This indicator requires the UoC to schedule fallowing periods outside the out-migration period of native salmonids.

The UoC should

The out-migration period of native salmonids has been determined.

Documents demonstrating fallowing periods have been scheduled outside the out-migration period.

Fallowing periods occur outside the out-migration period of native salmonids.

This Indicator requires the UoC to conduct a collaborative scientific baseline study on the genetic composition of both native and farmed salmonid populations in the waterbody where it operates.

The study should establish a genetic baseline for comparison over time and should follow rigorous scientific methods and undergo peer review for credibility.

The study should use established genetic analysis techniques (e.g. DNA sequencing, microsatellite markers, SNP analysis).

The study should, if available, include known historical genetic profiles of both native and farmed salmonid populations in the waterbody.

The study should determine if genetic changes have occurred in native populations and identify if this is the result from introgression from farmed fish or other evolutionary pressures.

The study must be updated every three years.

The UoC maintains records of the conducted study or demonstrates that the study is under development.

Verify that the study has been concluded and has been conducted according to the requirements or is under development.

This Indicator requires the UoC to collaborate with local fishery trusts in conducting native salmonid monitoring programmes within the waterbody where it operates.

Collaboration may include:

The monitoring programme should address as minimum:

The UoC maintains records (e.g. agreements, partnerships, etc.) of collaboration with fishery trust(s).

Records have been presented to demonstrate collaboration with fishery trust(s).

This indicator requires the UoC to notify local fishery trusts whenever an escape incident occurs to ensure transparency, facilitate environmental monitoring and support mitigation efforts.

For each escape incident, the UoC must report key details such as:

In case of escapes, the UoC shall maintain records of communications with fishery trusts (emails, reports or acknowledgments).

Verify that, in case of escapes, the UoC has communicated each escape incident to the fishery trusts.

n/a

n/a

n/a

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.