The UoC should initially determine the depth of the waterbody in comparison to the depth of the cage.

Measurements should take place at the lowest water level and from the bottom of the cage.

Depth should also be measured from the outer circumference of the culture containment space, i.e. excluding predator nets, mortality collection chambers etc.

In tidal systems, the depth should be measured at mean low water spring tide (MLWS).

If the depth of the water column (surface to seafloor) is less than 10m or less than double the cage depth, the UoC should measure the current velocity below the cage to determine whether the >0.1 m/s threshold is met.

Results of measurements which demonstrate that all cages in the UoC meet the depth/current velocity requirements in Indicator 2.6.4.

The UoC has provided evidence demonstrating that all cage systems meet the siting requirements outlined in Indicator 2.6.4.

If mean current velocity is used to meet the requirement, the UoC has provided evidence that measurements were taken during periods with >75% peak biomass.

An example of how to measure current velocity below cages can be found under Section 2.1 of the following document: Marine Scotland (2015): A Technical Standard for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture.

Indicator 2.6.3 complements the other water quality indicators by addressing the direct release of uneaten feed in the form of fines into the environment.

Setting a maximum percentage of fines in the feed addresses the efficient and proper transport, storage and physical delivery of feed pellets to the site.

Poor performance in any of the above phases of feed handling will result in a higher percentage of fines (fine particles of feed) and potentially greater impacts on water quality, due to an increase in suspended organic particles and nutrients released into the environment.

Sampling of feed lots includes feed delivered as material in bulk, big bags and small bags to the site.

Testing by the feed manufacturer to the UoC is permissible where there is no significant risk of feed deterioration during subsequent handling, storage or application.

Rationale for not testing on site should also be reported.

The method used to determine the percentage of fines in feed, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.3).

The determination and documentation of a schedule and location for the testing of feed.

If testing takes place prior to delivery to the site, the rationale should be documented for not testing on site.

Calibration of sieving machines (if used) in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

The rationale for the timing and location of feed sampling.

The UoC has appropriate testing technology on site and that, if applicable, it is calibrated as required.

The method used to determine the percentage of fines in feed, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.3).

Review testing results and confirm that results demonstrate feed contains <1% of fines.

This Indicator requires the UoC to ensure that fish counting procedures achieve a minimum accuracy of 98%, meaning that the error margin must not exceed 2% and applies to both manual and automated counting methods.

The total number of fish at key stages of production (e.g. stocking and harvesting) needs to be counted.

The actual count should be within 2% of the true number (e.g. if 100,000 fish are stocked, the count must be between 98,000 and 102,000).

Acceptable counting methods include e.g.:

The UoC shall demonstrate that fish are counted at key stages of production (e.g. stocking and harvesting) using a method that achieves 98% accuracy.

If automated systems are used, ensure they are regularly calibrated.

Documentation of counting procedures, accuracy checks and error rates.

Results of fish counts at key stages of production have been presented.

That calibration of the counting method is conducted.

Documents are maintained to record counting procedures, accuracy checks and error rates.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.9 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Major/Massive (MR/MV)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This Indicator requires that the UoC implements suitable actions to minimise the potential harm to biodiversity by a species, depending on its context as determined in Appendix 6 (following the decision-tree in this Appendix).

For situations in which either the species, the production region or the culture system results in a low likelihood of contributing to biodiversity harm, the UoC is not required to implement actions.

For situations in which either the species, the production region or the culture system contributes to biodiversity harm, the UoC is required to implement actions that reduce this risk. This could mean, e.g.:

Documents demonstrating to what extent the decision tree in Appendix 6 is applicable, and evidence of a reduction in the harm category (where relevant).

In cases where a reduction in the harm category is not possible, the UoC should demonstrate which additional measures have been taken, including the intended outcome of these measures.

The outcome of the decision-tree results in Appendix 6.

In cases where a reduction in the harm category is not possible, confirmation that additional measures have been taken, including the intended outcome of these measures.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.12 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Major/Massive (MR/MV)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This indicator requires a zero limit on mass escape. It also requires certification cancellation if the limit is exceeded.

An event counts as a ‘mass escape’ if the thresholds are exceeded, regardless of cause (e.g. storm damage, net failure, human error). The thresholds are:

The UoC has a register of known escapes in which exceedance of the set limit is monitored.

Records of mass escape events are maintained.

Escape limits remain below the set threshold and that calculations are made correctly.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.11 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Major/Massive (MR/MV)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This Indicator requires a strict limit on the number of known escapes allowed per production cycle or per year, whichever threshold is stricter. ‘Known escapes’ refers to escape incidents that are either observed directly or detected through monitoring. It does not include unverified or speculative losses.

Escape limits:

The UoC has a register of known escapes in which exceedance of the set limit is monitored.

Records of known escapes are maintained.

Escape limits are to remain below the set threshold and that calculations are made correctly.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.9 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Moderate (MO)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This Indicator requires that the UoC implements suitable actions to minimise the potential harm to biodiversity by a species, depending on its context as determined in Appendix 6 (following the decision-tree in this Appendix).

For situations in which either the species, the production region or the culture system results in a low likelihood of contributing to biodiversity harm, the UoC is not required to implement actions.

For situations in which either the species, the production region or the culture system contributes to biodiversity harm, the UoC is required to implement actions that reduce this risk. This could mean, e.g.:

Documents demonstrating to what extent the decision tree in Appendix 6 is applicable, and evidence of a reduction in the harm category (where relevant).

In cases where a reduction in the harm category is not possible, the UoC should demonstrate which additional measures have been taken, including the intended outcome of these measures.

Confirmation of the decision-tree results in Appendix 6.

In cases where a reduction in the harm category is not possible, confirmation that additional measures have been taken, including the intended outcome of these measures.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.9 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Moderate (MO)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This Indicator requires a strict limit on mass escape events over a six-year period to ensure that large-scale fish escapes are rare and properly managed. It also requires certification cancellation if the limit is exceeded.

An event counts as a ‘mass escape’ if the thresholds are exceeded, regardless of cause (e.g. storm damage, net failure, human error). The thresholds are:

The UoC has a register of known escapes in which exceedance of the set limit is monitored.

Records of mass escape events are maintained.

Escape limits remain below the set threshold and that calculations are made correctly.

[Note]: Indicator 2.4.8 only applies for species/regions that are classified as ‘Category Moderate (MO)’ in the EICAT Species Factsheet.

This Indicator requires a strict limit on the number of known escapes allowed per production cycle or per year, whichever threshold is stricter.

‘Known escapes’ refers to escape incidents that are either observed directly or detected through monitoring. It does not include unverified or speculative losses.

Escape limits:

The UoC has a register of known escapes in which exceedance of the set limit is monitored.

Records of known escapes are maintained.

Escape limits remain below the set threshold and that calculations are made correctly.