Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

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 2.3.6

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

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 2.2.11

Requirement

Indicator applicability: bivalve culture The UoC shall1919An exemption to Indicator 2.2.11 applies for situations where the total surface area of aquaculture within a waterbody is less than 10% of the total surface area of the waterbody. ensure that total bivalve culture in a waterbody does not result in phytoplankton depletion either by: a. demonstrating that the waterbody has a ratio of Clearance Time (CT) over Retention Time (RT) > 1, following the method outlined in Appendix 5. Where CT over RT is <1, demonstrate that the waterbody has a ratio of CT over Primary Production Time (PPT) > 3, following the method outlined in Appendix 5; or b. conducting a modelling study that demonstrates that the carrying capacity of the waterbody is not exceeded.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The ratio of Clearance Time (CT) and Retention Time (RT) demonstrate whether the carrying capacity of a waterbody for bivalve production has been exceeded.

  • Primary Production Time (PPT) is calculated when cultured bivalves may negatively impact the carrying capacity of a waterbody.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The method used to calculate CT, RT and PPT, in accordance with Appendix 5.

    • Maps demonstrating whether the site is in an easily definable waterbody. This will support the selection of the correct method in Appendix 5 (5.2) regarding estimating the zone of influence.

  • Results demonstrating the ratio of CT over RT, or CT over PPT.

  • A modelling study has been conducted to demonstrate the carrying capacity of the waterbody, if the method outlined in Appendix 5 has not been followed.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Methods and results have been presented demonstrating the ratio of CT over RT, or CT and PPT depending on whether CT over RT > 1, in accordance with Indicator 2.11.

  • A modelling study has been conducted to demonstrate the carrying capacity of the waterbody, if the method outlined in Appendix 5 has not been followed.

    • The modelling study shall demonstrate carrying capacity has not been exceeded.

Indicator 2.2.4

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the site has a low risk of negative impact on sensitive habitats, as determined through the ERA (see Indicator 2.1.1).

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) will determine whether there are sensitive habitats within the vicinity of the site and the risk drivers that increase the likelihood of negative impacts on any sensitive habitats.

    • The ERA will determine whether the risk of negative impacts on the identified sensitive habitats is minimal.

  • Appendix 3.3 outlines the risk factors that shall be considered as a minimum when conducting the ERA.

    • Appendix 3.3 also outlines the types of sensitive habitats that shall be considered as a minimum.

    • Other types of sensitive habitats may be identified in the ERA.

Evidence of Implementation

  • An ERA report has been completed, which assesses the risk of negative impacts on any relevant sensitive habitats.

  • The ERA report demonstrates whether the risk of negative impacts on sensitive habitats is ‘low’.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • An ERA has been completed, which includes at a minimum the risk factors outlined in Appendix 3.3.

  • The ERA determined whether sensitive habitats are located within the vicinity of the site.

    • If sensitive habitats were identified, the ERA determined whether the risk of negative impacts on the sensitive habitats is minimal.

Useful Resources

Indicator 2.2.3

Requirement

The UoC shall preserve any critical habitat identified within the site.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • In accordance with Indicator 2.2.2, the ERA report will identify whether critical habitats are located within the boundaries of the site.

  • The size and biodiversity characteristics of critical habitats should either remain the same since the ERA was conducted or have increased/improved.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The ERA report has identified the presence of critical habitats within the boundaries of the site.

  • Documented measures and outcomes, which demonstrate critical habitats have been preserved, and that their size and biodiversity has not decreased.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Whether critical habitats have been identified in the ERA report.

  • If critical habitats are present, evidence has been provided to demonstrate measures to preserve the documented critical habitats.

  • Outputs of preservation measures should also be available where appropriate.

Useful Resources