Target setting process questions
Here we provide answers to common technical questions that companies have as they are going through the target-setting process.
Step 3. Ocean FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
The SBTN Ocean Hub has developed the V1.0 Ocean methods over the past two years. The Ocean Hub is a collection of partner organisations that have developed the SBTN Ocean methods. WWF and Conservation International (CI) co-lead the Ocean Hub, and are supported by the steering committee that comprises: The Nature Conservancy, FishWise, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, UNEP Finance Initiative, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). The Ocean Hub work has been funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Walton Family Foundation.
As co-lead of technical development for the Freshwater, Land, and Ocean Hubs and coordinators of the Biodiversity hub, WWF has, and will continue to invest significantly in development of the target-setting methodologies, as well as helping their corporate partners to understand and apply them.
Conservation International co-leads the Ocean, Land, and Biodiversity Hubs and leverages its commitments to conservation and collaboration across 70 countries to support developing and setting science-based targets for nature.
The Ocean methods have undergone a multi-stakeholder consultation process including informal consultations with companies and consultancies, primarily through SBTN’s Corporate Engagement Program with over 110 companies, as well as with representatives from the scientific community and civil society through a formal internal consultation. In addition, the methods and tools were tested for feasibility, clarity, and ambition during a four month long pilot in 2024 with four companies with materiality in the ocean and seafood systems.
Following the pilot, the SBTN Ocean Hub Public Consultation was open for comment on its draft technical guidance from September 10 to November 12, 2024. The consultation provided the public with the opportunity to provide input into the Network’s multi-stakeholder process to ensure the finalized guidance for companies is as robust, clear and practical as possible. For more information on the consultation and to view the recording of the 2024 public consultation, visit our website page.
The Ocean methods were submitted to an Expert Review Panel (ERP) following the public consultation. The ERP provides a recommendation on whether the methods are fit for publication by assessing it against technical criteria to understand whether the guidance will lead to positive environmental and societal outcomes, when companies apply the methods correctly.
The Ocean Hub received feedback from a range of corporate and civil society organizations during the Ocean Hub Public Consultation. The crux of the feedback concerned the need for the methods to balance rigor and feasibility for corporate end-users.
Following the public consultation, the methods were optimized to help achieve the optimal balance between rigor and feasibility. Rigor was strengthened, for example, by adopting shortened maximum target times from ten to five years, and by adding a cease to source pathway to Target 1 for instances of sustained, unabated overexploitation. The methods have also improved feasibility through the development of a qualitative risk assessment tool to support risk assessments in Target 3.
This will occur in Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Prioritize of the SBTN process. Companies will assess their supply chains to understand if they could have material impacts on nature and biodiversity in the ocean. For this guidance, if there is seafood (wild capture or farmed) in a company’s supply chain, they will be directed to set Ocean Hub science-based targets for seafood.
If desired, companies may set targets for their entire supply chain. However, in the SBTN process, after companies complete their Step 1 value chain assessment of their pressures on nature they move to Step 2, where they prioritize and rank those pressures.
This prioritization process takes into account the locations where a company has the highest pressure on nature and the geographic areas where companies operate or source from that are the most urgent to act on. This process sets out where and how much coverage company targets should achieve, and these processes are unique to each target as laid out in the guidance.
Once a company’s seafood sources are ranked by priority in Step 2, the company will select the top sources that cumulatively account for at least 10% of their total seafood commodities by volume and set targets for those sources (or more, if the company chooses to do so). After a company has achieved those targets, it can return to the prioritization process and iterate on target-setting by proceeding to the next ranked sources that account for another 10% by volume.
The level of engagement with your value chain will depend on the outcome of Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Prioritize of the SBTN process, in which companies will assess what and where their biggest impacts and dependencies on nature and the environment are, and prioritize action in both direct operations and their supply chain. This will likely require working with and collecting data from other nodes in your value chain, including suppliers, processors, fisheries, and farms.
The SBTN Ocean Hub recognizes the need to address key issues in wild capture fisheries and aquaculture, as incorporated in several existing science-based metrics, certifications, and standards in the seafood space.
Seafood Target 1 directly addresses overfishing by taking a “help first” approach to engaging with fisheries, and pathways to reduce, cap, or cease sourcing from them based on the receptiveness and response of stakeholders to engagement. The pathways are designed to help companies avoid and reduce overfishing in their direct operations and supply chain.
Target 1 also accounts for bycatch, as the stock health of bycatch species is factored into catch reduction targets for the seafood stock. While commercial fishing also puts pressure, in the form of incidental catch, on marine wildlife such as sea birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other megafauna and protected species, Target 1 only covers bycatch of fish and invertebrates that are included in management plans. Impacts to endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species are addressed in Target 3: Reduce Risk to ETP Marine Wildlife Populations.
Ghost gear is not singled out for an individual target, but abandoning gear is included in the SBTN definition of “Highly Damaging Fishing Practices” that are identified as a risk to structural habitats in Target 2: Protect Structural Habitats.
SBTN’s Ocean methods provide a step-by-step process for companies to complement certification-based sourcing commitments. Certifications are a robust and science-based approach to improving the sustainability of seafood supply chains, although a substantial proportion of global seafood products remain uncertified. Science-based targets complement certifications by addressing environmental impacts from the majority of wild and aquaculture volumes that are not currently certified. Science-based targets also deploy sensitive thresholds for inclusion of fisheries and their impacts, which ensures companies gain a comprehensive understanding of their impacts.
Within the SBTN framework, certifications can provide a valuable tool for helping companies meet their science-based targets, thanks to aligned approaches to ensuring responsible sourcing of wild catch and aquaculture seafood. While certifications are not mandated as part of SBTN’s target setting process, efforts to achieve science-based targets can also help create enabling conditions for seafood certification in new fisheries and aquaculture facilities. By setting science-based targets and facilitating certifications in tandem, companies can help create enduring positive impact in the seascapes they source from.
SBTN has also worked with leading certifications, including Marine Stewardship Council and Aquaculture Stewardship Council (both Ocean Hub Steering Committee members) to ensure alignment and interoperability of data needed to set and validate science-based targets. Data required by the SBTN process can often be found through certification reports or Fishery and Aquaculture Improvement Project progress tracking.
Climate is the fifth pillar of SBTN’s framework (alongside Land, Freshwater, Ocean, and Biodiversity), in recognition of the close links between drivers of climate change and nature loss. All companies with material contributions to greenhouse gasses are encouraged to set a climate target via SBTi as part of the target-setting process. However the Ocean Hub recognizes the difficulty in addressing emissions in many ocean sectors, such as fisheries and aquaculture. Companies that have already collected emissions data and set targets for climate are a step ahead.
While setting science-based targets for nature, using SBTN’s holistic guidance, companies can identify opportunities for meeting their climate targets (set using SBTi methods) and their targets for other aspects of nature at the same time.
We recommend that aquaculture companies use both SBTi and SBTN approaches in order to take effective action on climate that safeguards biodiversity. We see the two as complementary, with SBTN providing important safeguards for nature.
NGOs, including Ocean Hub members, have worked to help companies set nature and biodiversity goals in the past, and this was integral in the development of the SBTN methodology. While some targets set by seafood companies are science-based, others are not. Here, SBTN adds value by providing assurance to stakeholders that science-based targets set by companies are science-based and therefore rigorous, as opposed to reduction targets based on more arbitrary considerations.
SBTN also provides a standardized framework that is consistent between different parts of the supply chain and different companies. As well as ensuring consistency and comparability, this means that they can be used as the basis for collaboration between companies with overlapping pressures operating in the same seascapes, alongside relevant jurisdictional authorities and local stakeholders, enabling impact at scale.
SBTN have outlined how science-based targets align with CSRD in an information piece that can be found on the SBTN website here. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) outlines the disclosures that are mandatory or optional for companies as part of CSRD. The disclosure requirements in the ESRS include numerous overlaps with data that needs to be collected as part of the SBTN steps, and the ESRS specifically mentions SBTN as the approach to setting science-based targets that account for ecological thresholds in ESRS E2 (Pollution), E3 (Water & Marine), and E5 (Circular Economy).
Seafood science-based targets in particular have some helpful synergies with the ESRS for companies that have to disclose through CSRD. This includes overlaps in data that needs to be collected, and the use of science-based targets to define policies or targets that need to be disclosed. Alignment between CSRD and SBTN allows companies to avoid duplication of efforts, and lends credibility to disclosures that use SBTN as their basis. For example:
- ESRS E2 (Pollution) paragraph 24 requires that companies disclose the pollutants that it emits through its own operations; companies that have aquaculture direct operations and set SBTN seafood Target 2 will have already measured pollutant emissions relevant to marine habitat protection.
- ESRS E3 (Water & Marine) paragraph 9 requires companies to describe the policies it has adopted to manage its material impacts related to water and marine resources; SBTN seafood Target 1 defines a consistent, robust, and externally validated policy for the sourcing of wild capture seafood, which companies can disclose.
- ESRS E4 (Biodiversity) paragraph 17 requires companies to describe how they conducted consultations with affected communities; all SBTN seafood science-based targets require stakeholder consultations to take place, and SBTN provides guidance on how to conduct these.
SBTN and TNFD have distinct and complementary roles. Like SBTi and TCFD in the climate space, SBTN and TNFD (both voluntary frameworks) provide companies with holistic guidance on place-based impact management through targets (SBTN) and nature-related risk management and disclosure recommendations (TNFD). For more information on the two frameworks, see our general FAQs and our co-authored paper with TNFD.
TNFD has produced sector guidance for aquaculture, and has new sector guidance open for consultation (until 4th April 2025) on fishing, and on marine transportation. Seafood science-based targets have helpful overlaps with TNFD fisheries guidance, for example aligned definition of ETP species, criteria for defining sensitive marine locations, and indicators of stock performance. Marine transportation is not currently covered by the SBTN Ocean guidance (which currently focuses on seafood), so companies in this sector will find value in TNFD’s sector guidance here.
The health of ecosystems and people are deeply intertwined, and nature and biodiversity loss deeply impact human wellbeing, livelihoods, and cultural values. The SBTN Ocean Hub, like all SBTN Issue Hubs, intends to design science-based targets for nature that address the needs of both the environment and people. Companies setting targets are required to look at issues that are significant for the well-being of the people that live and work on the land and seascapes impacted by a company.
We also encourage companies setting targets to work with local stakeholders directly. In recognition of the importance of stakeholder engagement, particularly for communities and stakeholders affected by company actions, companies are strongly recommended to follow SBTN’s Stakeholder Engagement Guidance when applying methods for setting science-based targets for nature.
The Ocean methods also include a social responsibility requirement: companies have to have set a public social responsibility policy that clearly includes seafood-related issues. This public policy has to be set before ocean targets are validated, although the Accountability Accelerator will not validate adherence to the policy. Instead, companies must prove that their policy meets criteria that are aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, and the Roadmap for Improving Seafood Ethics (RISE). Additional details regarding validation of the social responsibility policy, including a template for companies to utilize when developing a social responsibility policy, is forthcoming.
Companies start their SBTN journey without publicly committing to setting science-based targets. Companies can have their materiality assessment (Step 1) and prioritization (Step 2) steps validated together before deciding whether to set targets (Step 3). Companies that set science-based targets for seafood are not required to also set Land and Freshwater targets, but we would encourage them to do so. The tools and resources produced by SBTN and the Ocean Hub are publicly available and companies may utilize them without commitment.
When companies have their targets approved and validated by SBTN’s independent validation host, the Accountability Accelerator, they are strongly encouraged to publicly disclose their targets for recognition of their progress, demonstrate their commitment to science-based action and signal to external stakeholders that they are a leader in corporate sustainability and responsible business practices.
No, the Ocean Hub does not verify targets set by companies. Targets are instead independently validated by the Accountability Accelerator to ensure they are in line with methods and with the latest scientific requirements.
In SBTN’s materiality assessment (Step 1) and prioritization (Step 2) steps, state of nature metrics are used to help companies prioritize areas for target-setting, based on the state of pressures on an ecosystem and the biodiversity value of ecosystems. A summary of data requirements for the SBTN methods is available here under “Essential resources throughout target-setting”, last updated in August 2024. SBTN will provide further guidance in future on the role of metrics in monitoring progress towards meeting targets and the impact of target-setting on outcomes for biodiversity.
In the Ocean methods Target 1 (Avoid and Reduce Overexploitation), companies rely on existing data and indicators of stock health to determine the state of nature and maximum pressure thresholds for each of their targets. While stock assessments are only one component of effective fisheries management and conservation, they are considered the best tool for evaluating stock health. In the absence of stock assessments, targets can be developed through “data-limited” methodologies. This involves using performance indicators and reference
points to assess stock health, such as those from records of total catch, effort or catch per unit effort, estimates of stock growth, reproduction, and natural mortality rates.
For Target 2 (Protect Structural Habitats), companies can use a range of data sources, from primary through data-limited and local and indigenous knowledge sources to determine baseline values of habitat impacts and pressures. A list of potential indicators that can be used for Target 2 are listed in Table 4 of the methods.
For Target 3 (Reduce Risk to ETP Marine Wildlife Populations), there is a lack of observational data linking supply chains to endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) populations. Instead, the risk of interaction with populations is used as an indicator for this target. To evaluate this, companies must source or collect production data, ETP species status (both local and national/international), and the baseline level of risk generated by practices to ETP populations.
Science-based targets can be adopted by companies sourcing from small-scale fisheries. However, the target-setting methodology primarily relies on quantitative thresholds for stock health, which will be a better fit for large, industrial scale fisheries for which stock assessments are available. More detail and specificity is needed in order to ensure that data-limited methodologies and Indigenous and local knowledge can be used to develop robust targets, and the Ocean Hub welcomes feedback and recommendations for improving integration of different types of knowledge into our methodology.
The Ocean Hub’s engagement pathways are found in each of its three targets, and are modeled after the Landscape Engagement target, which is part of the suite of land science-based targets. Appropriate engagement depends on what is needed for the component of nature addressed for each target, which will be determined in consultation with local stakeholders and partners.
All Ocean Hub engagements must meet four criteria:
- Operating at the scale of a recognized ecological area;
- Stakeholder visions and needs included in design and implementation;
- Collective goals are defined and linked to seascape issues;
- Transparent monitoring and tracking systems.
Potential engagements may include but are not limited to Jurisdictional Initiatives, Fishery Improvement Projects, and support for marine protected areas.
Jurisdictional Initiatives are place-based efforts in key food-producing regions that utilize policy and market-based approaches to drive improvements at scale, aligning incentives among governments, local communities, and private-sector groups for sustainable outcomes. JIs align with the SBTN Ocean methods in biogeographical scope, taking a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to environmental conservation, social equity, and responsible production. Existing JIs can inform how companies prioritize their SBTN targets. Companies setting science-based targets that align with JIs can lead to efforts to coordinate corporate action at scale in the region. It is also important to note that JIs and science-based targets for seafood value chains are both relatively new concepts and projects, so alignment may be adjusted as we work in partnership with suppliers and buyers.
Costs and timelines will vary depending on: size and complexity of the company; the data on material impacts and dependencies the company currently has on hand and needs to collect; the extent and rigor of action companies have previously taken or are currently undertaking; and the availability of data for a given impact area and/or location. As many companies using SBTN’s guidance are working with external consultancies, costs may also vary. Cost estimates for the validation of science-based targets for seafood will not be available until late 2025 at the earliest.
Yes, after V1.0 the Ocean Hub intends to extend the reach of targets to additional sectors. WWF’s report “Ocean landscape analysis to inform science based targets for select marine-based industries” provides greater clarity on the high impact ocean sectors that are not currently well covered by existing initiatives, and that could therefore be appropriate for expanded seafood science-based targets in future.
SBTN’s Ocean Hub, alongside its Land and Freshwater Hubs, provides voluntary target setting guidance for companies. While the methodology is designed so that companies can address their own, specific pressures on nature and biodiversity in the ocean, we encourage collective action that is aligned with the targets in order to influence nature positive change in the marine realm.
Within the Protect Structural Habitats target, water quality and pollution are covered by requiring that direct operators perform at standards of best practice, as identified by the literature. This draws specifically on expertise on outputs to the marine and transitional waterway systems that would impact habitats. The seafood sector methodology points to best practices and cannot be overly prescriptive as the specific recommendations for water quality and pollution from aquaculture will vary depending on the coastal or marine ecosystem in which the facility is situated, the type and scale of facility, and the species being farmed there. For example, the guidance points to sources like the ASC standards which provide recommendations specific to species and species groups.