Filter content
by selecting applicable filters below
Indicator 2.3.13
Requirement
The UoC shall report to ASC on wildlife mortalities, according to ASC data submission procedures.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Records of data submissions to ASC.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Data on wildlife mortalities has been submitted to ASC and is accessible.
Indicator 2.3.12
Requirement
The UoC shall publicly disclose all wildlife mortalities per site within 30 days of each incident.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Wildlife mortalities are disclosed and are easily and publicly available.
-
Hardcopies of mortalities are available to stakeholders, if requested.
-
Records are kept demonstrating when mortalities have been disclosed.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Sampling results are easily and publicly available. If applicable, confirm that the site has made hard copies of test results easily available to stakeholders.
-
Mortalities have been disclosed per site within 30 days of each incident.
Indicator 2.3.11
Requirement
Indicator applicability: all abalone farming in regions where the farmed species is Threatened The UoC shall only use seed originating from native wild broodstock (not selectively bred animals).
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Wild abalone populations can be impacted through selectively bred animals recruiting into, and breeding with, wild abalone populations.
-
Potential genetic impacts to at-risk populations can be mitigated by means of minimising escapes from abalone sites and by farming with stock originating from the same genetic stock as the local wild populations surrounding the site.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Documentation demonstrating the origin of seed and that it originates from native wild broodstock.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Documentation has been presented demonstrating the origin of seed and that it originates from native wild broodstock.
Indicator 2.3.7
Requirement
The UoC shall not use Threatened Species for wild broodstock.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Documentation (e.g. batch records) demonstrating the wild broodstock species is not listed as a Threatened Species.
-
The IUCN Red List can be used to check whether the wild broodstock species is listed as Threatened.
-
Traceability documentation can be used to demonstrate the origin of the wild broodstock species. Traceability should be back to the source fishery.
-
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Evidence has been presented that wild broodstock is not a Threatened Species.
-
This may include verifying traceability documentation, which demonstrate traceability back to the source fishery.
-
Useful Resources
-
IUCN: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Indicator 2.3.5
Requirement
The UoC shall only use aquatic acoustic deterrence where scientific evidence suggests that it does not result in significant stress or injury to, or mortality of, the affected species or its population(s).
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Acoustic deterrence includes any device or method used in which acoustic (‘sound’/’noise’) is used to deter wildlife. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) and acoustic harassment devices (AHDs).
Evidence of Implementation
-
Records of the use of any aquatic acoustic deterrence, which includes the frequency and duration and duration of the deterrence.
-
If aquatic acoustic deterrence is used, scientific reports/publications are obtained which demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Records are provided to demonstrate whether any aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used.
-
If aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used, scientific reports/publications have been presented by the UoC to demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.
Indicator 2.3.4
Requirement
The UoC shall investigate all wildlife mortality incidents to determine the root cause and shall implement appropriate corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Records showing that the UoC has investigated each mortality incident and how the investigation has led to the implementation of appropriate actions to prevent recurrence.
-
Documents demonstrating the actions have been implemented and prevented recurrence.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Investigations have taken place following each mortality event.
-
Actions have been implemented to prevent recurrence of wildlife mortalities.
Indicator 2.3.1
Requirement
The UoC shall ensure the site has a low risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict within the site and in the area surrounding the site, as determined through the ERA (see Indicator 2.1.1).
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Indicator 2.1.1 and Appendix 3.1 outline the site-specific Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) following the Standardised Risk Methodology.
-
Mitigation measures may need to be implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict within the site and in the area surrounding the site.
-
The risk level and identified mitigation measures (if applicable) should be identified in the ERA.
Evidence of Implementation
-
The ERA assesses the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict. Evidence should be presented to demonstrate whether the risk is low.
-
Mitigation measures implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict to maintain the low risk level.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
The ERA has assessed the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict and determined the risk level is low.
-
Mitigation measures are implemented (if required and recommended by the ERA) to maintain the low risk level.
Indicator 2.2.7
Requirement
Indicator applicability: land-based systems The UoC shall maintain a coastalbarrier between the site and any marine or brackish waterbody, with a minimum width of either 100m or as determined through the ERA (see Indicator 2.1.1), whichever is stricter.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Coastal barriers can be either artificial or natural and mitigate concerns relating to storm or flood risks. The ERA will assess the required width of the coastal barrier to mitigate these risks.
-
An additional benefit of coastal barriers is that they control environmental events directly linked to escapes and disease transfer.
-
-
Communities can also access marine resources through the maintenance of a coastal barrier.
-
The UoC shall ensure the width of the coastal barrier is at least 100m, or greater if the ERA determines the coastal barrier needs to be wider.
Evidence of Implementation
-
The ERA has determined the suitable width of the coastal barrier.
-
The maintained coastal barrier has a minimum width of 100m or greater, as determined by the ERA.
-
Spatial data and maps can provide evidence of the width of the coastal barrier and its maintenance.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
The ERA has assessed the width of the coastal barrier.
-
The coastal barrier is 100m or greater, as determined by the ERA.
-
Spatial data or maps are presented to demonstrate the width of the coastal barrier and that it is maintained.
Indicator 2.2.6
Requirement
Indicator applicability: land-based systems The UoC shall maintain a riparianzone between the site and any freshwater body, with a minimum width of either 15m or as determined through the ERA (see Indicator 2.1.1), whichever is stricter.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Riparian zones provide a buffer between natural waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems.
-
A 15m buffer zone is the minimum width to provide habitats for wildlife, minimise erosion and run-off, improve water quality and stabilise the ecosystem around the water source.
-
-
The ERA will determine the minimum width of the riparian zone which needs to be maintained to ensure the functioning of the zone.
-
The ERA should also assess the functioning of the riparian zone, for example species diversity.
-
-
The UoC shall ensure the width of the riparian zone is at least 15m, or greater if the ERA determines the buffer zone needs to be wider.
Evidence of Implementation
-
The ERA report demonstrates the required width of the riparian zone.
-
The site ensures the riparian zone is maintained and is at least 15m wide. The buffer zone shall be wider if determined by the ERA.
-
Spatial data and maps over a relevant timescale can demonstrate the width of the riparian zone is maintained.
-
Auditors Should Confirm
-
The ERA report has assessed the suitable width and functioning of the riparian zone.
-
The width of the riparian zone is at least 15m, or wider as determined by the ERA.
-
Evidence has been presented, e.g. spatial data and maps, demonstrating the riparian zone is maintained at 15m or greater (as determined by the ERA).
Useful Resources
-
GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)
-
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005): Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations: Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: A review of current science and regulations
-
Climate ADAPT (2023): Establishment and restoration of riparian buffers: Establishment and restoration of riparian buffers.
-
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (2005): Review of Riparian Buffer Zone Effectiveness: Review of Riparian Buffer Zone Effectiveness.
Indicator 2.2.5
Requirement
Indicator applicability: land-based systems CHANGES Indicator applicability: land-based systems CHANGES
The UoC shall maintain any natural wildlife corridors within the site, as determined through the ERA (see Indicator 2.1.1).
New line
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Maintaining wildlife corridors mitigates impacts on biodiversity and allows for wildlife movement across larger landscapes within their habitats or natural ranges.
-
Examples include ensuring corridors are maintained to allow the movement of wildlife to and from feeding or breeding sites either side of the site.
-
-
The ERA shall determine whether any wildlife corridors are present within the site and whether the site has taken adequate measures to maintain them.
Evidence of Implementation
-
The ERA demonstrates whether wildlife corridors are present within the site and whether the corridors are adequately maintained.
-
Spatial data and maps over a relevant timescale can determine if wildlife corridors are maintained.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Whether the ERA report has identified the presence of wildlife corridors within the site.
-
If present, the ERA determines the site is maintaining the wildlife corridors.
-
The UoC has presented maps or spatial data to demonstrate wildlife corridors have been maintained.
Useful Resources
-
GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)
