Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 2.4.2

Requirement

The UoC shall implement escape prevention measures that include the installation, inspection and maintenance of containment structures suitable for the species, life stages and environmental conditions under which the site is operating.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • This Indicator requires the UoC to prevent the escape of cultured animals. It focuses on three key aspects:

    • Installation of containment structure; these structures must be appropriate for:

      • The species; consider size and behaviour

      • Different life stages; consider that smaller animals require different mesh sizes compared to bigger animals

      • Environmental conditions; consider currents, tides, floodings, floating debris, natural predators that can damage the containment structure.

  • Inspection of containment structures to check for structure integrity, including:

    • Signs of damage or weaknesses; consider especially moving elements of the construction for ‘wear and tear’ signs

    • Environmental conditions that impact the structure (e.g. erosion)

    • Species-specific behaviours (e.g. net-biting, burrowing)

    • Maintenance of containment structure:

      • Regular maintenance needs to be conducted so that containment structures are kept in, or restored to, a good state, or to prepare for known severe weather events (e.g. forecasted storms, flooding, etc.).

Evidence of Implementation

  • Escape prevention measures are installed according to construction specifications that incorporate environmental conditions and species-specific characteristics.

  • Documents demonstrating inspection and maintenance is occurring regularly and when needed (e.g. after a storm).

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Escape prevention measures have been installed according to construction specifications and are appropriate to environmental conditions and species-specific characteristics.

  • Documents have been presented which demonstrate inspection and maintenance has occurred regularly and as required.

Useful Resources

Indicator 2.4.1

Requirement

The UoC shall not stock transgenic animals.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The stocking and culture of transgenic animals is not permitted on ASC certified sites.

  • Transgenic animals are not common in aquaculture, but transgenic stocks of Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, channel catfish and Nile tilapia are known to exist.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Evidence that non-transgenic animals are stocked should be presented to the auditor. This could consist of a declaration from the hatcheries that non-transgenic animals are used.

    • In case of doubt regarding origin, submitting animals for DNA-testing could be considered.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • All stock is from non-transgenic origin.

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 2.3.10

Requirement

Indicator applicability: all bivalve species The UoC shall2222An exemption applies to wild caught larvae. only use wild caught seed if: a. the species is not listed as a Threatened Species; and b. the seed is harvested from a regulated source.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Documentation (e.g. batch records) demonstrating that the species used for wild caught seed is not listed as a Threatened Species.

  • The IUCN Red List can be used to check whether the species used for wild caught seed is listed as Threatened.

    • Traceability documentation can be used to demonstrate the origin of the species used for wild caught seed.

    • Traceability should be back to the source and demonstrate it is regulated and not from an open-access, unregulated source.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Evidence has been presented that the species used for wild caught seed is not a Threatened Species.

    • This may include verifying traceability documentation, demonstrating traceability back to the source.

    • The evidence demonstrates the source is well regulated and not from an open-access unregulated source.

Useful Resources

Indicator 2.3.9

Requirement

Indicator applicability: hatchery-raised bivalve seed The UoC shall only source from hatcheries that have procedures to address genetic concerns specific to the species and geographical region where the seed will be stocked.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The translocation of wild bivalve seed can pose risks to the genetic diversity of wild populations.

  • Genetic risks to wild populations therefore need to be assessed and procedures need to be implemented to address any genetic risks. These will be based on the species and geographic region where the seed will be stocked.

  • Efforts should be made to address genetic concerns specific to the species and the geographic region where the seed will be stocked.

  • This may include preserving diversity of broodstock and seed by:

    • Using local broodstock,

    • Rotation of broodstock within spawning seasons and between years, and

    • Avoiding the use of hatchery-propagated stock in the hatchery as broodstock.

      • The scale of farming and the reproductive potential of crops (e.g. whether diploid or triploid, or considering age at harvest and age at first maturation) are well below the size and reproductive potential of the natural population within a reasonable ‘dispersal kernel’ from the site.

    • Sterile seed may be produced for stocking.

Evidence of Implementation

  • An assessment of genetic risks presented from the translocation of wild bivalve seed, based on the species and geographic region where the seed will be stocked.

  • The hatchery has procedures and measures in place to address any genetic concerns. For example:

    • Documentation of the use of local, wild broodstock to address genetic concerns specific to the species and the geographic region where the seed will be out-planted.

    • Documentation of the scale of farming activities and the reproductive potential of crops (e.g. whether diploid or triploid, or considering age at harvest and age at first maturation) are well below the size and reproductive potential of the natural population within a reasonable ‘dispersal kernel’ from the site.

    • Documentation on the production of sterile seed for out-planting from breeding programmes that intentionally alter wild stocks for improved culture traits, such as growth, yield, survival and morphology.

    • Provide documentation of cooperation with restoration efforts in the geographic region using out-planting that involves the intentional divergence from wild stocks to produce disease resistant wild populations.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Evidence has been presented that genetic risks to wild populations have been assessed and the hatchery has implemented procedures and measures to address these risks. For example:

    • Verify that efforts have been made to address genetic concerns specific to the species and the geographic region where the seed will be out-planted.

    • Document the site’s use of the local, wild population for the broodstock with appropriate rotation of spawned individuals. If there is uncertainty about whether a broodstock is of local origin, record source locality.

    • Verify that the reproductive potential (e.g. whether diploid or triploid, or considering age at harvest and age at first maturation) of the hatchery produced seed is well below the size and reproductive potential of the natural population within a reasonable ‘dispersal kernel’ from the site.

    • Verify the existence of a breeding programme that produces altered sterile seed for out-planting.

    • Verify that the site’s breeding programme is in coordination with existing restoration efforts in the geographic region.

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

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.