ISEAL is a global membership organisation for ambitious, collaborative and transparent sustainability systems, that drives collective efforts to tackle the most pressing sustainability issues and create a world where markets are a force for good.

The ASC Certification Programme is ISEAL Code Compliant. The ISEAL Code is a globally recognised framework that defines best practices for effective and credible sustainability systems.

The documents and tools listed below are a normative part of the ASC Certification Programme:

Additional documents are referred to in Indicators and Appendices of this standard in such a way that some or all of their content constitutes requirements of this document.

For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

The documents and tools listed below support the implementation of the ASC Certification Programme:

The ASC Certification Programme is a voluntary third-party certification programme consisting of the following independent actors:

Scheme Owner: Aquaculture Stewardship Council

As scheme owner, ASC sets and maintains standards and associated assurance documents and their underpinning procedures, as well documents and resources that support the implementation of the Certification Programme.

An overview of all documents and the latest version can be found on the ASC Controlled Document Master List.

Conformity Assessment Body: Provide certification services in accordance with the requirements of this scheme.

The legal entity responsible for the Unit of Certification (UoC), contracts a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) which employs auditor(s) that conduct an independent conformity assessment (hereafter ‘audit’) of the UoC against the relevant ASC standard.

The management requirements for CABs as well as auditor competency requirements are described in the CAR and are assured through accreditation.

Integrity Services Provider and Accreditation Body:

The Integrity Services Provider is appointed by ASC to oversee the integrity of the programme.

Integrity services and accreditation are currently provided by Assurance Services International (ASI). Findings of ASI assessments and an overview of currently accredited CABs are available on the ASI website.33http://www.asi-assurance.org/s/

An ASC audit follows strict process requirements. These requirements are detailed in the CAR. Only ASC accredited CABs are allowed to audit and certify a UoC against ASC standards.

As scheme owner, ASC is not involved in the audit or certification decision of a UoC.

As part of the ASC commitment to transparency, all audit reports, findings and certificates are publicly available on the ASC website. These include audit findings that result in a negative certification decision.

All ASC certificates are available on the ASC website for verification. Issued certificates are the property of the CAB.

Each certificate specifies the scope (i.e. ASC Farm Standard) and the sub-scope of the certified UoC (i.e. animal group and species name). Examples are listed below:

Once ASC-certified seafood is produced by a certified UoC, every company that owns or handles the ASC-certified products must be covered by valid ASC Chain of Custody (CoC) certification. This includes any processing or packing conducted while the product is owned by the UoC. This assures consumers and seafood buyers that ASC-labelled products come from certified farms. ASC uses the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Chain of Custody (CoC) Standard, plus the ASC-owned CoC Module, to verify the origin of seafood sold as ASC-certified. This process benefits companies that handle both ASC and MSC certified seafood by allowing them to do a combined audit. CoC certification covers activities beyond farm production, such as processing and packing. For more information see Chain of Custody Standard – ASC International or contact info@asc-aqua.org.

ASC-certified entities shall only use the ASC label, claim, and trademarks if authorised through a signed ASC Licensing Agreement.

Unauthorised label display or use of trademarks is prohibited and will be treated as a trademark infringement. For more information see ASC’s Label User Guide or contact licensing@asc-aqua.org.

The independent actors and processes described above are interlinked to provide the most robust and reliable assurance system, supported by ASC’s transparent processes and stakeholder participation. CABs conduct strict audits to verify conformity against the ASC standards. ASI assesses CABs to confirm that certification was granted following the requirements and with integrity. Both CABs and ASI may conduct these activities unannounced, and all the evaluation results are publicly available for interested stakeholders who may provide additional information to the certification process.

Working closely with assurance partners, ASC monitors conformance across the supply chain.

ASC adds another layer of assurance by designing tailored tools that support additional verification of conformity. These tools evaluate the conformance of ASC products in different stages, for example, antibiotic residues and provenance (TestASC), verification of production cycles and remote sensing (MapASC), and complete tracking of products in the supply chain (TraceASC).

ASC Group certification provides a more efficient option to certify multiple sites where there is a centralised internal management system in place which assures conformity across all sites. The internal management system requirements are described in the ASC Group Requirements for Farms document.

One of the key benefits of this type of certification is that a sample of sites is selected for the CAB audits, thereby reducing the audit time compared to auditing and certifying each site individually. The CABs also assess the robustness of the internal management system and can increase or decrease the sample size based on risk.

UoCs may encounter circumstances in which ASC standards’ requirements need to be adapted to the local context while maintaining their original intent. To address this need, ASC has developed a Variance Request (VR) Process.

The ASC Variance Request (VR) Procedure sets out the steps for submitting, processing and publishing VRs, including stakeholder engagement. The procedure ensures that VRs are processed consistently and that outcomes are clear and replicable.

All VRs are evaluated for inclusion during the development or revision of ASC standards. To ensure transparency, all VRs and related procedural documents are publicly available on the ASC’s Variance Request and Interpretation Platform.

UoCs, CABs, ASI and stakeholders may encounter circumstances in which the language or intent of an Indicator or requirement requires interpretation or clarification. To address this need, ASC has developed the Question for Interpretation (QA) process. In contrast to VRs, QAs provide temporary additional guidance, interpretation and information between revisions of ASC standards.

The ASC Question for Interpretation (QA) Procedure sets out the steps for submitting, processing, and publishing QAs. The procedure ensures that QAs are processed consistently and that the outcomes are clear and replicable.

All QAs are evaluated for inclusion during the development or revision of ASC standards. To ensure transparency, all QAs and related procedural documents are publicly available on the ASC Variance Request and Interpretation Platform.

ASC collects data as part of the ASC Certification Programme and related services. These data are essential for demonstrating ASC’s impacts, supporting assurance and programme development, transparency, delivering client and partner services, and meeting research needs. ASC establishes data submission requirements based on clear, justified needs and adheres to a strict data sharing policy. The data to be submitted are specified in the ASC Data Submission Procedure.

The ASC Farm Standard is structured as follows:

The ASC Farm Standard also contains:

Intentional language is used in the ASC Farm Standard to ensure clarity:

The following focus areas are within scope of the ASC Farm Standard:

The UoC may be a single aquaculture grow out site or consist of multiple aquaculture grow out sites.

The following components of the UoC are within scope of the ASC Farm Standard:

Culture units and facilities of the UoC might not always be located within the premises of the grow out site. For example, marine cage units, chemical and feed storage facilities, offices and employee accommodation may be located at separate physical locations. Where these components form part of the grow out site’s operations, they are considered part of the UoC.

The following are illustrative, non-normative examples of different UoC configurations.

Example 1 UoC with off-site hatchery, slaughter and processing

Example 2 UoC with on–site hatchery, slaughter and processing

Example 3 UoC with on-site hatchery and off-site slaughter and processing

Example 4 UoC with on-site slaughter and off-site hatchery and processing

The ASC Farm Standard applies to the main aquaculture Culture Systems and Water types for eligible species.

All Indicators are applicable unless explicitly stated otherwise in the Criterion, Indicator, or Appendices.

For the applicability of the Indicators, the following is considered:

Additionally, the Standard differentiates between:

The species and genera listed below are eligible for certification. Whenever possible, the naming of species, genera, families and orders adhere to the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System (ASFIS) list of species maintained by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Only hybrid species of two separately eligible species are eligible for certification.

Fish:

Molluscs:

Crustaceans:

A legal business complies with applicable laws, licensing, and permit requirements.

A wide variety of laws and regulations apply to aquaculture. Ensuring national laws are followed, and necessary permits and licences are acquired helps to promote a socially and environmentally responsible aquaculture industry. Compliance also benefits a business by enhancing customer trust, increasing revenue, strengthening reputation, and avoiding legal sanctions and fines44Widjaja, G. (2024). Managing Legal and Corporate Compliance to Induce and Enhance Business. Law and Humanities Quarterly Reviews, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1996.03.02.115.

This criterion focuses on the legal compliance of ASC-certified farms as the basis of a well-managed business.

Intent – The aquaculture industry complies with all applicable legal requirements.

A management system supports an organisation to manage the interrelated parts of the business to achieve its objectives. Management systems include policies, processes and procedures, and vary in complexity depending on the organisation’s context. They can support compliance with laws and regulations, detection and resolution of issues, and monitoring of essential operational activities.

This Criterion focuses on the development of a management system for the implementation and maintenance of ASC Requirements on ASC-certified farms.

Intent – The aquaculture industry continuously manages and improves processes to deliver consistent performance against the ASC requirements.

Business ethics are defined as the application of ethical values to business behaviour by the Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) and range from the behaviour of an individual, to sales and accounting practices and how companies treat their employees. The benefits of running a business ethically include stronger teams, increased employee loyalty, a strengthened reputation and competitive advantage66Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. (2011). Business Ethics – Ethical Decisions Making and Cases (8th Edition). Mason, OH, USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.. However, businesses often operate in environments that can make operating ethically a challenge, and many businesses can face problems with fraud.

This Criterion focuses on ASC farms operating in a legally-compliant and ethical manner to reduce the risk of corruption and fraud.

Intent – The aquaculture industry upholds ethical business practices.

Traceability plays a crucial role in seafood sustainability certification as it ensures that claims are properly transferred through the supply chain to the end consumer.

As one of the most internationally traded commodities – often through complex supply chains – seafood is highly vulnerable to food fraud, especially product mislabelling, species substitution and provenance misrepresentation77Lawrence, S. J., Elliott, C., Huisman, W., Dean, M., & van Ruth, S. (2022). The 11 sins of seafood: Assessing a decade of food fraud reports in the global supply chain. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 21, 3746–3769. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12998.

This Criterion focuses on ASC-certified products being correctly differentiated from non-ASC-certified products, and traceability systems being in place on ASC-certified farms to maintain the integrity of products traded and sold under the ASC label.

Intent – The aquaculture industry supplies food that is traceable through the supply chain.

The impacts of aquaculture extend beyond the final grow out site, as the production of many species relies on upstream supply chain stages, such as hatchery and nursery production, which often occur across multiple sites. A key challenge in addressing these impacts is the diversity of production practices, both between and within species, together with the need for effective information sharing between the various sites. Managing these impacts throughout the upstream supply chain and enabling the transfer of batch-specific information is essential to ensuring that the industry operates responsibly as a whole.

This Criterion requires ASC-certified sites to source aquatic animals from supplier sites that address key impacts at the relevant production stages.  

Intent – The aquaculture industry sources from responsibly operated suppliers.

All human activities can have negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Understanding the likelihood of negative impacts occurring from an activity, and the magnitude of that impact, requires a risk-based approach. An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is a useful tool to help identify the environmental risks associated with an activity along with actions to help mitigate those risks.

Aquaculture operations take place in a wide variety of environments and contexts. Defining a farm’s particular risks and environmental impacts requires a site-specific evaluation that considers the context-relevant risks for that farm.1717Andersen, L. B., Grefsrud, E. S., Svåsand, T., & Sandlund, N. (2022). Risk understanding and risk acknowledgement: a new approach to environmental risk assessment in marine aquaculture. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79(4), 987-996. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac028

This Criterion requires that ASC-certified farms identify their potential environmental impacts by conducting an ERA and mitigating identified risks accordingly.

Intent – The aquaculture industry performs comprehensive environmental assessments to address site-specific risks.

Conversion and fragmentation of habitats is a leading driver of biodiversity loss.1818Crooks, K. R., Burdett, C. L., Theobald, D. M., King, S. R., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., & Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 114(29), 7635-7640. Boitani, L. (2017). Wetlands are particularly important in promoting biodiversity, as they provide breeding and nursery grounds for native species, supporting ecological services like water purification, and increasing environmental resilience to threats like storms, floods and climate change.1919Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., & Egoh, B. (2013). Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A systematic review. PloS one, 8(7), e67737.

Aquaculture production can drive conversion and fragmentation of ecologically important habitats if improperly sited. Farms sited in protected or sensitive habitats can affect local biodiversity and the ecological services these environments provide. Loss of wetlands has been historically linked to expansion of aquaculture in tropical regions. Sited and operated with consideration paid to important habitats, aquaculture can benefit from the many services that suitable sites provide while minimising these negative impacts.2020¹⁷ Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Soto, D., & Brummett, R. (2017). Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. A handbook. Rome, Italy: FAO.

This Criterion focuses on requirements for where ASC-certified farms can be situated to reduce impacts on local biodiversity, restricts conversion of ecologically important habitats and requires rehabilitation of previously converted wetlands.

Intent – The aquaculture industry preserves habitat that is important for biodiversity.

UUID-84991f75-0283-d3e1-b525-b1b76f5bfeeb

Over 45,000 wildlife species are at risk of extinction, many of them occurring in environments suitable for aquaculture.2323IUCN. (2024). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org Human-wildlife interactions can occur in numerous ways, from direct Human-Wildlife Conflict with animals to disruption of migration routes, disturbance to diurnal cycles or alteration of local food availability.

Aquaculture operations may result in human-wildlife interactions and conflict in many ways. Farms may rely on wildlife directly for collection of larvae, juveniles, or breeding stock. Their vessels, infrastructure, or equipment may disturb or interact with wildlife. They may also use deterrent devices to discourage predators or pests from approaching pens or cages. Risk to wildlife from these interactions should be assessed and mitigated and, when injuries or mortalities do occur, corrective measures need to be put into place to avoid similar future occurrences.

This Criterion focuses on the minimisation of ASC-certified farms’ interaction with wildlife to reduce injury and mortalities, especially interactions involving threatened or endangered species.

Intent – The aquaculture industry prioritises the protection of threatened species by minimising negative interactions with wildlife.

The introduction of non-native (or alien) species, often driven by human activities, poses significant concerns for natural ecosystems. Their impacts can vary widely, from negligible effects to severe ecological disruptions. These consequences often emerge after extended periods and can vary significantly based on the biological traits of the species and the characteristics of the receiving ecosystem2626Blackburn, T. M., Essl, F., Evans, T., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Kühn, I., … & Bacher, S. (2014). A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS biology, 12(5), e1001850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850.

The global aquaculture industry is a key contributor to the spread of alien species. Many of these species have escaped into the wild, establishing populations that can cause ecological harm. Risks to native biodiversity may also arise where farmed animals become reproductively mature and spawn in culture systems, creating a risk of genetic interaction, hybridisation or introgression with wild populations, even where no physical escape of live animals is confirmed. This underscores the need for effective management strategies and scientifically sound evaluation tools.

To address these challenges, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa2727International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2020). IUCN EICAT Categories and Criteria. The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.05.en (EICAT). EICAT is a globally recognised framework that classifies alien species based on the magnitude and mechanisms of their environmental impact. It provides a transparent basis for identifying and prioritising species of concern and for informing appropriate management responses. ASC conducts EICAT assessments and makes the outcomes publicly available.

ASC-certified farms are required to implement robust escape management practices and mitigation measures aligned with the relevant EICAT classification(s), where applicable, to minimise the risks posed by alien species and their impacts.

Intent – The aquaculture industry cultivates species in a manner that poses minimal risk to native biodiversity.

Indicators 2.4.8 – 2.4.13 Additional requirements for fish species with a published ASC EICAT evaluation2828Species-specific EICAT evaluations are published on the ASC Website.

Indicators 2.4.14 – 2.4.17 Additional requirements for cage culture sites producing smolts in freshwater

The benthic zone (‘bottom’) of a waterbody often supports a rich biodiversity and provides critical ecological functions such as assimilation of organic waste (e.g. faeces, uneaten feed), provision of food for species and protection of coastal sediment from erosion. Human activities interacting with the benthic zone can negatively impact the functioning of these ecosystems.

Aquaculture can interact with the benthic zone through deposition of organic waste and release of heavy metals.3131González-Gaya, B., García-Bueno, N., Buelow, E., Marin, A., & Rico, A. (2022). Effects of aquaculture waste feeds and antibiotics on marine benthic ecosystems in the Mediterranean Sea. Science of the Total Environment, 806, 151190. When this deposition exceeds the environment’s ability to handle it, harmful changes to the ecosystem can occur. 3232Hargrave, B. T., Phillips, G. A., Doucette, L. I., White, M. J., Milligan, T. G., Wildish, D. J., & Cranston, R. E. (1997). Assessing benthic impacts of organic enrichment from marine aquaculture. In The Interactions Between Sediments and Water: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium, Baveno, Italy 22–25 September 1996 (pp. 641-650). Springer Netherlands.The severity of these impacts depends on factors such as the amount of waste released, waterbody characteristics and the ability of the benthic microbial community to break down waste.3333Kalantzi, I., & Karakassis, I. (2006). Benthic impacts of fish farming: meta-analysis of community and geochemical data. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(5), 484-493.

This Criterion focuses on effective management by ASC-certified farms to monitor the local benthic zone and limit these impacts by ensuring waste deposition is lower than the natural decomposition rate.

Intent – The aquaculture industry maintains healthy benthic ecosystems.

Eutrophication is caused by excessive nutrient inputs (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) to water bodies and is a major environmental issue. It disrupts freshwater and marine ecosystems, contributes to algal blooms and oxygen depletion, and affects the quality of water available to local communities and other resource users.3737Akinnawo, S. O. (2023). Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, physical, chemical and biological techniques for mitigation strategies. Environmental Challenges, 12, 100733.

Nutrient releases from aquaculture in the form of faeces and uneaten feed can lead to eutrophication and negatively impact oxygen availability and other water quality parameters.3838Chislock, M. F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R. A., & Wilson, A. E. (2013). Eutrophication: causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge, 4(4), 10. The severity of these effects depends on factors like water depth and current velocity, location and sensitivity of the waterbody to nutrient loading.

This Criterion focuses on ASC-certified farms minimising their contribution to eutrophication by monitoring water quality, managing nutrient releases, and engaging in collaborative information sharing in at-risk waterbodies.

Intent – The aquaculture industry minimises its contribution to eutrophication and the trophic status shift of waterbodies.

Applicability

Indicators

Description

2.6.1

UUID-db00aabc-e9f6-3b4e-98df-e50d43769241

applicability-placeholder-UUID-db00aabc-e9f6-3b4e-98df-e50d43769241

2.6.2

UUID-fa0cec76-f299-b52b-ee5b-f10cf99278b6

applicability-placeholder-UUID-fa0cec76-f299-b52b-ee5b-f10cf99278b6

2.6.3

Indicator applicability: cage-fed systems with feed of a diameter ≥3mm

The UoC shall ensure that feed used contains <1% fines, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.3).

Applicable to

Cages

Other – water based

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Abalone

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

2.6.4

The UoC shall ensure that the Receiving Waterbody (RW) has been classified per site as Type A, B or C, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.4).

Applicable to

Cages

Flowthrough/Raceway

Other – land based

Other – water based

Ponds

Suspended

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Non fed

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Abalone

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

Indicators 2.6.5 – 2.6.14 Scope: Type A waterbodies

Applicability

Indicators

Description

2.6.5

UUID-d7cd9adb-748a-185d-d353-7a405081849c

applicability-placeholder-UUID-d7cd9adb-748a-185d-d353-7a405081849c

2.6.6

UUID-332317a6-b19d-4d04-1b70-3f37ac0fefcf

applicability-placeholder-UUID-332317a6-b19d-4d04-1b70-3f37ac0fefcf

2.6.7

UUID-cf001467-1a75-2e2a-0a7d-db4baa8c6e94

applicability-placeholder-UUID-cf001467-1a75-2e2a-0a7d-db4baa8c6e94

2.6.8

UUID-2630d7f0-6a59-2b1c-bad6-64b296074db1

applicability-placeholder-UUID-2630d7f0-6a59-2b1c-bad6-64b296074db1

2.6.9

UUID-7e8e4d82-1432-00c9-88da-a95098735fa7

applicability-placeholder-UUID-7e8e4d82-1432-00c9-88da-a95098735fa7

2.6.10

UUID-57967b1a-7402-e526-ceeb-3fb72e47bf33

applicability-placeholder-UUID-57967b1a-7402-e526-ceeb-3fb72e47bf33

2.6.11

The UoC shall, based on the monitoring of the water quality parameters, ensure that there is no upward rate of change >25% over the past 24 months, for any of the water quality parameters listed below, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.7):

1. TN concentration; and

2. TP concentration; and

3. Chl-a; and

4. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD).

Applicable to

Cages

Flowthrough/Raceway

Other – land based

Other – water based

Ponds

Suspended

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Non fed

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Abalone

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

2.6.12

UUID-4d462a85-d438-b3bd-7c6b-8b3f3b438a44

applicability-placeholder-UUID-4d462a85-d438-b3bd-7c6b-8b3f3b438a44

2.6.13

The UoC shall report WUM related data in accordance with the ASC Data Submission Procedure.

Applicable to

Cages

Flowthrough/Raceway

Other – land based

Other – water based

Ponds

Suspended

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Non fed

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Abalone

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

2.6.14

UUID-67f66cf9-6fda-a5fd-1eb3-a37d6ddbe840

applicability-placeholder-UUID-67f66cf9-6fda-a5fd-1eb3-a37d6ddbe840

Indicators 2.6.15 – 2.6.17 Scope: Point source systems

Indicators 2.6.18 – 2.6.21 Dissolved oxygen requirements

Applicability

Indicators

Description

2.6.18

UUID-bb4baebe-b512-9910-845f-f9ecb7e61920

applicability-placeholder-UUID-bb4baebe-b512-9910-845f-f9ecb7e61920

2.6.19

The UoC shall demonstrate that the weekly average of daily DO saturation is ≥65% in freshwater or ≥70% in marine waterbodies.

An exception applies if the UoC cannot demonstrate this, in which case the UoC shall ensure the weekly average of daily DO percentage saturation at a ‘downstream, near-field’ impacted location is equal to, or higher than, results from an ‘upstream, far-field’ non-impacted reference location, at least 500m upstream of the site.

Applicable to

Cages

Flowthrough/Raceway

Other – land based

Other – water based

Ponds

Suspended

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Non fed

Abalone

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

2.6.20

UUID-d24ed785-64dc-a17e-52b5-db66f09615a8

applicability-placeholder-UUID-d24ed785-64dc-a17e-52b5-db66f09615a8

2.6.21

Indicator applicability: point-source systems in waterbody Types A and B

The UoC shall conduct DO monitoring downstream from the outflow point and shall demonstrate that daily diurnal DO (DDDO) fluctuation is ≤65% saturation, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.10).

Applicable to

Flowthrough/Raceway

Other – land based

Ponds

Brackish/Marine water

Freshwater

Fed

Non fed

Bivalves

Catfish

Cod

Abalone

Crayfish

Flatfish

Freshwater prawn

Pangasius

Pike-perch

Salmonids – freshwater

Salmonids – marine

Seabass, Seabream, Meagre

Seriola and Cobia

Shrimp

Tilapia

Tropical Marine Fish

Salinisation occurs when salt concentration rises in soil or freshwater, either naturally or due to human activities. It affects agricultural land, contributing to crop failures and reduces yields. It also affects local ecosystems, leading to habitat loss and biodiversity decline. With a growing global population, addressing salinisation is crucial for food security.4343Kumar, P., & Sharma, P. K. (2020). Soil salinity and food security in India. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 4, 533781.

Aquaculture activities can cause salinisation through seepage from saline waterbodies, saline water discharge into freshwater, the intrusion of saline water into groundwater or the dumping of biosolids.4444Rajarshi, M., & Santra, S. C. (2011). Influence of Brackish water aquaculture on soil salinisation. Int J Res Chem Environ, 1, 60-65. In coastal regions, the effects of the dumping of biosolids can be amplified by rising sea-levels and land subsidence as a result of climate change.

This Criterion focuses on ASC-certified farms implementing best practices, such as pond liners, and regulating discharge of saline water to minimise contribution towards salinisation of soil and freshwater.

Intent – The aquaculture industry does not contribute to salinisation of soil or freshwater.

Farming activities, such as aquaculture, accumulate biological waste. Discharge and unregulated disposal of biosolids into the environment can cause negative impacts, including eutrophication, salinisation, spreading of disease and residues, and sedimentation of aquatic habitats.

Biosolids or sludge from aquaculture are often nutrient-rich and can be re-used, for example for fertilisation, if treated appropriately.4646Campanati, C., Willer, D., Schubert, J., Aldridge, D.C. (2021) Sustainable Intensification of Aquaculture through Nutrient Recycling and Circular Econoies: More Fish, Less Waste, Blue Growth. Review in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture (30) 143-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2021.1897520 This provides an opportunity for the industry to contribute to building more circular economies.

This Criterion focuses on the on-site containment of biosolids by ASC-certified farms and potential for their re-use.

Intent – The aquaculture industry contributes to the circular economy by improving biosolids management.

Freshwater is a vitally important global resource. As a result of increasing demand, water scarcity is increasing, leading to regional ‘water stress’. The source of freshwater, the local conditions, and the intensity of extraction determine whether the utilisation of resources is detrimental to the natural environment and to humans. Global freshwater resource depletion is driven primarily by food production systems.4747Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2022). The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture 2021—Systems at a Breaking Point. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9910en

Water use in aquaculture has direct impacts on the availability of water for other users and biological processes4848For the purpose of this Criterion, water use refers only to freshwater used as part of the culture (production) process in land-based aquaculture systems. It does not include water use in non-production activities., making it important that aquaculture operations in sensitive regions are aware of their water use and act to improve the water efficiency of their farming processes.

This Criterion focuses on ASC-certified farms appropriately monitoring and using water responsibly.

Intent – The aquaculture industry conserves freshwater.

Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental challenges globally with wide-ranging environmental and socio-economic implications. Food systems account for roughly a third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions5050Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. J. N. F. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198-209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 making the transforming of food systems towards lower-emission production and taking action to reduce emissions from food supply chains, critically important in combatting climate change.

Aquaculture contributes to GHG emissions through the use of fossil fuel-derived energy, production of feed ingredients, deforestation for feed crops or farm siting, and numerous other activities. While aquaculture products typically have a lower GHG impact than land-based alternatives5151Gephart, J. A., Henriksson, P. J., Parker, R. W., Shepon, A., Gorospe, K. D., Bergman, K., … & Troell, M. (2021). Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature, 597(7876), 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2,5252Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 the GHG performance of aquaculture production varies widely.

The Criterion focuses on the measurement, reporting, and management of GHG emissions by ASC-certified farms to encourage climate-responsible aquaculture production.

Intent – The aquaculture industry measures and reduces greenhouse gas emissions so it remains a producer of climate-friendly food.

Waste is generated through human activities such as agriculture, construction and demolition, industrial or commercial operations, the healthcare sector and domestic refuse. Improper material use and disposal can cause long-term pollution of terrestrial and aquatic environments, and have a direct effect on biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change.5353UN Environment Programme (2024). Beyond an age of waste – Turning rubbish into a resource. DOI: LXXTW:HSMSVK1091172000118224499

From construction, to operation and decommissioning, aquaculture farms use materials and generate waste that can be hazardous. Copper-based antifoulants can leach into the water and cause harm to marine life in the water column and to the sediments below the farm. Therapeutants and chemicals used to treat farmed animals can also create unintended impacts on the animals themselves, the ecosystem and their handling staff.

Aquaculture gear or infrastructure can contribute to plastic pollution in aquatic environments, particularly where materials are lost, damaged or degraded. Plastic pollution can persist in the environment, affect habitats and wildlife, and create long-term risks for aquatic ecosystems. Responsible material use and management practices can reduce the likelihood of plastic loss, leakage and pollution from aquaculture operations.

This Criterion focuses on ASC-certified farms using, and re-using, resources responsibly, minimising generated waste, and preventing pollution and harm to communities and the environment.

Intent – The aquaculture industry prevents pollution by responsibly managing and disposing of waste and chemicals.