Filter content
by selecting applicable filters below
Indicator 2.4.8
Requirement
Indicator applicability: species with an EICAT Category MO The UoC shall not exceed a maximum number of known escapes per production cycle or year, whichever is stricter, of the following: a. marine salmonids: 300 individuals b. other fish species: 6% If the maximum number of known escapes is exceeded more than once in a six-year period, the UoC shall, by the next working day: c. submit a formal notification to the CAB for cancellation of certification; and d. notify ASC of the exceedance of known escapes, according to ASC data submission procedures.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
[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:
-
Marine salmonids (e.g. Atlantic salmon, trout): A hard limit of 300 individuals per production cycle. The formula for calculation can be found in Appendix 6.1.
-
Other fish species: A percentage-based limit of 6% of the total stocked population per production cycle or year (whichever is stricter). The formula for calculation can be found in Appendix 6.1.
-
If the UoC exceeds the set limit, a formal notification to the CAB shall be submitted by the next working day.
-
Evidence of Implementation
-
The UoC has a register of known escapes in which exceedance of the set limit is monitored.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Records of known escapes are maintained.
-
Escape limits remain below the set threshold and that calculations are made correctly.
Indicator 2.4.7
Requirement
The UoC shall report to ASC the escape data, according to ASC data submission procedures.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
This Indicator requires the UoC to report the relevant data to ASC, as per data submission procedure.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Evidence that data has been submitted and received by ASC.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Verify that UoC holds evidence that data has been submitted to ASC.
Indicator 2.4.5
Requirement
The UoC shall log all handling and containment incidents and near misses.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
This indicator requires the UoC to log (i.e. register) all handling and containment incidents, including near misses, in order to inform the risk assessment (see Indicator 2.4.3) and the training (2.4.4) on situations that could result, or have resulted, in registered escapes.
Evidence of Implementation
-
A documented register of all handling and containment incidents and near misses.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Presence of the register.
-
Interviews with employees to confirm that employees are aware of the register and that it is being used.
Indicator 2.4.4
Requirement
The UoC shall ensure that any person involved in handling activities is trained on handling procedures to minimise escapes.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
Training and handling procedures includes:
-
An understanding of which staff are involved in animal handling (including external services providers that conduct activities at the site).
-
Coverage of relevant training content, e.g. correct handling process, correct use of equipment and emergency protocols.
-
Appropriate means of training delivery relevant to the site-specific conditions (e.g. considering whether a workshop is sufficient or whether ‘live training’ on-site is more appropriate).
-
Evidence of Implementation
-
Training documents and records of staff attendance.
-
Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Training documents and records of staff attendance.
-
Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.
-
Interviews with staff.
Indicator 2.4.3
Requirement
The UoC shall carry out a site-specific handling and containment risk assessment, approved by a member of management, following the method outlined in Appendix 3.
How Do I Interpret This Requirement?
-
This Indicator requires the UoC to conduct a site-specific risk assessment to proactively identify and mitigate risks associated with handling and containment of cultured animals. The Indicator emphasises the need for tailored evaluation rather than a generic approach as site-specific circumstances might require different responses. Management approval ensures that the assessment is formally reviewed, acknowledged and integrated into wider management structures.
Evidence of Implementation
-
Documentational evidence of a risk assessment, the identification of appropriate risk levels and any mitigation actions taken (including the implementation thereof). The evidence should also include proof of management approval and periodic review of the risk assessment to ensure that it remains relevant.
Auditors Should Confirm
-
Presence of a documented risk assessment, which:
-
Is specific to the conditions of the site.
-
Covers all handling and containment risks.
-
-
That the risk assessment identifies:
-
Risk factors and the associated risk levels.
-
Mitigation actions and records the implementation, including the desired outcome (i.e. reduction of risk level).
-
That the risk assessment is approved (e.g. signed off) by management and shows evidence of periodic review to keep it relevant.
-
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.
