Filter content
by selecting applicable filters below
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 2.3.7
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 2.3.6
Requirement
Indicator applicability: all fish species The UoC shall only stock fish that is hatchery-raised. An exception applies where the UoC can demonstrate the following for Seriola/Cobia, in which case wild caught fish are permitted to be stocked: a. the species is not listed as a Threatened Species; and b. the originating fishery is certified to an ASC-recognised fisheries certification scheme;2121Refer to the ASC website for details of ASC-recognised fisheries certification schemes. and c. traceability back to the originating fishery is provided.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Batch records or other documentations are maintained to demonstrate stocked fish are hatchery-raised.
-
For Seriola/Cobia, where wild caught fingerlings are stocked, documentation demonstrating the species is not listed as a Threatened Species and records demonstrating the traceability of the fish.
-
The IUCN Red List can be used to check whether the species is listed as Threatened.
-
Documentation demonstrating the fish was sourced from an ASC-recognised fisheries certification scheme can facilitate traceability back to the fishery if chain of custody documentation has been maintained.
-
-
Traceability documentation should include the species, catch method and area in which the fish was caught.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Batch records or other documentation are presented to demonstrate stocked fish are hatchery-raised.
-
For Seriola/Cobia stocked from a wild fishery, adequate documentation is presented to demonstrate traceability back to the fishery and the certification of the originating fishery (to an ASC-recognised fisheries certification scheme).
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.
