‘Reducing’ refers to using fewer materials, like fewer plastic bottles or buying materials, like products or equipment, with less packaging.

This will cut down on waste from the start.

‘Reusing’ refers to using materials again instead of disposing of them.

‘Recycling’ refers to collecting and processing materials to be turned into new materials.

As a means of giving materials a new use instead of disposing of them as waste in landfills.

Sites should identify the materials used and assess whether it is reasonably practical to prioritise reduction, reuse and recycling over disposal.

The assessment should consider, for example, the availability of recycling facilities in the area.

If applicable, the outcome of the assessment should be turned into policies or procedures.

Identification of materials used and an assessment of the feasibility of reducing, reusing and recycling.

Policies and procedures outlining the steps to handle materials deemed feasible for reduction, reuse and recycling.

Employees should be aware of these policies or procedures.

The site identified the material used and assessed the feasibility of reducing, reusing and recycling.

Materials identified as feasible to reduce, reuse or recycle are effectively and appropriately reduced, reused or recycled.

Employees’ awareness of the policies and procedures that outline the steps to handle materials deemed feasible for reduction, reuse and recycling.

In the case of marine salmonids, grow-out sites that supply fish to subsequent grow-out sites are required to be certified under the ASC Farm Standard.

This necessitates that they calculate and report GHG emissions as per Indicator 2.10.2.

This facilitates the sharing of data with subsequent grow-out sites to ensure that GHG calculations at the point of harvest include relevant inputs from the prior site.

Specific data on the energy inputs and feeds used from the prior site are not required. Only the GHG profile, reflecting the format of the ASC Farm Standard GHG Data Submission Template, is needed.

GHG profiles from hatcheries are not required, as explained above for Indicator 2.10.2.

Subsequent grow-out sites are provided a GHG profile reflecting the format of the ASC Farm Standard GHG Data Submission Template either as part of regular process or upon request.

Public disclosure of energy use and GHG data are not required by the ASC Farm Standard. Instead, reporting to ASC is required.

This ensures that energy use and GHG performance of ASC certified production can be tracked and communicated in an aggregated form and also supports assessment of the requirements and identification of common issues, errors or need for improved guidance.

Data submitted to ASC is used in accordance with ASC’s data use policies.

There are two data submission templates: one for energy use and one for GHG emissions.

Data submitted to ASC should reflect the same calculation results as demonstrated during the audit in compliance with Indicators 2.10.1 and 2.10.2.

Data submission for both energy use and GHG emissions is on an annual basis. However, in some cases, sites may not have new data to submit in a given year.

If the site is calculating values relative to a production cycle and a new production cycle has not completed since the prior year’s data submission. In this case, data submission is still required but may reflect the same submission as the prior year.

If calculating values for three consecutive years of production and previous records are not available, data submissions in the first and second years may reflect one or two years of production, respectively.

Demonstration of successful data submission on an annual basis.

Successful annual data submissions using the ASC Farm Standard Energy Use Data Submission Template and the ASC Farm Standard GHG Data Submission Template.

Data reported in data submissions reflect results shown in audit for Indicators 2.10.1 and 2.10.2.

After calculating GHG emissions and identifying major contributors (‘hot spots’) to overall emissions, a Management Plan allows a site to identify actions to reduce, minimise and/or avoid GHG emissions.

Actions proposed in a GHG Management Plan should demonstrably relate to emissions identified during GHG calculations. Actions may also relate to GHG emissions beyond the scope of ASC’s GHG calculation requirements if evidence is shown that these emissions are substantial.

For example, efforts to reduce GHG emissions from product transport can have a significant effect in some cases, particularly if air freight is used.

Actions proposed in a GHG Management Plan should be accompanied with means to track implementation and effectiveness.

Not all GHG emission reduction efforts require major changes to operations or large new infrastructure investments.

Incremental improvements to feed conversion ratios, mortality rates, and energy efficiency can also be effective ways to reduce GHG emissions.

GHG targets, relative to both live weight production and edible weight product, are provided in Appendix 9.

By calculating and reporting emissions on an annual basis, sites will be able to track their GHG performance over time and assess the effectiveness of actions taken in their GHG Management Plan.

Reporting of GHG emissions to ASC, with a consistent approach across certified sites, will also support ASC’s efforts to provide guidance back on the types of actions that are achieving significant improvements in GHG performance.

While calculation and reporting of GHG emissions requires the use of two allocation methods to promote transparency and consistency across certified sites, Certificate Holders may select either allocation method as the basis for identifying actions in their GHG Management Plan and tracking emissions over time.

For many sites, emissions may come primarily from the production and use of feed.

The GHG Management Plan may be site-specific or may be applicable across many sites or developed at a corporate level, provided that the GHG tracking and actions taken are demonstrated to be relevant to the site and to reflect identified hot spots of emissions.

Copies of current and previous versions of the GHG Management Plan.

Presence of a GHG Management Plan.

The GHG Management Plan is maintained by a designated member of staff and is regularly reviewed and updated.

Actions proposed in the GHG Management Plan reflect identified sources of GHG emissions.

The GHG Management Plan includes tracking of GHG emissions over time relative to the targets set out in Appendix 9.

Consistent and transparent measurement of GHG emissions following a life cycle assessment approach is necessary to underpin effective GHG reduction and management and to inform broader efforts to understand and reduce the GHG impact of global food systems.

This indicator ensures that all ASC certified sites undertake this important first step in contributing to efforts to combat climate change.

ASC does not require the use of any particular GHG calculation framework or tool or conformance with any particular GHG methodology or standard. However, some methodological requirements are stipulated in Appendix 9 to ensure a sufficient level of consistency, completeness and accuracy of GHG calculations.

Certificate Holders should consider the reporting format of the ASC Farm Standard GHG Data Submission Template in undertaking their calculations.

This includes the characterisation of GHG emissions in three distinct ways:

GHG profiles for feeds used, specific to the feed supplier and species or species group and updated on an annual basis, as required to be shared by the feed supplier according to Criterion 1.21 of the ASC Feed Standard and using the format of the ASC Feed Standard GHG Data Submission Template.

For marine salmonids only: GHG profiles for any supplying grow-out site(s) as required to be shared by the previous grow-out site(s).

Documentation of the source of any GHG emission factors used.

This may be documentation of calculation tools (e.g., the ASC GHG Calculator) or documentation of specific emission factors and their source if calculating emissions manually.

Documentation of the input variables used (e.g., quantity of electricity).

Inputs of energy should reflect those calculated in Indicator 2.10.1. All input variables should be supported by evidence such as invoices or feed use records if requested.

Documentation of conversion factor and, if applicable, allocation factors, used to convert GHG calculations from a live weight basis to an edible weight basis.

Documentation of power purchase agreements, if applicable, to demonstrate use of electricity from specific dedicated sources rather than the national or regional electricity grid.

Records of GHG profiles from feed suppliers and (for marine salmonids) prior grow-out sites are available.

GHG emissions are calculated in kg CO~2~e relative to live weight production and edible weight product and recorded using the ASC Farm Standard GHG Data Submission Template.

If using a tool other than the ASC GHG Calculator, documentation showing how the tool conforms to the methodological requirements outlined in Appendix 9;

This may be a signed declaration from the tool provider or highlighted elements in the tool’s user documentation.

Values input into the ASC GHG Calculator, another tool, or manual calculations are supported with evidence (e.g., fuel purchase invoices).

If undertaking calculations manually, demonstration of the calculations undertaken, including the use of GHG data from feed suppliers and (for marine salmonids) prior grow-out sites in conformance with the requirements of Appendix 9.

The scope of included activities reflects the requirements outlined in Appendix 9.

GHG emissions are not adjusted using carbon credits or offsets.

Certificate Holders are encouraged to use the ASC GHG Calculator, available at https://ghg.asc-aqua.org, to ensure compliance with regards to calculation scope, methods, data sources and reporting format. Use of this tool is voluntary; other tools, consultants, or internal procedures may be used if documentation is available to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Appendix 9.

Recommended factors for converting GHG emissions from a live weight basis to an edible weight basis may be sourced from supplemental material of Gephart et al. (2021). Other conversion factors may be used if they reflect the actual edible yield (i.e., muscle fraction) of the animal.

A range of methodological frameworks and standards are available to guide life cycle assessments and GHG accounting. Use of any of these is optional, provided that calculations are still in compliance with the requirements of Appendix 9. Examples include:

Tracking use of energy inputs is a necessary step in calculating the GHG emissions associated with aquaculture production and products.

Energy inputs include all those sources of energy used for the purpose of production, including electricity and energy carriers such as diesel or natural gas.

To the extent possible, Certificate Holders are encouraged to calculate energy use specific to the certified site. However, in some cases, this may be difficult to do. For example, fuel purchased may be used to supply vessels servicing many sites, potentially both certified and non-certified sites or even multiple sites or companies.

In these cases, a portion of the overall input may be allocated to the certified site based on a logical allocation basis.

For example, dividing energy inputs between sites based on the relative number of vessel trips or using the site’s relative share of production among the group of sites serviced.

Energy inputs to hatcheries are not included in calculations of on-site energy use. However, in cases where the juvenile stage of the supply chain is integrated with grow-out, sites may choose to include this stage in their calculations to simplify calculations.

Documentation of energy intensity factors (e.g., MJ of energy per L of diesel) used if they are different to the default values used in the ASC Farm Standard Energy Use Data Submission Template.

Evidence to support the quantity of each energy input specified in calculations is available on request, along with any allocation of energy inputs between multiple sites if applicable.

This may be, for example, fuel purchase invoices or electricity use records.

The energy use value is calculated and reported in MJ of energy per tonne of live weight production.

Energy use of production is calculated for either (a) the most recent completed production cycle; or (b) three consecutive years of production.

Documentation is provided to support input variables and calculations.

The ASC Farm Standard Energy Use Data Submission Template is used to demonstrate results.

Certificate Holders are encouraged to use the ASC Farm Standard Energy Use Data Submission Template for calculating the energy intensity of production after energy inputs are quantified.

Additional energy intensity factors for a range of energy inputs are available from the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero.

Abstraction of water refers to the process of taking water from a natural source, in this case surface water.

Responsible abstraction, or a minimum vital flow, is important for mitigating impacts on freshwater ecosystems and water quality.

Records demonstrating the volume of water abstracted from surface water and the volume returned to the source from which the water was originally abstracted.

A minimum vital flow has been determined by a regulatory permit or scientific study, if the exception in Indicator 2.9.6 applies.

Records have been presented which demonstrate the volume of water extracted from surface water and the volume returned to the source from which the water was originally extracted.

Evidence of a minimum vital flow determined by a regulatory permit or scientific body, if the exception in Indicator 2.9.6 applies.

Water levels in groundwater wells should be tested and recorded at similar times during the year.

Monitoring of water levels in groundwater wells determines whether water is being replenished in the ground. When water abstraction increases beyond the rate of replenishment, the result is a reduction in the water table.

Results from the monitoring of water levels in groundwater wells.

Documents demonstrating the monitoring results have been included in, and informed revisions of, the WEMP (where required).

Regulatory records which provide evidence of the recording of water levels, if monitoring is not permitted by law.

Monitoring results have been presented which demonstrate the recording of water levels in groundwater wells.

Monitoring results have informed the drafting or revision of the WEMP.

The Aqueduct ‘Water Risk Atlas’ measures all water-related risks. Higher values indicate higher water risk.

‘Water Stress’ is an indicator under ‘Physical Risks Quantity’ and measures the ratio of total water demand to available renewable surface and groundwater supplies.

The site needs to check whether its location is classified as being in an area of ‘high’ or ‘extremely high’ water stress.

The ‘Water Stress’ classification of the area in which the site is located. This must match the coordinates of where the site is located.

A Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP) has been developed, implemented and maintained if the site is in an area identified as having ‘high’ or ‘extremely high’ water stress.

Documents demonstrating the WEMP has been reviewed annually, to determine whether it is meeting the objective of reducing water consumption.

Data or documents to demonstrate the WEMP is effective at reducing water consumption.

Revisions to the WEMP if it has not been deemed effective at reducing water consumption.

The risk of water stress according the ‘Water Risk Atlas’.

Evidence that a WEMP has been developed, implemented and maintained, if the site is in an area identified as having ‘high’ or ‘extremely high’ water stress.

Objectives and targets are in place in the WEMP which aim to reduce water consumption.

Evidence of an annual review of the WEMP.

Evidence has been presented to demonstrate the WEMP is effective at reducing water consumption.

Revisions to the WEMP have been made if the WEMP has not been effective at reducing water consumption.

Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas: Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas.