
To learn more about how scores were derived or how they relate to the MSC system you may download a pdf document here.
In general, when quantitative date is available from the fishery, the stock and management scores are determined using algorithms that evaluate ratios of that data. For example, the score on current stock health evaluates B/BMSY or proxies, and the score on future stock health evaluates F/FMSY or proxies. The score on management strategy evaluates fishing mortality-based harvest control rules. Managers' compliance is scored by comparing management set catch limits to scientific advice on those limits. And fishers' compliance compares catches from the fishery to those set catch limits. These quantitative scores will display with one decimal place.
When data is not available to allow scores to be determined quantitatively, or if those scores need to be overridden due to contradictory information, we may still be able to assign qualitative scores. As less data implies less precision, these are assigned one of three categorical scores: <6, ≥6 or ≥8. These scores are on the same scale of zero to ten as the quantitative scores.
You can find more information on FishSource's scoring methodology in our public Guidance for Analysts here.
When research into a fishery reveals that there is no information available, either recent or old, that would allow a score to be determined, a status of "data deficient" is assigned to that score. This could mean that either information is available but is not publicly available, or that management or assessments are lacking. A 'data deficient' score is distinct to a score displaying a message of "not yet scored", which means research has not yet been conducted by FishSource analysts in order to develop a score. If this is displaying on a profile of interest to you, you may consider contracting the development of that profile content by an SFP-approved analyst. For more information, please email [email protected]
A message of "not yet scored" displayed under a score means research has not yet been conducted by FishSource analysts in order to develop that score. If this is displaying on a profile of interest to you, we have program whereby industry can pay to have an SFP-approved analyst develop a FishSource profile on a fishery. For more information, please email [email protected]
This message is distinct to a status of "data deficient" assigned to a score. The latter means that research into a fishery has revealed that there is no information available, either recent or old, that would allow a score to be determined. This could mean that either information is available but is not publicly available, or that management or assessments are lacking.
Because the official public statistics they rely upon may have different official publication dates. Additionally, estimates of different variables from stock assessments often are produced with different time lags (see also the FAQ "How often are FishSource wild capture profiles updated?").
FishSource scores have so far covered the quality of a fishery’s management and the status of the stock, but impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem were previously only addressed in a profile’s narrative content. The new environmental scores add to the existing scores and address this additional, important aspect of fisheries’ sustainability. The new scores evaluate the impact of the fishery on bycatch species, including endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species, effects on the marine habitat, and on ecosystem structure and function. Subscores for each of these three components cover the availability of information, the scale of impacts and how managers address and mitigate any impacts.
The new scores are starting to be added to FS profiles as these are updated, so the number of profiles with the new scores is currently small but starting to grow.
The scoring methodology is publicly available and can be consulted here. If you have any comments or questions around the environmental scores, please use the commenting tool available on every profile or contact us here.
They are similar to the existing FishSource scores used to measure the ecological management and status of fisheries, but in this case they compare and track a fishery’s social and economic status and performance. These scores are generated — as our ecological scores — from a 'desktop' analysis using only publicly available information. We recognise that the data needed to fully evaluate the socio-economic status of fisheries is often unavailable, outdated, or very difficult to find. However, SFP believes that increasing transparency of these issues and discussing areas for improvement will benefit the sustainability of fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
The scores are currently in a pilot-testing phase, only being applied to a small subset of fisheries. Please use the contact feature of this site to share your thoughts on the methodology, application of the tool, where better/other data can be found, etc.
A detailed methodology and additional context for the socio-economic scores is available here.
SFP prioritizes updating profiles that are part of the Target 75 initiative, are in active use by SFP’s current retail, restaurant, or supplier partners, or that are part of fishery improvement projects (FIPs) or supplier roundtables (SRs) that are important to SFP’s strategy. Profiles in this priority list are updated annually, with the update timed based on the planned publication dates of new assessment and management information. Many other profiles that do not fulfill these criteria may be out of date.
Each section of a FishSource profile displays the date that the section was last updated. The publication date of the sources of information used is displayed in the in-text citations, as well as in the list in the Sources section of the profile. SFP advises stakeholders and users to carefully check the publication date of the sources for the information they are interested in. If the information sources appear out of date, SFP advises users to contact their suppliers and ask them to request the relevant authorities make all relevant information public, or to leave a comment in the profile pointing us to the new information.
Yes. You can “follow” a stock, fishery, or aquaculture unit if you are registered and logged in to the FishSource website. Just visit the profile you are interested in and click on “Follow this stock”, “Follow this fishery” or on the green plus sign on the top bar of the profile.
When visiting “My account”, you can edit your options, including the frequency of the alerts you receive.
General sources of the information on FishSource include:
FishSource strives to be the most comprehensive and up-to-date database of fishery status information and has gained global recognition as a trusted resource. However, there are challenges in achieving and maintaining this goal. Our internal team of scientists and researchers is relatively small. This team maintains a large number of updated profiles on FishSource for fisheries that are of most importance to our donors, corporate partners, and organizational strategy. Many other profiles may be incomplete or out of date, and other fisheries may not yet be profiled on FishSource. SFP runs a program whereby third parties can pay to have an SFP-approved analyst use the FishSource platform, methodology, and process to generate public evaluations of fisheries that would otherwise not be conducted. For more information, please email [email protected]
We welcome feedback on all FishSource profiles and hope to encourage an open and constructive debate on any of our content. If you believe additional sources should be considered within the profile or we are reporting inaccurate information from an existing source, please let us know. To comment, click on the blue “Add comment” tab on the right-hand side of each profile or scroll down to the “Comments” section.You do not have to be a FishSource registered user and can log in through a choice of platforms. Please provide publicly available sources to support your comments.
We welcome feedback on all FishSource profiles. To comment, click on the blue “Add comment” tab on the right-hand side of each profile or scroll down to the “Comments” section. Please provide publicly available sources to support your comments.
It means the profile has either recently been developed or updated. We welcome all public feedback on the updated content - just click on the beige "Add comment" banner at the top of the FishSource profile or scroll down to the “Comments” section. Please provide publicly available sources to support your comments.
The review period is technically 60 days; however, we continue to welcome feedback even after the review period is over. For more information on how we respond to comments, see our FAQ on "When you make mistakes, how do you fix them?".
It means that the profile is in need of further development. It is in a prioritization queue; however, it is not currently being actively researched or updated by the FishSource team. If you have information to add or would like to contribute to the content, you can leave a comment on the profile.
Fisheries that complete assessment but fail certification. Fisheries that did not achieve certification can re-enter assessment within 2 years.
This is an initial evaluation to determine if the fishery should advance to a full assessment in the short term. A confidential pre-assessment report is provided to the client body to identify any potential problems with the fishery and provide guidance on addressing these issues before progressing to full assessment.
MSC Full Assessment
The fishery is in the process of being assessed by independent certifiers to demonstrate that it is sustainable by meeting the MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing, with the aim of receiving certification.
The fishery has passed the assessment and been certified. Usually, the certification is attributed for 5 years. However, certified fisheries are subject to annual surveillance.
After the certification period, the fishery re-enters assessment and, if it passes, the fishery is labeled “Recertified.”
Fisheries may voluntarily leave the MSC program at any stage. On the other hand, if a fishery has not progressed as scheduled through the process, it may be required to withdraw from certification.
When an annual surveillance finds conditions are not being met, a suspension of the certification may be announced. The fishery then has up to 90 days to work with the certification body to put in place a plan to introduce corrective measures. If the certification body approves the action plan, the fishery will remain suspended while the corrective measures are being implemented. Failure to put a suitable plan in place will result in the fishery having its certificate withdrawn at the end of the 90 days.
Fisheries certified or recertified by MSC have been categorized by SFP according to their progress on the conditions set by MSC at certification:
Platinum All Principles scored at or above 90.
Gold No conditions have been set at the time of the certification or all conditions have been met and closed during the surveillance audits.
Silver Either the fishery is newly certified (within the past year) or progress on conditions has been made according to the required time-line.
Bronze Conditions have not been met as scheduled by MSC.
The gear types classification used by FishSource is based on the International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Gear (ISSCFG) adopted by FAO. Click here to download the proposed revised list of gear types from FAO or here to access the older, more complete document with descriptions of the major gears.
Where it has been found necessary to further break down a gear type, we have expanded categories within FAO’s classification. These can be identified in fishery profile names as their abbreviated forms are followed by a suffix (e.g. MIS_rk for rake/hand gathered). The full list of gear types used on FishSource and their respective descriptions can be consulted here.
The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s (SFP’s) mission is to maintain healthy ocean and aquatic ecosystems, enhance fishing and fish-farming livelihoods, and secure food supplies. We believe companies interested in responsible sourcing and long-term seafood supplies can be powerful allies in leveraging fisheries improvement. Therefore, we are committed to developing fishery improvement projects (FIPs) – where an alliance of buyers, suppliers, and producers work together to improve a fishery by influencing policies and management while voluntarily changing purchasing and fishing practices to reduce problems such as illegal fishing, bycatch, and habitat impacts.
In order to show whether FIP improvement efforts are producing actual results, SFP has developed a “FIP Improvement Tracker,” which groups these common FIP tasks into a series of progressive steps or stages. For each stage, there are specific indicators.
Stage 1 FIP is launched: The fishery has been evaluated, improvement options are identified, and supply chain engaged, with this information publicly available.
Stage 2 FIP is formed: The stakeholders have met and formed either a formal partnership or informal alliance, and developed a workplan for improvements on which they all agree.
Stage 3 Encouraging improvements: The workplan is made public. FIP members are pressing regulators for improvements and adopting better product specifications and procurement policies.
Stage 4 Delivering improvements in policies and/or fishing practices: There have been improvements in government policy or fishery management, better compliance with the existing management plan, or improvements in fishing practices.
Stage 5 Delivering improvements in the water: There have been positive trends in key scientific indicators (biomass, fishing mortality, bycatch, and unacceptable habitat impacts).
Stage 6 Fishery is MSC certified (OPTIONAL): Achieving MSC certification is desirable but not absolutely a requirement for a FIP. There are, of course, definite benefits of MSC certification, such as having an independent third party verify the results of a FIP.
The FIP progress ratings method is a tool to provide a quick reference metric of improvement progress in a fishery, mainly by tracking the frequency of improvements in fishery policies/practices and actual improvements “in the water.” While it helps give FIP stakeholders and other interested parties a good sense of progress, it is not intended as a final determination of the progress of a FIP. For many users of this tool, due diligence is still required to understand details such as what type of improvements are (or are not) being made and possibly what activities have happened, have not happened, and are planned.
For more information on the background and details of the FIP progress ratings methodology, click here. Ratings for all public FIPs that SFP is aware of will be maintained and displayed in the FIPs section of FishSource profiles linked to fishery improvement projects.
Click here to download an informational note regarding FishSource scoring of Pacific salmon fisheries.
Click here to download a copy of the FishSource salmon assessment method.
Click here to download a report explaining how the Pacific salmon fishery assessment method was developed using a statistical analysis of MSC scoring.
Click here to download the dataset used in the statistical analysis of MSC scoring.
Aquaculture profiles on FishSource are a tool developed by SFP to present straightforward, clear information of how and where zonal management is being adopted by aquaculture industries. Presently data is not widely collected on a zonal basis, so profiles are structured in a nested fashion to showcase the core levels of aquaculture governance and how they may interact (or not) to address the shared risks and cumulative impacts of aquaculture industries. This structure allows users to explore how zonal management practices are being adopted by aquaculture industries.The profiles are intended to help inform the conversation about zonal management, encourage wider adoption of zonal management approaches, and support better monitoring and reporting of data.
FishSource aquaculture scores provide users with simplified indicators of how aquaculture industries are adopting a zonal approach to management. In FishSource, the following five scores are evaluated in aquaculture:
The first two scores reflect the state of governance, while the last three communicate the status of management for key natural resources that the industry is dependent on. None of the scores set out specific limits to define acceptable levels of impact; rather, all of the scores focus on assessing the existence and efficacy of the system that is in place to manage key impacts of an aquaculture industry.
The scores are all assessed on a scale from zero to ten.
To learn more about how scores are derived you may download the methodology as a PDF document here.
Zonal management is an approach to aquaculture management that recognizes the interconnectedness of farms and aims to ensure industry growth is based on scientific evidence of carrying capacities and disease risks. The zonal management framework ensures that appropriate planning, husbandry practices, and regulation and enforcement are in place; all of which underpin the systems needed to support an environmentally and economically sustainable industry. You can learn more about zonal management and SFPs approach here.
We welcome feedback on all FishSource aquaculture profiles and hope to encourage an open and constructive debate on any of our content. If you believe additional sources should be considered within the profile or we are reporting inaccurate information from an existing source, please let us know. To comment, click on the light pink "Add Comment" banner on the top of any new or updated profile; or scroll down to the “Comments” section of any profile.You do not have to be a FishSource registered user and can log in through a choice of platforms. Please provide publicly available sources to support your comments.
SFP prioritizes updating profiles that are in active use by SFP’s current retail, restaurant, or supplier partners, or that are part of Aquaculture Improvement Projects (AIPs) or supplier roundtables (SRs) that are important to SFP’s strategy. These are updated as soon as possible after new information is released. The official release of updates of any management measures concerning the zonal management of the industry will trigger the profile’s updating process. The FishSource and SFP staff also try to be aware of the release of any unanticipated actions/outcomes concerning management that might justify an update of the corresponding FishSource Aquaculture profiles. However, as profiles describe the current management approach, many of the sections of priority profiles may contain information or citations that are still valid, but several years old.
SFP does not systematically update profiles that are not in active use by current SFP partners, so many of these may be absent or out of date. SFP publicly notes throughout FishSource Aquaculture profiles the date-of-last update of each section and the publication dates of the documents and data used as sources for the material in the profiles. The dates of sources are available both in the in-text citations and in the Sources section of the profile. SFP advises stakeholders and users to carefully check the publication date of the sources for the information they are interested in. If the information sources appear out of date, SFP advises users to contact their suppliers and ask them to request the relevant authorities make all relevant information public, or contact SFP at [email protected] if they are interested in paying for an update by an SFP-approved analyst. SFP notes that any stakeholder or user concerned that information may be out of date or incomplete can use the commenting feature to include comments publicly in the relevant profile and to help ensure the information presented is up to date.
Aquaculture profiles in FishSource are named as:
Species Group - Province/State
Species Groups follow those identified by GLOBEFISH, a unit of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). GLOBEFISH provide information and analysis on international fish trade and markets. The seafood sectors identified by GLOBEFISH are used here as they are most relevant to the primary audience of FishSource - seafood buyers. In a few instances, GLOBEFISH has not identified seafood sectors/species groups that are of interest to FishSource; in these cases, the taxonomic family is applied as a ‘group’.
Province/State delineations used in FishSource follow the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO 3166-2 (called the Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 2: Country subdivision code). The ISO 3166-2 defines codes for identifying the principle administrative subdivision directly below that of Country (i.e. first tier administrative unit).
General sources of the information on FishSource aquaculture include:
No, the FishSource aquaculture profiles do not provide a direct measure of environmental impact or sustainability.
The aquaculture profiles provide an assessment of the current management status of the industry and its adoption of a zonal approach to aquaculture. The zonal approach to aquaculture management aims to ensure that the industry is operating within the assimilative carry capacity of the waterbody and reduces cumulative risks from pollution and disease. If a zonal approach is being effectively implemented, it should, by nature of the management approach, minimizes potential impacts of an industry and improve its sustainability.
The environmental impacts of many aquaculture industries are well documents and comprehensively assessed by other standards and certifications. We encourage readers to reference the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch reports, FAO's National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets, or any of the international certification schemes (Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Best Aquaculture Practices, or GlobalG.A.P.) for further details on environmental impact assessments of aquaculture.
With the focus of the scoring being on the adoption of zonal management principles in aquaculture, the assessment methodology does not specifically address social issues in aquaculture. It is not the intention of the current version of the FishSource aquaculture methodology to address all aspects of social sustainability in detail; however, we would like to recognize that consideration of social issues is inherent to many of the principles of zonal management. Score 2 – Organized Producers Following a Code of Good Practice – implicitly includes social considerations as it looks at the level of collaboration and organization between farmers, including the involvement of small-scale producers in these processes.
More widely, zonal management is fundamentally an inclusive process aimed at ensuring small-scale producers can continue to play an active role in developing aquaculture industries. When disease outbreaks occur or environments are compromised because of a lack of management it is often the smallest farmers who are most significantly impacted because they don’t have the economic ability to survive the harvest losses. Governments and industries who do not implement effective regulation and control of shared risks and resources are often increasing the livelihood risks of small-scale producers; even though they believe a system with more open access and reduced regulation would enable small-scale producers to enter the industry. Without that regulation and control, the investments of all producers (but most especially small-scale producers) are at risk.
Yes. You can “follow” an aquaculture profile if you are registered and logged in to the FishSource website. Just visit the profile you are interested in and click on "Follow this aquaculture profile", "Follow this AMA Profile" or on the green plus sign on the top bar of the profile.
When visiting “My account”, you can edit your options, including the frequency of the alerts you receive.
SFP’s overall ambition has always been to see that 100% of seafood worldwide is produced sustainably – in other words, to give everyone in the world the chance to eat sustainable seafood. This is obviously a distant and aspirational goal, likely many decades away into the future, but if we’re ever going to get there we need to lay out a route, complete with milestones and targets.
For this initiative, SFP is focused on ensuring 75% of world production in key sectors is – at a minimum – either sustainable (i.e., certified by the MSC program, or green-listed in SFP’s Metrics tool) or making regular, verifiable improvements. We currently include as verifiable improvements: