ASC Salmon Standard v1.4 Final

ASC Salmon Standard
Version 1.4
Issue Date: September 5th, 2022
Effective Date: February 1st, 2023

Contact information:
Postal address:
Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Daalseplein 101
3511 SX Utrecht, The Netherlands
Office address:
Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Daalseplein 101
3511 SX Utrecht, The Netherlands
+31 30 239 31 10
www.asc-aqua.org
Trade register number 34389683
Page 2 of 103
ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

Table of Contents
VERSION CONTROL, AVAILABLE LANGUAGE(S) AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE ............................. 6
ABOUT THE AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (ASC) ..................................................... 9
THE ASC DOCUMENT AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEM ................................................................. 10
SCOPE AND UNIT OF CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 13
Criterion 1.1 Compliance with all applicable local and national legal requirements and regulations...... 14
PRINCIPLE 2: CONSERVE NATURAL HABITAT, LOCAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM
FUNCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Criterion 2.1 Benthic biodiversity and benthic effects .............................................................................. 15
Criterion 2.2 Water quality in and near the site of operation .................................................................. 17
Criterion 2.3 Nutrient release from production ........................................................................................ 19
Criterion 2.4 Interaction with critical or sensitive habitats and species ................................................... 20
Criterion 2.5 Interaction with wildlife, including predators ...................................................................... 21
PRINCIPLE 3: PROTECT THE HEALTH AND GENETIC INTEGRITY OF WILD POPULATIONS ... 24
Criterion 3.1 Introduced or amplified parasites and pathogens .............................................................. 24
Criterion 3.2 Introduction of non-native species ...................................................................................... 27
Criterion 3.3 Introduction of transgenic species ....................................................................................... 29
Criterion 3.4 Escapes ................................................................................................................................. 29
PRINCIPLE 4: USE RESOURCES IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT AND RESPONSIBLE
MANNER ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Criterion 4.1 Traceability of raw materials in feed.................................................................................... 31
Criterion 4.2 Use of wild fish for feed ....................................................................................................... 31
Criterion 4.3 Source of marine raw materials ........................................................................................... 33
Criterion 4.4 Source of non-marine raw materials in feed........................................................................ 35
Criterion 4.5 Non-biological waste from production ................................................................................ 36
Criterion 4.6 Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions on farms ............................................ 37
Criterion 4.7 Non-therapeutic chemical inputs ......................................................................................... 38
PRINCIPLE 5: MANAGE DISEASE AND PARASITES IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
MANNER ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Criterion 5.1 Survival and health of farmed fish ....................................................................................... 40
Criterion 5.2 Therapeutic treatments ....................................................................................................... 42
Criterion 5.3 Resistance of parasites, viruses and bacteria to medicinal treatments ............................. 46
Criterion 5.4 Biosecurity management ..................................................................................................... 47
PRINCIPLE 6: DEVELOP AND OPERATE FARMS IN A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER .... 49
Page 3 of 103

Criterion 6.1 Freedom of association and collective bargaining ............................................................... 49
Criterion 6.2 Child labour .......................................................................................................................... 50
Criterion 6.3 Forced, bonded or compulsory labour ................................................................................. 51
Criterion 6.4 Discrimination ...................................................................................................................... 51
Criterion 6.5 Work environment health and safety .................................................................................. 52
Criterion 6.6 Wages ................................................................................................................................... 53
Criterion 6.7 Contracts (labour) including subcontracting ........................................................................ 54
Criterion 6.8 Conflict resolution ................................................................................................................ 54
Criterion 6.9 Disciplinary practices ............................................................................................................ 55
Criterion 6.10 Working hours and overtime ............................................................................................. 55
Criterion 6.11 Education and training ....................................................................................................... 56
Criterion 6.12 Corporate policies for social responsibility ........................................................................ 56
PRINCIPLE 7: BE A GOOD NEIGHBOUR AND CONSCIENTIOUS CITIZEN .................................. 57
Criterion 7.1 Community engagement ...................................................................................................... 57
Criterion 7.2 Respect for indigenous and aboriginal cultures and traditional territories ......................... 58
Criterion 7.3 Access to resources .............................................................................................................. 59
SECTION 8: REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIERS OF SMOLT......................................................... 60
Requirements related to Principle 1 ............................................................................................................. 60
Additional requirements for open (net-pen) production of smolt ............................................................... 65
Additional requirements for semi-closed and closed production of smolts ................................................. 66
Appendix I: Methodologies Related to Principle 2 and Benthic Testing ...................................... 68
Appendix I-1. Sampling methodology for calculation of faunal index, macrofaunal taxa, sulphide and
redox, and copper ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix I-2. Calculation methodology for the percentage of fines in feed ................................................ 70
Appendix I-3. Biodiversity-focused impact assessment ................................................................................ 72
Appendix I-4. Methodology for sampling dissolved oxygen ......................................................................... 73
Appendix I-5. Methodology for sampling nitrogen and phosphorous .......................................................... 74
Page 4 of 103

Appendix II: Area-Based Management (ABM) Scheme ................................................................. 75
Appendix II-1. Attributes and required components of the ABM ................................................................. 75
Appendix II-2. Setting and revising ABM lice loads and on-farm lice levels.................................................. 77
Appendix III: Methodologies Related to Monitoring Wild Salmonids, On-farm Sea Lice Sampling
Requirements and On-farm Sea Lice Thresholds for Sensitive Periods ........................................................ 78
Appendix III-1. Methodologies for monitoring wild salmonids..................................................................... 78
Appendix III-2. On-Farm Sea Lice Sampling Requirements ........................................................................... 79
Appendix III-3. Sea Lice Thresholds for Sensitive Periods ............................................................................. 80
Appendix IV: Feed Resource Calculations and Methodologies.................................................... 81
Appendix IV-1. Forage Fish Dependency Ratio calculation ........................................................................... 81
Appendix IV-2. Calculation of EPA and DHA in feed...................................................................................... 82
Appendix IV-3. Explanation of FishSource scoring ........................................................................................ 83
Appendix V: Energy Records and Assessment ............................................................................. 85
Appendix V-1. Energy use assessment and GHG accounting for farms ........................................................ 85
Appendix V-2. GHG accounting for feed ....................................................................................................... 86
Appendix VI: Transparency of Farm-Level Performance Data ..................................................... 88
Appendix VII: Parasiticide Treatment Methodology ...................................................................... 93
Appendix VIII: Methodologies Related to Water Quality and Smolt Systems .............................. 96
Appendix VIII-1. Calculation of Total Phosphorous discharged per tonne of smolt produced ..................... 96
Appendix VIII-2: Water quality sampling methodology and data sharing for land-based systems .............. 97
Appendix VIII-3: Sampling methodology for benthic macro-invertebrate surveys....................................... 97
Appendix VIII-4: Sludge BMPs for closed and semi-closed smolt systems.................................................. 100
Appendix VIII-5: Assimilative capacity assessment for cage (net-pen) smolt systems ............................... 100
Appendix VIII-6: Receiving water monitoring for open (net-pen) smolt systems ....................................... 102
Appendix VIII-7: Trophic status classification and determining baseline trophic status ............................ 103
Page 5 of 103

VERSION CONTROL, AVAILABLE LANGUAGE(S) AND COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is the owner of this document.
For inquiries, comments, questions, and feedback regarding the content of this document or to request
a hard copy of public summaries, standards, or other related materials, please contact the Standards
and Science Team at standards@asc-aqua.org.
Version control
Document version history:
Version Release Effective Remarks/changes

date date
V1.4 September February • Based on the sea lice Indicator 3.1.7 operational review:
5th, 2022 1st, 2023 o Criterion 3.1: Rationale amended, 3.1.1 (amended),
3.1.2 (amended), 3.1.3 (amended), 3.1.4 (amended),
3.1.5 (amended), 3.1.6 (amended), 3.1.7 (amended),
3.1.8 (amended), 3.1.8 (amended), 3.1.9 (new
indicator), 3.1.10 (new indicator), 3.1.11 (new indicator)
• All other indicators outside of Criterion 3.1 remain unchanged
• Appendix II-2 (amended): changes to sea lice loads within an
ABM
• Appendix III-1 (amended): monitoring of wild salmonids
• Appendix III-2 (new): on-farm sea lice sampling requirements
• Appendix III-3 (new): sea lice thresholds for sensitive periods
• Appendix VI (amended): indicator numbering and changes to
Criterion 3.1
• Appendix VII (amended): addition of Iceland and Canada (East
Coast)
• Scope of Salmon Standard amended for clarity
• Rationale 2.1 (amended): AZE distance from cages
• Rationale 2.4 (amended): Global Reporting Index indicators
• Rationale 5.2 (amended): Indicator number references
References, ASC contact information, ASC branding, general
layout and hyperlinks updated
V1.3 July 11th, December Based on the PTI & Smolt review/revision cycle, the
2019 26th, 2019 following indicators have been updated/modified:
• Criteria 5.2 (‘PTI review’): Rationale amended; 5.2.5 & 5.2.6
(reference to PTI removed, WNMT & parasiticide requirements
added); 5.2.7 (new indicator, WNMT-related), 5.2.8 (new indicator:
Integrated Pest Management /IPM), 5.2.9 (new indicator: IMP
measures transparency), 5.2.10 (new indicator: monitoring of
parasiticide residue levels outside AZE), 5.2.11 (indicator #
changed: was 5.2.7 in v1.2); 5.2.12 (indicator # changed: 5.2.8 in
v1.2); 5.2.13 (indicator # changed: 5.2.9 in v1.2); 5.2.14 (indicator
Page 6 of 103

# changed: 5.2.10 in v1.2); 5.2.15 (indicator # changed: 5.2.11 in
v1.2). 5.3.3 (new indicator: Specific rotation medicinal treatment
product)
• Section 8 (‘Smolt review’): “Additional requirements for open (net-
pen) production of smolt’: 8.24(requirement changed), former (in
v1.2) indicators [8.24,8.26-8.31] deleted and replaced by 8.24. New
Rationale for 8.24. Indicators 8.25, 8.26, 8.27 & 8.28 correspond to
‘old’ (i.e. in v1.2) indicators 8.32, 8.33, 8.34 & 8.35 (requirements
unchanged).
• Appendix VI (content changed for items #30, 31, 32), item 33 v1.2
removed, items 33,34,35,36 correspond to ‘old’(i.e in v1.2) items
34,35,36,37.
• Appendix VII (content changed: ‘Parasiticide Treatment
Methodology’, instead of PTI).
• Other updates include layout & UK English-consistent spell-
check.
Update of the standard to meet ASC style requirements (e.g.,
March inclusion of structure of the standards, formatting, and wording).
March 7th,
15th, Align the scope, ‘about the ASC’ and ‘overview of the ASC system’.
v1.2 2019
2019 The content of the actual Standard, as defined by
criteria/indicators/requirements under Principles [1-7], remains
unchanged.
Based on the first review/revision cycle:
• following has been updated (in v1.1): 2.2.4 (requirement
changed); 3.1.5 (updated footnote 43); 3.2.2 (updated
footnote 50; requirement change); 4.2.1 (requirement
changed); 4.2.2 (requirement changed); 4.3.1 (requirement
April 26th, October
v1.1 changed); 4.3.2 (requirement updated); 4.3.4 (indicator
2017 31st, 2017
expanded); 4.4.2 (requirement updated); 4.6.3
(requirement updated); 5.1.1 (indicator expanded); 5.2.6
(requirement updated); 5.4.4 (updated footnote 119);
6.11.1 (indicator expanded); 8.4 (requirement updated).
• following is added (in v1.1): 2.2.6, 4.3.5, footnote 162.
• following is removed (from v1.0): 2.5.2.
Original version developed and approved by the Salmon
Aquaculture Dialogue Steering Committee under the original title
v1.0 June, 2012 July, 2012
“Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue” and handed over to the
Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Page 7 of 103

It is the responsibility of the user of the document to use the latest version as published on the ASC-
website.
To ensure the continued effectiveness of the ASC standards, as outlined in the ASC’s Theory of
Change, the revision must occur every three to five years. The next review of the ASC Salmon Standard
is intended for 2025.
Available language(s)
The official version of this document is English. The ASC may translate the Standard into additional
languages as necessary. In case of any inconsistencies and/or discrepancies between available
translation(s) and the English version, the online English version (pdf-format) will prevail.
Copyright notice
This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be requested via standards@asc-aqua.org.
Page 8 of 103

ABOUT THE AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (ASC)
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that operates
a voluntary, independent third-party certification and labelling programme based on a scientifically
robust set of standards.
The ASC standards define criteria designed to help transform the aquaculture1 sector2 towards
environmental sustainability and social responsibility, as per the ASC Mission.
ASC Vision
A world where aquaculture plays a major role in supplying food and social benefits for humanity whilst
minimising negative impacts on the environment.
ASC Mission
To transform aquaculture towards environmental sustainability and social responsibility using efficient
market mechanisms that create value across the chain.
ASC Theory of Change
A Theory of Change (ToC) is an articulation, description and mapping out of the building blocks required
to achieve the organisation’s vision.
ASC has defined a ToC which explains how the ASC certification and labelling programme promotes
and rewards responsible fish farming practices through incentivising the choices people make when
buying seafood.
ASC’s Theory of Change can be found on the ASC website.
1
Aquaculture: Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants.
Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding,
protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated (FAO).
2
Aquaculture sector: Represents a group of industries (e.g. feed, farming, processing, etc.) and their markets that share
common attributes (i.e. aquaculture products).
Page 9 of 103

THE ASC DOCUMENT AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEM
ASC is a code-compliant member of the ISEAL Alliance and implements a voluntary, independent third-
party certification system3 consisting of three independent actors:
I. Scheme Owner i.e. Aquaculture Stewardship Council
II. Accreditation Body i.e. Assurance Services International (ASI)
III. Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) i.e. Accredited CAB’s
Scheme Owner
ASC, as scheme owner:
– sets and maintains standards according to the ASC Standard Setting Procedure which is in
compliance with the “ISEAL Standard-Setting Code of Good Practice”. ASC standards are
normative documents;
– sets and maintains Implementation Guidance which provides guidance to the Unit of certification
(UoC) on how to interpret and best implement the indicators within the Standard;
– sets and maintains the Auditor Guidance which gives guidance to the auditor how to best assess
a UoC against the indicators within the Standard;
– sets and maintains the Certification and Accreditation Requirements (CAR) which adheres at a
minimum to the “ISEAL Assurance Code of Good Practice”. The CAR describes the
accreditation requirements, assessment requirements and certification requirements. The CAR
is a normative document.
These above listed documents are publicly available on the ASC website.
3 Third-party Certification System: Conformity assessment activity that is performed by a person or body that is
independent of the person or organisation that provides the object, and of the user interests in that object (ISO 17000).
Page 10 of 103

Accreditation Body
Accreditation is the assurance process of assessing the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) against
accreditation requirements and is carried out by an Accreditation Body (AB). The appointed AB of ASC
is Assurance Services International (ASI, “Accreditation Services International” prior to January 2019)
which uses the CAR as normative document for the accreditation process.
Assessment findings of ASI-accreditation audits and an overview of current accredited CABs is publicly
available via the ASI-website (http://www.accreditation-services.com).
Conformity Assessment Body
The UoC contracts the CAB which employs auditor(s) that conduct a conformity assessment (hereafter
‘audit’) of the UoC against the relevant standard. The management requirements for CABs as well as
auditor competency requirements are described in the CAR and assured through ASI accreditation.
ASC Audit and Certification Process
The UoC is audited at Indicator-level.
An ASC audit follows strict process requirements. These requirements are detailed in the CAR. Only
ASI-accredited CABs are allowed to audit and certify a UoC against ASC standards. As scheme owner,
ASC itself is not - and cannot be - involved in the actual audit and/or certification decision of a UoC.
Granted certificates are the property of the CAB. ASC does not manage certificate validity.
Audit findings of all ASC audits, including granted certificates, are made publicly available on the ASC-
website. These include the audit findings that result in a negative certification decision.
Note: in addition to the Standard’s, there are certification requirements that apply to UoCs seeking
certification; these requirements are detailed in the CAR.
ASC Logo use
ASC-certified entities shall only sell their product carrying the ASC Logo if a Logo Licence Agreement
(LLA) has been signed. On behalf of the ASC, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Licensing Team
will issue logo license agreements and approve logo use on products. For more information see: ASC
Logo.
Unauthorised logo display is prohibited and will be treated as a trademark infringement.
Page 11 of 103

STRUCTURE OF ASC STANDARDS
A Standard is “a document that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or
characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not
mandatory”.
ASC Standards are as follows designed:
– ASC Standards consist of multiple Principles – a Principle is a set of thematically related Criteria
which contribute to the broader outcome defined in the Principle title;
– Each Principle consists of multiple Criteria – each Criterion defines an outcome that contributes
to achieving the outcome of the Principle;
– Each Criterion consists of one or several Indicators – each Indicator defines an auditable state
that contributes to achieving the Criterion outcome.
Both Principles and Criteria include Rationale statements providing a set of reasons (backed by
reference notes if needed) as to why the Principle or Criterion is needed.
Page 12 of 103

SCOPE AND UNIT OF CERTIFICATION
Linked to the ASC Vision, the Scope of the ASC Salmon Standard (hereafter “the Standard”)
addresses the key negative environmental and social impacts associated with the salmon
aquaculture industry. An ASC-certified salmon farm contributes to the ASC Vision by reducing,
mitigating or eliminating these negative impacts.
The Scope of the Standard is translated into seven Principles that apply to every UoC:
– Principle 1 – Comply with all applicable national laws and local regulations
– Principle 2 – Conserve natural habitat, local biodiversity and ecosystem function
– Principle 3 – Protect the health and genetic integrity of wild populations
– Principle 4 – Use resources in an environmentally efficient and responsible manner
– Principle 5 – Manage disease and parasites in an environmentally responsible manner
– Principle 6 – Develop and operate farms in a socially responsible manner
– Principle 7 – Be a good neighbour and conscientious citizen
– Section 8 – Requirements for suppliers of smolt
The Criteria within the Principles apply to every UoC.
Unit of Certification (UoC)
The applicable UoC is determined by the CAB/ auditor and adheres to the Standard’s Criteria UoC-
requirements as outlined in the CAR.
Biological and geographic scope to which the Standard applies
The ASC Salmon Standard v1.4 is applicable to salmonid species belonging to the genus Salmo and
Oncorhynchus, farmed in all marine locations
How to read this document?
In the following pages, tables with indicators and their corresponding requirements are
included. Within each criterion, requirements tables are followed by a rationale section that
provides a brief overview of why the issues are important and how the proposed requirements
address them.
Definitions are provided in footnotes.
The ASC Salmon Standard will be supplemented by an auditor guidance document detailing
the methodologies used to determine if the ASC Salmon Standard is being met, as well as
guidance for producers to achieve compliance to the ASC Salmon Standard.
Metric Performance Levels

Several Indicators in the Standard require a Metric Performance Level (MPL). The applicable
MPL is directly listed after the Indicator (“Requirement” section).
Page 13 of 103

PRINCIPLE 1: COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAWS
AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
Principle 1 is intended to ensure that all farms aiming to be certified against the ASC Salmon Standard
standards meet their legal obligations as a baseline requirement. Adhering to the law will ensure that
producers meet the basic environmental and social requirements and the minimal structures, such as
legitimate land tenure rights, on which the effectiveness of the requirements will stand.
Criterion 1.1 Compliance with all applicable local and national legal
requirements and regulations
INDICATOR REQUIREMENT
1.1.1 Presence of documents demonstrating

compliance with local and national regulations and Yes
requirements on land and water use

Yes
compliance with all tax laws

compliance with all relevant national and local Yes
labour laws and regulations

compliance with regulations and permits Yes
concerning water quality impacts
Rationale - Salmon aquaculture operations must, as a baseline, adhere to the national and local laws
of the regions where production is taking place. Farm operations that, intentionally or unintentionally,
break the law violate a fundamental benchmark of performance for certified farms. It is important that
aquaculture operations demonstrate a pattern of legal and responsible behaviour, including the
implementation of corrective actions for any legal violations.
Page 14 of 103

PRINCIPLE 2: CONSERVE NATURAL HABITAT, LOCAL
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
Principle 2 is intended to address potential impacts from salmon farms on natural habitat, local
biodiversity, and ecosystem function. Specifically, the key impact areas of benthic impacts, siting,
effects of chemical inputs and effects of nutrient loading are addressed within this principle.
Criterion 2.1 Benthic biodiversity and benthic effects4
2.1.1 Redox potential or5 sulphide levels in sediment Redox potential > 0 mV,
outside of the Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE), or,
following the sampling methodology outlined in
Appendix I-1 Sulphide ≤ 1,500 μMol /L
AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) score ≤ 3.3,

or,
2.1.2 Faunal index score indicating good6 to high
Shannon-Wiener Index score > 3,
ecological quality in sediment outside the AZE,
or,
following the sampling methodology outlined in
Benthic Quality Index (BQI) score ≥ 15,
Appendix I-1
or,
Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) score ≥ 25
2.1.3 Number of macrofaunal taxa in the sediment

≥ 2 highly abundant7 taxa that are not
within the AZE, following the sampling
pollution indicator species
methodology outlined in Appendix I-1
2.1.4 Definition of a site-specific AZE based on a

Yes
robust and credible8 modelling system9
4 Closed production systems that can demonstrate that they collect and responsibly dispose of > 75% of solid nutrients from
the production system are exempt from standards under Criterion 2.1. See Appendix VI for requirements on transparency for
2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.
5 Farm sites can choose whether to use redox or sulphide. Farms do not have to demonstrate that they meet both.
6 “Good” Ecological Quality Classification: The level of diversity and abundance of invertebrate taxa is slightly outside the
range associated with the type-specific conditions. Most of the sensitive taxa of the type-specific communities are present.
7 Highly abundant: Greater than 100 organisms per square metre (or equally high to reference site(s) if natural abundance is
lower than this level).
8 Robust and credible: The SEPA AUTODEPOMOD modelling system is considered to be an example of a credible and
robust system. The model must include a multi-parameter approach. Monitoring must be used to ground-truth the AZE
proposed through the model.
9 The CAB shall confirm that the AZE is correct and then to default to the social principles (P6 and P7) to ensure the farm is
responding to stakeholder comments with the intention that the AZE is not arbitrary and meets stakeholder expectations.
Page 15 of 103

Rationale - This suite of indicators provides multiple layers of security related to benthic impacts, using
a chemical proxy for health combined with biodiversity measurements both below and a distance from
the cages. Technical experts suggest the chemical proxy of redox potential and sulphide levels, which
are good chemical indicators for benthic health. Given that both methods are valid, audited farms can
choose their preference for one or the other. Requirements have been set for both. Through the
consultation of technical experts and review of Hargrave et al.10 (2008), a level of μMol /L sulphide
levels and equivalent redox potential of > 0 mV was set to ensure acceptable and transitory benthic
conditions. As a precautionary approach, these requirements are applicable regardless of the depth of
the site.
When considering benthic effects, experts recommended measuring effects below the cages and away
from the cages, within and outside the AZE. All certified farms must have undertaken the appropriate
analysis to determine the site-specific AZE and depositional patterns. This will help ensure that
sampling is taking place in areas most appropriate to protect benthic health around farms.
Potential negative impacts on benthic biodiversity are addressed in the ASC Salmon Standard through
the incorporation of an analysis using a benthic faunal index and minimum score at multiple monitoring
stations outside the AZE, including a reference site (see Appendix I-1). Farms can use their choice of
these four faunal indices to further establish the environmental quality of the soft-bottom benthos. The
indices are calculated using the same dataset. Equivalencies for these indices were set using
Hargraves et al. (2008) and Zettler et al. (2007)11 and through consultation with experts. The scores
were set to relate to an environmental quality status of good or better according to the definitions of the
EU Water Framework Directive.12 Within the AZE, a demonstration that two or more benthic
macrofaunal species, such as sessile macrophytes and worms, are present in high abundance is
required to ensure that impacts fall within an acceptable level.
10 Hargrave, B.T., Holmer, M. and Newcombe, C.P. 2008. Towards a classification of organic enrichment in marine sediments
based on biogeochemical indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 810–824.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5509807_Towards_a_classification_of_organic_enrichment_in_marine_sediments
_based_on_biogeochemical_indicators
11Zettler, M.L., Schiedek, D. and Bobertz, B. 2007. Benthic biodiversity indices versus salinity gradient in the southern Baltic
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55, 258–270. https://www.io-warnemuende.de/tl_files/bio/ag-benthische-
organismen/pdf/zettler_et_al-2007-mpb.pdf
12 Additional references for index equivalencies:
• Borja, A., Franco, J. and Perez, V. 2000. A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom
benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Mar. Poll. Bull. 40, 1100–1114.
• Muxika, I., Borja, A. and Bonne, W. 2005. The suitability of the marine biotic index (AMBI) to new impact sources
along European coasts. Ecological Indicators 5, 19–31.
• Muniz, P. et al. 2005. Testing the applicability of a Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) to assessing the ecological quality of
soft-bottom benthic communities in the South America Atlantic region. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50, 624–637.
Page 16 of 103

Criterion 2.2 Water quality in and near the site of operation 13
2.2.1 Weekly average percent saturation14 of dissolved

oxygen (DO)15 on farm, calculated following ≥ 70%16
methodology in Appendix I-4
2.2.2 Maximum percentage of weekly samples from 2.2.1

5%
that fall under 2 mg/L DO
2.2.3 For jurisdictions that have national or regional

coastal water quality targets17, demonstration
through third-party analysis that the farm is in an Yes20
area recently18 classified as having “good” or “very
good” water quality19
2.2.4 For jurisdictions without national or regional coastal

water quality targets, evidence of monitoring of
nitrogen and phosphorous21 levels on farm and at a Consistency with reference site
reference site, following methodology in
Appendix I-5
13 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.5.
14Percent saturation: Percent saturation is the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water sample compared to the maximum
amount that could be present at the same temperature and salinity.
15 Averaged weekly from two daily measurements (proposed at 6 am and 3 pm).
16An exception to this standard shall be made for farms that can demonstrate consistency with a reference site in the same
water body.
17 Related to nutrients (e.g. N, P, chlorophyll A).
18 Within the two years prior to the initial audit.
19Classifications of “good” and “very good” are used in the EU Water Framework Directive. Equivalent classification from
other water quality monitoring systems in other jurisdictions are acceptable, it is acceptable to use a benchmark level of water
quality from farm monitoring data as defined in Appendix I-5.
20Closed production systems that can demonstrate the collection and responsible disposal of > 75% of solid nutrients as well
as > 50% of dissolved nutrients (through biofiltration, settling and/or other technologies) are exempt from standards 2.2.3 and
2.2.4.
21Farms shall monitor total N, NH4, NO3, total P and Ortho-P in the water column. Results shall be submitted to the ASC
database. Methods such as a Hach kit are acceptable.
Page 17 of 103

2.2.5 Demonstration of calculation of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD22) of the farm on a production cycle Yes
basis
2.2.6 Appropriate controls are in place that maintains

good culture and hygienic conditions on the farm
which extends to all chemicals, including veterinary Yes
drugs, thereby ensuring that adverse impacts on
environmental quality are minimised.
Rationale - Water quality is essential for the health of farmed salmon and wild species surrounding a
farm. One component of water quality, dissolved oxygen (DO), is particularly critical for the survival and
good performance of farmed salmon. As a result, most farms regularly measure DO. DO levels (in mg/l)
naturally fluctuate in the environment. This is due to a range of factors, including temperature, time of
day and upwelling of oxygen-poor waters from deep in the ocean. Low DO levels can also be a sign of
excessive nutrient loading. DO provides a useful overall proxy for a water body’s ability to support
healthy biodiversity and supplements the benthic indicators that will also pick up excessive nutrient
loading.
Salmon ideally need a level of dissolved oxygen over 5 mg/L to avoid any possible stress, although
they are able to live under lower oxygen concentrations, particularly if only for short periods. Under
routine production, the average minimum percent saturation of DO in the water column should be above
70 per cent. Measuring DO as a percent saturation takes into account salinity and temperature at the
farm site. Additionally, compliance with the requirement will limit the number of low DO readings in the
water column below 2 mg/L to less than 5 per cent incidence rate, which will allow for periodic physical
phenomena, such as upwelling. The requirement also addresses natural fluctuations in DO levels and
percent saturation through allowing comparison to a reference site as a means to meet requirement
2.2.1. This will ensure that if the percent saturation is lower than ideal, it is the result of natural conditions
in the water body and not due to nutrient release from the salmon farm.
The requirements also require that farms demonstrate they are located in areas of “good” or “very good”
water quality, in jurisdictions such as the European Union that have coastal targets. Not all salmon-
producing regions have such targets, however. In these situations, farms must collect data on nutrient
levels near the farm and at a reference site and make that data available under Appendix VI. No
threshold is placed on this requirement whilst the key factor, as with oxygen in Indicator 2.2.1, is that
the requirement should address natural fluctuations in N and P levels through allowing comparison to
a reference site as a means to meet requirement 2.2.3.
Lastly, the requirements require farms to calculate the BOD associated with their production cycle in
order to better understand the input of nutrients from the farm to the water body. There is no
performance threshold associated with this requirement, and the data from this requirement will provide
22 BOD calculated as: ((total N in feed – total N in fish)*4.57) + ((total C in feed – total C in fish)*2.67). A farm may deduct N
or C that is captured, filtered or absorbed through approaches such as IMTA or through direct collection of nutrient wasted. In
this equation, “fish” refers to harvested fish. Reference for calculation methodology: Boyd C. 2009. Estimating mechanical
aeration requirement in shrimp ponds from the oxygen demand of feed. In: Proceedings of the World Aquaculture Society
Meeting; Sept 25-29, 2009; VeraCruz, Mexico. And: Global Aquaculture Performance Index BOD calculation methodology.
Page 18 of 103

data to better understand nutrient loads, ranges of performance, the degree to which different systems
reduce BOD, and the relationship between calculated BOD and the other water quality indicators in the
ASC Salmon Standard.
The SAD technical working group on nutrient loading identified the potential link between nutrients
around salmon farms and harmful algal blooms as one that had yet to be established but around which
there remained some uncertainty and for which there was an intuitive concern around the effect of the
cumulative anthropogenic nutrient load into coastal waters. The group noted a shortage of field studies
to validate hypotheses from lab-based work. The data collected under this criterion can be used to help
better understand potential linkages around salmon farming, ambient nutrient levels and environmental
phenomena such as harmful algal blooms. Farm operators may also find this data useful in
management decisions, and it can be useful in ensuring that nutrient inputs from salmon farms and
other sources fall within the carrying capacity of the water body. Data collected with regard to BOD and
nutrient levels shall be reviewed, and the setting of a threshold related to nutrient loads should be
seriously considered when the ASC Salmon Standard is updated. The ASC intend to develop a metric
for indicator 2.2.6 good culture and hygienic conditions. Until which time the standard will include this
best management practice type measure.
Criterion 2.3 Nutrient release from production
2.3.1 Percentage of fines23 in the feed at point of entry to

the farm24 (calculated following methodology in < 1% by weight of the feed
Appendix I-2)
Rationale - The release of nutrients into the environment from salmon farms was identified by SAD
participants as a key impact of production. The impact is addressed throughout the requirements with
a range of water quality and benthic performance metrics. Requirement 2.3.1 complements these other
requirements by addressing the direct release of uneaten feed in the form of fines into the environment.
By setting a maximum percentage of fines in the feed, it addresses the efficient and proper transport,
storage and physical delivery of feed pellets to the farm 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
increased impacts, due to an increase in suspended organic particles and nutrients released into the
environment.
23 Fines: Dust and fragments in the feed. Particles that separate from feed with a diameter of 5 mm or less when sieved
through a 1 mm sieve, or particles that separate from feed with a diameter greater than 5 mm when sieved through a 2.36 mm
sieve. To be measured at farm gate (e.g. from feed bags after they are delivered to farm).
24To be measured every quarter or every three months. Samples that are measured shall be chosen randomly. Feed may be
sampled immediately prior to delivery to farm for sites with no feed storage where it is not possible to sample on farm. Closed
production systems that can demonstrate the collection and responsible disposal of > 75% of solid nutrients and > 50% of
dissolved nutrients (through biofiltration, settling and/or other technologies) are exempt.
Page 19 of 103

Criterion 2.4 Interaction with critical or sensitive habitats and species
2.4.1 Evidence of an assessment of the farm’s potential

impacts on biodiversity and nearby ecosystems that
Yes
contains at a minimum the components outlined in
Appendix I-3
2.4.2 Allowance for the farm to be sited in a protected

area25 or High Conservation Value Areas26 None27
(HCVAs)
Rationale - The intent of the requirements under criterion 2.4 is to minimise the effects of a salmon
farm on critical or sensitive habitats and species. The habitats and species to consider include marine-
protected areas or national parks, established migratory routes for marine mammals, threatened or
endangered species, the habitat needed for endangered and threatened species to recover, eelgrass
beds and HCVAs, where these have been defined. These requirements are consistent with the Global
Reporting Index indicators GRI 304 and GRI 305,. which relate to the identification and description of
significant impacts of activities on biodiversity, protected habitats and threatened species, and the
communication of strategies to manage these impacts and restore sensitive habitats (as defined by the
assessment carried out for indicator 2.4.1).28
The requirements under Criteria 2.4 ensure that a farm is aware of any nearby critical, sensitive or
protected areas, understands the impacts it might have on those areas, and has a functioning plan in
25Protected area: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective
means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” Source:
Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008), Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x +
86pp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/pag-021.pdf
26 High Conservation Value Areas (HCVA): Natural habitats where conservation values are considered to be of outstanding
significance or critical importance. HCVA are designated through a multi-stakeholder approach that provides a systematic
basis for identifying critical conservation values—both social and environmental—and for planning ecosystem management in
order to ensure that these high conservation values are maintained or enhanced (http://www.hcvnetwork.org/).
27 The following exceptions shall be made for Standard 2.4.2:
• For protected areas classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Category V or VI
(these are areas preserved primarily for their landscapes or for sustainable resource management).
• For HCVAs if the farm can demonstrate that its environmental impacts are compatible with the conservation
objectives of the HCVA designation. The burden of proof would be placed on the farm to demonstrate that it is not
negatively impacting the core reason an area has been identified as a HCVA.
• For farms located in a protected area if it was designated as such after the farm was already in operation and provided
the farm can demonstrate that its environmental impacts are compatible with the conservation objectives of the
protected area and it is in compliance with any relevant conditions or regulations placed on the farm as a result of
the formation/designation of the protected area. The burden of proof would be placed on the farm to demonstrate
that it is not negatively impacting the core reason an area has been protected.
28 Verification at the aquaculture facility shall include whether restoration is necessary, to what degree (evidence could
include maps, aerial photos, satellite images, government certification etc.) and whether that the active restoration is suitable
(i.e., will it be successful and restore a suitable area of sensitive habitat).
Page 20 of 103

place to address those potential impacts. They also ensure that extra care is taken in areas that are
recognised for ecological importance either through designation as a protected area or through
designation as being an area of high conservation value, by not allowing production in these areas to
be eligible for certification, with some exceptions made if extra conditions are met to ensure that the
farms are compatible with the conservation goals of the areas.
Criterion 2.5 Interaction with wildlife, including predators29
2.5.1 Number of days in the production cycle when

acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) or acoustic 0
harassment devices (AHDs) were used
2.5.2 Number of mortalities30 of endangered or red-

0
listed31 marine mammals or birds on the farm
2.5.3 Evidence that the following steps were taken prior

to lethal action32 against a predator:
1. All other avenues were pursued prior to using
lethal action
Yes33
2. Approval was given from a senior manager
above the farm manager
3. Explicit permission was granted to take lethal
action against the specific animal from the
relevant regulatory authority
2.5.4 Evidence that information about any lethal incidents

on the farm has been made easily publicly Yes
available34
29 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 2.5.2, 2.5.5 and 2.5.6.
30Mortalities: Includes animals intentionally killed through lethal action as well as accidental deaths through entanglement or
other means.
31 Species listed as endangered or critically endangered by the IUCN or on a national endangered species list.
32 Lethal action: Action taken to deliberately kill an animal, including marine mammals and birds.
33Exception to these conditions may be made for a rare situation where human safety is endangered. Should this be required,
post-incident approval from a senior manager should be made and relevant authorities must be informed.
34Posting results on a public website is an example of “easily publicly available.” Shall be made available within 30 days of
the incident and see Appendix VI for transparency requirements.
Page 21 of 103

< 9 lethal incidents,36 with no more than
2.5.5 Maximum number of lethal incidents35 on the farm
two of the incidents being marine
over the prior two years
mammals
2.5.6 In the event of a lethal incident, evidence that an

assessment of the risk of lethal incident(s) has
been undertaken and demonstration of concrete Yes
steps taken by the farm to reduce the risk of future
incidences
Rationale - The suite of requirements related to mortalities and lethal incidents of predators or other
wildlife is intended to ensure that certified farms have minimal impact on populations of wildlife, placing
limits on both accidental and intentional mortalities of these species. The requirements ensure that
endangered species have not died as a result of interaction with the farm and require transparency of
farms on any lethal incidents and wildlife mortalities for non-threatened species. Good management
practices with regards to when to take action and how to reduce risk of future incidents are also required.
A large variety of acoustic deterrent (and harassment) devices is used in salmon aquaculture. Based
on available research37 it appears that the effectiveness of these devices in reducing farmed salmon
predation by marine mammals can vary widely including by location, marine mammal species, period
of use, etc. Available research suggests that noise and high-pitched sounds resulting from currently
available acoustic devices can cause pain to dolphins, porpoises and whales. As intended, acoustic
devices can cause marine mammals including seals, porpoises and whales to avoid areas that may be
important for feeding, breeding and travel/migration. While the devices may be initially effective in
deterring marine mammals in certain scenarios, research studies suggest that they lose their
effectiveness over several years. Additionally, evidence suggests that alternative measures such as
35 Lethal incident: Includes all lethal actions as well as entanglements or other accidental mortalities of non-salmonids.
36Standard 2.5.6 applicable to incidents related to non-endangered and non-red-listed species. This standard complements,
and does not contradict, 2.5.3.
37 References for the section of the rationale related to ADDs/AHDs:
• Northridge, S.P., Gordon, J.G., Booth, C., Calderan, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Gillespie, D., Lonergan, M. and Webb,
A. 2010. Assessment of the impacts and utility of acoustic deterrent devices. Final Report to the Scottish Aquaculture
Research Forum, Project Code SARF044. 34pp.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284163614_Assessment_of_the_impacts_and_utility_of_
acoustic_deterrent_devices
• Morton, A. B., and Symonds, H. K. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British
Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: 71–80.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241441175_Displacement_of_Orcinus_orca_L_by_high_a
mplitude_sound_in_British_Columbia_Canada
• Scottish Association for Marine Science and Napier University (SAMS)2002. Review and synthesis of the
environmental impacts of aquaculture. Scottish Executive Research Unit. www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/green/reia-
00.asp.
• Milewski, I. 2001. Impacts of salmon aquaculture on the coastal environment: a review.
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Impacts_of_Salmon_Aquaculture_on_the_Coastal_E.pdf
• Young, S. 2001. Potential adverse effects of aquaculture on marine mammals: in Tlusty, M.F., Bengston, D.A.,
Halvorson, H.O., Oktay, S.D., Pearce, J.B., Rheault, Jr., R.B. (eds.). Marine Aquaculture and the Environment: A
Meeting for Stakeholders in the Northeast. Cape Cod Press, Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Page 22 of 103

promptly removing dead fish, reducing stocking densities, net tensioning and use of seal blinds are
important in reducing depredation on salmon farms.
Given the impacts associated with ADDs/AHDs and the availability of other, potentially less impactful
and more effective deterrence practices, the requirements ensures that farms do not use ADDs/AHDs.
An exception to this requirement for new technologies may be granted by the Technical Advisory Group
of the ASC if there is clear scientific evidence that future ADD/AHD technology presents significantly
reduced risk to marine mammals and cetaceans.
Page 23 of 103

PRINCIPLE 3: PROTECT THE HEALTH AND GENETIC INTEGRITY
OF WILD POPULATIONS
The primary aim of Principle 3, in combination with Principle 5, is to ensure that salmon farms do not
harm the health of wild fish populations. This Principle addresses impacts associated with disease and
parasites, escapes and siting.
Criterion 3.1 Introduced or amplified parasites and pathogens38, 39
3.1.1 Participation in an Area-Based Management

(ABM) scheme for managing disease, parasites
and resistance to treatments that includes
Yes
coordination of stocking, fallowing, therapeutic
treatments, and information sharing as outlined in
Appendix II-1
3.1.2 In areas with wild salmonids40, establishment,

annual review, and where needed, revision of a
Yes
maximum sea lice load for the entire ABM and for
the individual site as outlined in Appendix II-2
3.1.3 A demonstrated commitment41 to collaborate with

NGOs, academics and governments on areas of
mutually agreed research to measure possible Yes
impacts on wild fish stocks, including wild
salmonids stocks
3.1.4 In areas with wild salmonids, availability of data42

on salmonid migration routes and migration timing Yes
in major waterways within 75 kilometres of the farm
38Farm sites for which there is no release of water that may contain pathogens into the natural (freshwater or marine)
environment are exempt from the standards under Criterion 3.1.
39 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.7 and 3.1.8.
40
For purposes of this standard, “areas with wild salmonids” are defined as areas within 75 kilometres of a wild salmonid
migration route or habitat. This definition is expected to encompass all, or nearly all, of salmon-growing areas in the northern
hemisphere.
41 At a minimum, a farm and/or its operating company must demonstrate this commitment through providing farm-level data
to researchers, granting researchers access to sites, or other similar non-financial support for research activities.
42Farms do not need to conduct research on migration routes, timing and the health of wild stocks under this standard if
general information is already available. Farms must demonstrate an understanding of this information at the general level for
salmonid populations in their region, as such information is needed to make management decisions related to minimizing
Page 24 of 103

3.1.5 In areas with wild salmonids, availability of sea lice
monitoring data on wild out-migrating salmon
Yes
juveniles, coastal sea trout and Arctic char, as
outlined in Appendix III-1
3.1.6 In areas with wild salmonids, public43 disclosure of

sea lice monitoring data on wild out-migrating
Yes
salmon juveniles, coastal sea trout, and Arctic char,
as outlined in Appendix III-1
3.1.7 In areas with wild salmonids, on-farm sea lice

Yes
sampling as outlined in Appendix III-2
3.1.8 Public44 disclosure of on-farm sea lice sampling

Yes
results within seven days of sampling
3.1.9 In areas with wild salmonids, maintenance of on- Yes

farm sea lice levels below the thresholds during the
sensitive period, as outlined in Appendix III-345
3.1.10 In areas with wild salmonids, in case of reaching

or exceeding the thresholds in Appendix III-3
during the sensitive period, inform the Conformity Yes
Assessment Body (CAB) by the next working day
after the last day of sea lice sampling
potential impact on those stocks. Such “evidence” would consist of, for example, peer review studies; publicly available
government monitoring and reporting.
43 Via the website of the farm/company or via other known/easily accessible public websites.
44 Via the website of the farm/company or via other known/easily accessible public websites. Published results shall include
L. salmonis (as a minimum, the stages required in Appendix III-1). In Canada (West Coast), the published results shall also
include adult Caligus spp.
45Farms shall conduct sampling during the month prior to the sensitive period for the purpose of achieving sea lice levels
below the Sea Lice Thresholds for Sensitive Periods at the time of the first sampling event within the sensitive period.
Page 25 of 103

3.1.11 In areas with wild salmonids, reduction of the on-
farm sea lice levels below the thresholds during
the sensitive period within 21 days after the last
day of sea lice sampling. If the reduction within Yes
this time window is not achieved, the product is
not eligible to be sold as certified and the
certificate shall be cancelled
Rationale - Salmon farms interact with wild fish populations that live or migrate near the open net pens.
A concern is the interaction with wild salmon and sea trout with regarding pathogens and parasites.
The Disease Report46 commissioned by the SAD concluded that there is “shared benefit to farm
productivity and to minimising impacts on wild fish by continually seeking to reduce disease on salmon
farms.”
Sea lice and its potential impacts on wild populations has emerged as a pressing challenge for the
salmon industry. The SAD’s Sea Lice Technical Report concluded that the “weight of evidence is that
sea lice of farm origin can present, in some locations and for some host species populations, a
significant threat.” The report called for a “concerted precautionary approach” in managing the issue.
Requirements under Criterion 3.1, in combination with requirements under Criterion 5.4, address these
concerns by establishing best practice in managing potential disease and parasite risks to wild
populations. The requirements recognise that the cumulative impacts from a group of farms in an area
can become harmful even when an individual farm is operating its own production in a responsible way.
Farms located in areas of wild salmonids, defined as farms situated within 75 km of a migration route
or sea trout habitat, have additional requirements because of the disease transmission risk between
farms and wild salmonids.
Area-based management (ABM) is required under this Criterion. Some salmon-growing jurisdictions
require an ABM or are considering it because neighbouring farms can achieve significantly improved
results when coordinating management of diseases and biosecurity measures. Conversely, a lack of
coordination can lead to negative outcomes, such as resistance to treatments. Farms that don’t have
ABM schemes already established in their jurisdiction will need to show leadership in working with
neighbouring farms to establish such a scheme, even if the regulatory structure doesn’t require it.
The commitment to research required under 3.1.3 intends to ensure that farms are working with
researchers and regulators to address the many gaps in understanding around a farm’s interaction with
wild populations. A demonstrated commitment means that the farm is participating in joint research
efforts. Although funding of research is encouraged, transparency around site-level data and/or access
to sites is seen as an extremely valuable contribution to scientific research and is, therefore, the
requirement.
The requirements address the challenge of sea lice in several ways. Firstly, farms seeking certification
must be able to demonstrate that the ABM scheme has set a maximum lice load for the entire area that
reflects regulatory requirements. In areas of wild salmonids, the ABM must also show how this
maximum load reflects the results of monitoring of wild populations. The requirements also ensure
enhanced level of transparency around sea lice monitoring data.
46This report and other reports on State of Information of key impacts commissioned by the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue are
available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/creating-standards-for-responsibly-farmed-salmon
Page 26 of 103

Secondly, farms must conduct frequent testing of on-farm lice levels and make those results publicly
available. This transparency reflects the goal of building credibility among the interested public around
the actual experience of sea lice levels on the farm and in the wild.
Farms located in areas of wild salmonids must participate in monitoring of lice levels on wild out-
migrating juvenile salmon or other important salmonids in the area, such as coastal sea trout or arctic
char. The requirements assume this monitoring will be conducted in collaboration with researchers
and/or regulatory bodies. Area-based management schemes must demonstrate how the scheme has
incorporated the results of wild monitoring into maximum lice loads permitted across the area. This
requires farms to show leadership in managing the interaction with wild populations. This leadership
will mean that some farms seeking certification will need to take on roles and responsibilities that they
previously didn’t view to be inside the scope of responsibility for an individual farm. Enhanced leadership
is an essential part of showing best practice in this high-priority issue of farm interaction with wild
populations.
Indicator 3.1.9 require farms located in areas of wild salmonids to maintain on-farm sea lice levels
during the sensitive period below the established thresholds highlighted in Appendix III-3.
The monitoring and disease management presuppose that farms are aware of salmon migration routes,
the timing of out migration and basic information around stock status. This information, along with sea
lice monitoring results, should be compiled by ASC in an effort to consolidate data and promote future
research.
If national or local regulations prohibit the handling of wild salmonids, then it should be clear that wild
populations are being monitored and protected in another way.
Criterion 3.2 Introduction of non-native species
3.2.1 If a non-native species is being produced,

demonstration that the species was widely
Yes47
commercially produced in the area by the date of
publication of the ASC Salmon Standard
3.2.2 If a non-native species is being produced, evidence

of scientific research48 completed within the past Yes 50
five years that investigates the risk of establishment
47 Exceptions shall be made for production systems that use 100 percent sterile fish or systems that demonstrate separation
from the wild by effective physical barriers that are in place and well-maintained to ensure no escapes of reared specimens or
biological material that might survive and subsequently reproduce.
48The research must at a minimum include multi-year monitoring for non-native farmed species, use credible methodologies
and analysis, and undergo peer review.
50 Farms are exempt from this standard if they are in a jurisdiction where the non-native species became established prior to
farming activities in the area and the following three conditions are met: eradication would be impossible or have detrimental
environmental effects; the introduction took place prior to 1993 (when the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was
ratified); the species is fully self-sustaining.
Page 27 of 103

of the species within the farm’s jurisdiction and
these results submitted to ASC for review49
3.2.3 Use of non-native species for sea lice control or on-

None
farm management purposes
Rationale - Accidental or intentional introductions of non-native species are significant global

environmental problems.51 Aquaculture is considered one of the major pathways for introducing non-
native aquatic plants and animals that may become harmful invasive species. The ASC believes these
standards are in line with FAO guidelines that permit the culture of non-native species only when they
pose an acceptable level of risk to biodiversity. This requirement does not permit introductions of non-
native salmonids, unless farming of the species already occurs in the area, or a completely closed
production system is used, or all cultured fish are sterile.
Research to date, reviewed by the SAD Technical Working Group on Escapes, has not shown that the
production of farmed salmon has led to the establishment of viable populations in the wild of non-native
species. Given this research and existing analyses of the risks associated with the farming of salmonids
as either a native or non-native species, this requirement permits the certification of farming of non-
native species in locations where production already exists.
Nonetheless, the requirement also requires that farms producing non-native salmon demonstrate new
research every five years that investigates the risks of establishment in that jurisdiction. The
requirement is intended to create an incentive for continuing research.
The use of alternatives to chemical treatments for farm management, such as the use of cleaner fish
for sea lice control, is permitted and encouraged under the ASC Salmon Standard. However, any
wrasse, cleaner fish or other species used for management during production must be native species
in order to prevent introduction of new species to an area.
49 If the review demonstrates there is increased risk, the ASC will consider prohibiting the certification of farming of non-native
salmon in that jurisdiction under this standard. In the event that the risk tools demonstrate “high” risks, the SAD expects that
the ASC will prohibit the certification of farming of non-native salmon in that jurisdiction. The ASC intends to bring this evidence
into future revision of the standard and those results taken forward into the revision process.
51Leung, K.M.Y. and Dudgeon, D. 2008. Ecological risk assessment and management of exotic organisms associated with
aquaculture activities. In M.G. Bondad-Reantaso, J.R. Arthur and R.P. Subasinghe (eds.) Understanding and applying risk
analysis in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 519. Rome, FAO. pp. 67–100.
Page 28 of 103

Criterion 3.3 Introduction of transgenic species
3.3 Use of transgenic52 salmon by the farm None
Rationale - Transgenic fish are not permitted under this requirement because of concerns about their
unknown impact on wild populations. The culture of genetically enhanced53 salmon is acceptable under
the ASC Salmon Standard. This allows for further progress in feed conversion, which should increase
the efficient use of local resources. Also allowed under the Standard is the cultivation of triploid or all
female fish, as long as those fish are not transgenic.
Criterion 3.4 Escapes54
3.4.1 Maximum number of escapees55 in the most

30056
recent production cycle
3.4.2 Accuracy57 of the counting technology or counting

method used for calculating stocking and harvest ≥ 98%
numbers
52Transgenic: An organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that
does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Source EFSA.
53Genetic enhancement: The process of genetic improvement via selective breeding that can result in better growth
performance and domestication but does not involve the insertion of any foreign genes into the genome of the animal.
55Farms shall report all escapes; the total aggregate number of escapees per production cycle must be less than 300 fish.
Data on date of escape episode(s), number of fish escaped and cause of escape episode shall be reported as outlined in
Appendix VI.
56A rare exception to this standard may be made for an escape event that is clearly documented as being outside the farm’s
control. Only one such exceptional episode is allowed in a 10-year period for the purposes of this standard. The 10-year period
starts at the beginning of the production cycle for which the farm is applying for certification. The farmer must demonstrate
that there was no reasonable way to predict the events that caused the episode. See auditing guidance for additional details.
57Accuracy shall be determined by the spec sheet for counting machines and through common estimates of error for any
hand-counts.
Page 29 of 103

3.4.3 Estimated unexplained loss58 of farmed salmon is
Yes
made publicly available
3.4.4 Evidence of escape prevention planning and

related employee training, including: net strength
testing; appropriate net mesh size; net
traceability; system robustness; predator
management; record keeping and reporting of Yes
risk events (e.g., holes, infrastructure issues,
handling errors, reporting and follow up of escape
events); and worker training on escape
prevention and counting technologies
Rationale - Escaped farmed salmon have the potential to disrupt ecosystems and alter the overall
pool of genetic diversity through competition with wild fish and interbreeding with local wild stocks of
the same population. It has been shown that interbreeding of farmed with wild salmon of the same
species can result in reduced lifetime success, lowered individual fitness, and decreases in production
over at least two generations.59 The most effective way to address these risks is to reduce the number
of escapes of farmed salmon to zero or near zero.
Escapes can occur in large events that are immediately noticeable at a farm, smaller events that are
still noticeable, and through slower, lower levels of losses of fish that might go unnoticed. These
requirements place a cap on the total amount of escapees. The cap effectively prevents a farm that has
had a significant escape event from being certified, except under extremely unusual circumstances in
which the farm can demonstrate there was no reasonable way to predict the cause.
The requirements require transparency about unexplained loss of salmon to help the farm and the
public understand trends related to the cumulative numbers of losses of fish that go unnoticed during
production. The accuracy of these numbers is limited by the margin of error of fish counting machines
and other counting techniques. The requirements seek to encourage farmers to use counting devices
that are as accurate as possible, requiring a minimum 98 per cent accuracy of the counting method.
A number of other requirements throughout the document complement the requirements on escapes
from grow-out sites in terms of minimising impact on wild salmon populations. The ASC Salmon
Standard includes requirements related to escapes from smolt production facilities, and a move away
from production of smolts in open systems to closed and semi-closed systems with lower risk of
escapees. Requirements related to escapees from smolt systems are particularly important in
minimising the potential for interbreeding, as some studies show comparatively high reproductive
success rates in escaped precocious male parr.60 The ASC Salmon Standard also includes
requirements related to siting in protected or high conservation value areas, including areas that are
designated as such in order to protect threatened wild salmonid populations.
58Calculated at the end of the production cycle as: Unexplained loss = Stocking count – harvest count – mortalities – other
known escapes. Where possible, use of the pre-smolt vaccination count as the stocking count is preferred.
59Thorstad, E.B., Fleming, I.A., McGinnity, P., Soto, D., Wennevik, V. and Whoriskey, F. 2008. Incidence and impacts of
escaped farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in nature. NINA Special Report 36. 110 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-aj272e.pdf
60 Garant, D., Fleming I.A., Einum, S. and Bernatchez, L. Alternate male life-history tactics as potential vehicles for speeding
introgression of farm salmon traits into wild populations. Ecology Letters 2003;6: 541-549.
Page 30 of 103

PRINCIPLE 4: USE RESOURCES IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
EFFICIENT AND RESPONSIBLE MANNER
Principle 4 is intended to address negative impacts that stem from resource use, including feed and
non-therapeutic chemical inputs.
Criterion 4.1 Traceability of raw materials in feed

4.1.1 Evidence of traceability, demonstrated by the feed

producer, of feed ingredients that make up more Yes
than 1% of the feed.61
Rationale - Raw material traceability is fundamental to many of the ASC Salmon Standard and,
therefore, is required under this requirement. This requirement will make raw material sourcing more
transparent. It must be demonstrated at the feed manufacturer or feed producer level. For some feed
ingredients, this will be evidence of traceability with regard to country of origin, while for other feed
ingredients that relate specifically to other requirements, this may be a finer level of detail, such as
traceability back to the fishery as outlined in the following criteria 4.2 and 4.3.
Criterion 4.2 Use of wild fish for feed62
4.2.1 Fishmeal Forage Fish Dependency Ratio

(FFDRm) for grow-out (calculated using formulas < 1.2
in Appendix IV- 1)
4.2.2 Fish Oil Forage Fish Dependency Ratio (FFDRo) FFDRo < 2.52,
for grow-out (calculated using formulas in or,
Appendix IV- 1),
or, (EPA + DHA) < 30 g/kg feed
61Traceability shall be at a level of detail that permits the feed producer to demonstrate compliance with the standards in this
document (i.e., marine raw ingredients must be traced back to the fishery, soy to the region grown, etc.). Feed manufacturers
will need to supply the farm with third-party documentation of the ingredients covered under this standard.
62 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
Page 31 of 103

Maximum amount of EPA and DHA from direct
marine sources63 (calculated according to
Appendix IV-2)
Rationale - The salmon aquaculture industry has significantly reduced the inclusion rates of fishmeal
and fish oil from forage fish in salmon feeds during the past two decades. The Forage Fish Dependency
Ratios (FFDR) contained in these requirements aim to support the trend toward lower inclusion rates
and increasingly efficient use of marine resources, which are expected to continue. Fishmeal and fish
oil are both finite resources that are shared across a range of users with increasing demands, from
direct human consumption to aquaculture to pig and poultry production. The ASC Salmon Standard
intends to promote the efficient use of these resources, producing increasing amounts of farmed salmon
from a given input of fishmeal and oil.
The ratios, one for fishmeal and another for fish oil, calculate the dependency on forage fisheries
through an assessment of the quantity of live fish from small pelagic fisheries required to produce the
amount of fishmeal or fish oil needed to produce a unit of farmed salmon. The ASC Salmon Standard
offers the calculation of levels of EPA and DHA from wild fish in feeds as an alternate method of
measuring dependency on forage fisheries. The requirement encourages producers who want to
produce salmon with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids to do so by sourcing the EPA and DHA from
sources other than fish oil derived from direct industrial fisheries. The ratios complement the
requirements described in criterion 4.3, which will move farms toward using feed with marine ingredients
from fisheries certified as responsibly managed. Producers will be able to improve their FFDR by using
a greater percentage of fishmeal and fish oil from trimmings and offal, using other sources of meal and
oil (e.g., vegetables) and improving their feeding efficiency.
63Calculation excludes DHA and EPA derived from fisheries by-products and trimmings. Trimmings are defined as by-products
when fish are processed for human consumption or if whole fish is rejected for use of human consumption because the quality
at the time of landing does not meet official regulations with regard to fish suitable for human consumption.
Fishmeal and fish oil that are produced from trimmings can be excluded from the calculation as long as the origin of the
trimmings is not any species that are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org).
Page 32 of 103

Criterion 4.3 Source of marine raw materials
Note: In November 2016 ASC published an Interim Solution for ASC Marine Feed Ingredients,
which will replace indicators 4.3.1, 4.3.2 of this Standard. This solution applies to all ASC’s
Standards, which have indicators for marine raw material origin, including this ASC Salmon
Standard . This interim solution will apply until the ASC Feed Standard will be available or until
further official and public notice by ASC.
4.3.1 Timeframe for all fishmeal and fish oil used in

feed to come from fisheries64 certified under a
scheme that is an ISEAL member65 and has
see note above
guidelines that specifically promote responsible
environmental management of small pelagic
fisheries
4.3.2 Prior to achieving 4.3.1, the FishSource score65, 66

for the fishery(ies) from which all marine raw see note above
material in feed is derived
4.3.3 Prior to achieving 4.3.1, demonstration of third-

party verified chain of custody and traceability for
Yes
the batches of fishmeal and fish oil which are in
compliance with 4.3.2.
4.3.4 Feed containing fishmeal and/or fish oil originating

from: by-products67 or trimmings from IUU68 catch None70
or from fish species that are categorized as
64This standard and standard 4.3.2 apply to fishmeal and oil from forage fisheries, pelagic fisheries, or fisheries where the
catch is directly reduced (including krill) and not to by-products or trimmings used in feed.
65Meets ISEAL guidelines as demonstrated through full membership in the ISEAL Alliance, or equivalent as determined by
the Technical Advisory Group of the ASC.
66 Or equivalent score using the same methodology. See Appendix IV-3 for explanation of FishSource scoring.
67 Trimmings are defined as by-products when fish are processed for human consumption or if whole fish is rejected for use
of human consumption because the quality at the time of landing does not meet official regulations with regard to fish suitable
for human consumption.
68 IUU: Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported.
70 For species listed as “vulnerable” by IUCN, an exception is made if a regional population of the species has been assessed
to be not vulnerable in a National Red List process that is managed explicitly in the same science-based way as IUCN. In
cases where a National Red List doesn’t exist or isn’t managed in accordance with IUCN guidelines, an exception is allowed
when an assessment is conducted using IUCN’s methodology and demonstrates that the population is not vulnerable.
Page 33 of 103

vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered,
according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, 69 whole fish and fish meal from the
same species and family as the species being
farmed.
4.3.5 Presence and evidence of a responsible

sourcing policy for the feed manufacturer for
Yes
marine ingredients that includes a commitment to
continuous improvement of source fisheries.71
Rationale - Wild fish harvested from the ocean and reduced into fishmeal and fish oil are an important
component of salmon feeds. Many wild small pelagic fish resources are fished at capacity or
overfished.72 Demand for these resources is increasing as the aquaculture industry expands and as
forage fish are increasingly consumed by humans or by other industries including other animal
production. There is concern that higher demand could lead to the overfishing—and collapse—of small
forage fish stocks. Wild small pelagic fish play a critical role in the ecosystem and the marine food chain.
Some conservation groups and scientists are concerned that even fisheries that are not classified as
overfished from a population perspective are, or could be, overfished from an ecological perspective.
These indicators strive to ensure that marine-based feed ingredients come from sustainable sources in
the short- and long-term. The requirements aim to align industry incentives to support processes that
will lead to improved fisheries management and ultimately the certification of forage fisheries as an
independent measure of the ecological health of those fisheries.
In the medium term, the requirements will require marine ingredients in feed to be certified by a widely
recognised authority. This recognised authority must be a member of the ISEAL Alliance, which
promotes transparent, multi-stakeholder processes. The authority must also have a methodology that
specifically addresses the ecological role of low trophic-level species. As of the date of publication of
this ASC Salmon Standard, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is the only fishery scheme that is a
full member of ISEAL, and MSC is in the process of developing specific requirements for small pelagic
fisheries. Additional schemes may emerge in the future that meet these requirements. This requirement
begins to be applicable five years after the publication of the ASC Salmon Standard because there is a
current lack of such certified sources of fishmeal and fish oil and the transformation of the industry will
take some time. The ASC Salmon Standard encourages fisheries to begin immediately to make any
needed management changes or regulatory reforms needed to achieve certification.
In the short term, the requirements restrict fisheries currently known to have the poorest status from
being used for fishmeal and fish oil and places traceability requirements on the fishmeal and fish oil
used in the feed. Requirement 4.3.2 requires the fishmeal and fish oil from forage fisheries to originate
69 The International Union for the Conservation of Nature reference can be found at http://www.iucnredlist.org/.
71 The policy should be written and include an assessment of source fishery status and identification of improvement needs
and work plan to deliver improvements. The policy must include a commitment and timeline to source aquaculture and fishery
products from responsible/best practice sources, such as those certified a standard benchmarked at minimum consistent with
relevant FAO’s eco-labelling guidelines or by identified independent risk assessment.
72 FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), 2010.

Page 34 of 103

from fisheries meeting a minimum score using the FishSource scoring methodology, which is outlined
in Appendix IV-3.
Rigorous traceability requirements are built into requirement 4.3.3. The traceability scheme must also
incorporate baseline measures related to sustainability that serve as an additional measure to ensure
that fish from unsustainable fisheries are not used in feed. The International Fishmeal and Fish Oil
Organization’s Global Standard for Responsible Supply73 or a future equivalent that might emerge can
be used to meet this requirement.
Last, requirement 4.3.4 prevents the use of by-products and trimmings that come from species
categorized as vulnerable or worse on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Using by-products
from fisheries for human consumption in salmon feeds is a valuable use of products that may otherwise
be wasted. However, a minimum level of sustainability of these fisheries is still required under the ASC
Salmon Standard. For species classified globally as vulnerable by IUCN, the requirement offers the
opportunity for feed suppliers to demonstrate through a scientific process that a regional population of
a species is not actually vulnerable.
Criterion 4.4 Source of non-marine raw materials in feed

4.4.1 Presence and evidence of a responsible sourcing

policy for the feed manufacturer for feed
Yes
ingredients that comply with recognised crop
moratoriums74 and local laws75
4.4.2 Percentage of soya or soya-derived ingredients in

the feed that are certified by the Roundtable for 100%
Responsible Soy (RTRS) or equivalent76
4.4.3 Evidence of disclosure to the buyer77 of the Yes, for each individual raw material
salmon of inclusion of transgenic78 plant raw containing > 1% transgenic content79
73 https://www.iffo.com/iffo-rs
74Moratorium: A period of time in which there is a suspension of a specific activity until future events warrant a removal of
the suspension or issues regarding the activity have been resolved. In this context, moratoriums may refer to suspension of
the growth of defined agricultural crops in defined geographical regions.
75
Specifically, the policy shall include that vegetable ingredients, or products derived from vegetable ingredients, must not
come from areas of the Amazon Biome that were deforested after July 24, 2006, as geographically defined by the Brazilian
Soy Moratorium. Should the Brazilian Soy Moratorium be lifted, this specific requirement shall be reconsidered.
76 Any alternate certification scheme would have to be approved as equivalent by the Technical Advisory Group of the ASC.
77 The company or entity to which the farm or the producing company is directly selling its product. This standard requires
disclosure by the feed company to the farm and by the farm to the buyer of their salmon.
78Transgenic: An organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that
does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Source EFSA.
79 See Appendix VI for transparency requirement for 4.4.3.
Page 35 of 103

material, or raw materials derived from transgenic
plants, in the feed
Rationale - The ASC Salmon Standard aims to promote responsible sourcing of all feed ingredients.
Thus, the ASC Salmon Standard requires producers to provide evidence that they are sourcing feed
products from feed manufacturers that have a sustainable sourcing policy for feed ingredients.
Feed ingredients sourced from areas where significant ecological damage has occurred was of concern
to the ASC. Therefore, the requirement requires producers to source feed from feed producers who
comply with any relevant, recognised crop moratoriums that, at the time of the writing of these
requirements, includes only the Brazilian Soy Moratorium,80. Such moratoriums are temporary
measures intended to protect defined geographic regions. Looking to the future, the ASC Salmon
Standard incorporates a requirement for feed manufacturers to use soy certified by the RTRS, which
the ASC Salmon Standard recognises as the most environmentally meaningful soy certification process
today. Because the scheme is recently starting up, the requirements build in a five-year window for this
requirement.
Transgenic plants are commonly used in aquaculture and animal feeds throughout the world. Some
consumers and retailers want to be able to identify food products, including farmed salmon, that are
genetically modified or that have been fed genetically modified ingredients. The ASC Salmon Standard
ensure transparency (above one per cent) around any transgenic material used in the feed in order to
support informed choices by retailers and consumers. The ASC Salmon Standard require that the
producer disclose to the first-order buyer of their salmon the use of any genetically modified ingredients
in feed, and publicly disclose whether transgenic ingredients are used under Appendix VI.
Criterion 4.5 Non-biological waste from production

4.5.1 Presence and evidence of a functioning policy for

proper and responsible81 treatment of non-
Yes
biological waste from production (e.g. disposal
and recycling)
4.5.2 Evidence that non-biological waste (including net

pens) from grow-out site is either disposed of Yes
properly or recycled
Rationale - The purpose of these indicators is to ensure that all non-biological waste produced by a
farm is recycled, reused or disposed of properly and does not affect neighbouring communities. Proper
80 See https://abiove.org.br/en/sustainability/for additional information on the soy moratorium.

81 Proper and responsible disposal will vary based on facilities available in the region and remoteness of farm sites. Disposal
of non-biological waste shall be done in a manner consistent with best practice in the area. Dumping of non-biological waste
into the ocean does not represent “proper and responsible” disposal.
Page 36 of 103

handling and treatment of wastes may vary across farms depending on the remoteness of the farm site
and the disposal and recycling options available in the region.
Initial Auditing Guidance
The ASC Salmon Standard recognises that some farms are located in extremely remote locations with
no viable recycling systems nearby and where waste disposal presents challenges. Auditing guidelines
will need to clarify what “proper” disposal means and be flexible enough to recognise that what is
“proper” on one site is different from what is “proper” on another site. Regardless of the remoteness of
a farm, these requirements would, for example, prohibit the dumping of non-biological waste (e.g.
feedbags or nets) into the ocean.
Criterion 4.6 Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions on

farms82
4.6.1 Presence of an energy use assessment verifying

the energy consumption on the farm and Yes, measured in kilojoule/t fish
representing the whole life cycle at sea, as produced/production cycle
outlined in Appendix V-1
4.6.2 Records of greenhouse gas (GHG83) emissions84

on farm and evidence of an annual GHG Yes
assessment, as outlined in Appendix V-1
4.6.3 Documentation of GHG emissions of the feed85

used during the previous production cycle, as Yes
outlined in Appendix V, subsection 2
Rationale - Climate change represents perhaps the biggest environmental challenge facing current
and future generations. Because of this, energy consumption used in food production has become a
source of major public concern. The ASC Salmon Standard recognises the importance of efficient and
sustainable energy use. Therefore, these indicators will require that energy consumption in the
production of fish should be monitored on a continual basis and that growers should develop means to
improve efficiency and reduce consumption of energy sources, particularly those that are limited or
83
For the purposes of this standard, GHGs are defined as the six gases listed in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2);
methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
84 GHG emissions must be recorded using recognised methods, standards and records as outlined in Appendix V.
85 GHG emissions from feed can be given based on the average raw material composition used to produce the salmon (by
weight) and not as documentation linked to each single product used during the production cycle. Feed manufacturer is
responsible for calculating GHG emissions per unit feed. Farm site then shall use that information to calculate GHG emissions
for the volume of feed they used in the prior production cycle.
Page 37 of 103

carbon-based. The data collected in this process will help the ASC Salmon Standard set a meaningful
numerical requirement for energy use in the future. Energy assessments are a new area for producers.
Requiring that farms do these assessments will likely raise awareness of the issues related to energy
and build support for adding a requirement in the future related to the maximum energy of GHG
emissions allowed.
Criterion 4.7 Non-therapeutic chemical inputs86,87

4.7.1 For farms that use copper-treated nets88,

evidence that nets are not cleaned89 or treated in Yes
situ in the marine environment
4.7.2 For any farm that cleans nets at on-land sites,

evidence that net-cleaning sites have effluent Yes
treatment90
4.7.3 For farms that use copper nets or copper-treated

nets, evidence of testing for copper level in the
Yes
sediment outside of the AZE, following
methodology in Appendix I-1
4.7.4 Evidence that copper levels91 are < 34 mg Cu/kg

dry sediment weight,
or,
Yes
in instances where the Cu in the sediment
exceeds 34 mg Cu/kg dry sediment weight,
demonstration that the Cu concentration falls
within the range of background concentrations as
86Closed production systems that do not use nets and do not use antifoulants shall be considered exempt from standards
under Criterion 4.7.
88Under the SAD, “copper-treated net” is defined as a net that has been treated with any copper-containing substance (such
as a copper-based antifoulant) during the previous 18 months, or has not undergone thorough cleaning at a land-based facility
since the last treatment. Farms that use nets that have, at some point prior in their lifespan, been treated with copper may still
consider nets as untreated so long as sufficient time and cleaning has elapsed as in this definition. This will allow farms to
move away from use of copper without immediately having to purchase all new nets.
89Light cleaning of nets is allowed. Intent of the standard is that, for example, the high-pressure underwater washers could
not be used on copper treated nets under this standard because of the risk of copper flaking off during this type of heavy or
more thorough cleaning.
90 Treatment must have appropriate technologies in place to capture copper if the farm uses copper-treated nets.
91According to testing required under 4.7.3. The standards related to testing of copper are only applicable to farms that use
copper-based nets or copper-treated nets.
Page 38 of 103

measured at three reference sites in the water
body
4.7.5 Evidence that the type of biocides used in net

antifouling are approved according to legislation in
Yes
the European Union, or the United States, or
Australia
Rationale - Copper (Cu) is an abundant trace element found in a variety of rocks and minerals. It is an
essential micronutrient and is also necessary for a wide range of metabolic processes in animals and
plants. At elevated levels, however, Cu becomes toxic. Collectively, the set of requirements related to
copper encourage any sites that can do so to not use copper. Simultaneously, they recognise that in
some situations phasing out copper usage may not yet be possible if, for example, alternate antifoulants
or cleaning methods don’t leave nets at a given site clean enough for the use of wrasse to manage sea
lice to be feasible. In situations where copper is used, the requirements ensure precautionary healthy
levels of copper in the benthos.
In order to minimise release of Cu from salmon farms into the environment, the requirement includes
better management practices of not cleaning copper treated nets in the aquatic environment and
requires that land-based cleaning facilities have the appropriate effluent treatment.
Additionally, a maximum level of Cu concentration in the sediment outside of the AZE is built into the
requirement to ensure that any benthic effect that may occur from the use of copper on the net pens is
minimal. The variability in environmental factors makes it very difficult to identify a generic threshold of
copper in the environment that can be used to define the environmental risk. However, experts suggest
that the threshold of 34mg/kg sediment adequately protects the benthos. The level of 34 mg is also
consistent with the level at which Scottish regulation requires some action to ensure benthic health, and
with levels recognised by other jurisdictions as the level at which there may be possible environmental
effect. Under the ASC Salmon Standard, if Cu levels in the sediment just outside the AZE are higher
than the threshold, as may be the case in areas with naturally high levels of Cu, the farm must
demonstrate that the level just outside of the AZE is consistent with reference sites and the background
levels in the area.
The ASC Salmon Standard is aware that other biocides are commercially applied to netting material. It
is difficult to address all biocides used or to be used in the future. To address the high variability of
biocides used, the ASC Salmon Standard elected to limit use to those chemicals approved for legal use
by the European Union, the United States or Australia. The ASC Salmon Standard encourages the
development and review of alternative antifoulants that are protective of the marine environment. The
European Union, the United States and Australia were selected as a representation of jurisdictions that
were viewed to be undertaking rigorous analyses of biocides.
Page 39 of 103

PRINCIPLE 5: MANAGE DISEASE AND PARASITES IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER
Principle 5 aims to address negative impacts of salmon farming associated with disease, parasites, and
therapeutic chemical inputs. The ASC Salmon Standard recognises the role of proper fish handling and
minimised levels of fish stress as an important element in good husbandry and in reducing levels of
disease on farms, mortalities, and therapeutic treatments. In addition to addressing environmental risks,
compliance with requirements under Principle 5 helps ensure farmed fish health and welfare.
Criterion 5.1 Survival and health of farmed fish92
5.1.1. Evidence of a fish health management plan for the

identification and monitoring of fish diseases,
parasites and environmental conditions relevant Yes
for good fish health, including implementing
corrective action when required
5.1.2 Site visits by a designated veterinarian93 at least

four times a year, and by a fish health manager94 Yes
at least once a month
5.1.3 Percentage of dead fish removed and disposed of

100%95
in a responsible manner
5.1.4 Percentage of mortalities that are recorded,

100%96
classified and receive a post-mortem analysis
93 A designated veterinarian is the professional responsible for health management on the farm who has the legal authority
to diagnose disease and prescribe medication. In some countries such as Norway, a fish health biologist or other professional
has equivalent professional qualifications and is equivalent to a veterinarian for purposes of these standards. This definition
applies to all references to a veterinarian throughout the standards document.
94A fish health manager is someone with professional expertise in managing fish health, who may work for a farming
company or for a veterinarian, but who does not necessarily have the authority to prescribe medicine.
95 The SAD recognises that not all mortality events will result in dead fish present for collection and removal. However, such
situations are considered the exception rather than the norm.
96 If on-site diagnosis is inconclusive, this standard requires off-site laboratory diagnosis. A qualified professional must conduct
all diagnosis. One hundred percent of mortality events shall receive a post-mortem analysis, not necessarily every fish. A
statistically relevant number of fish from the mortality event shall be analysed.
Page 40 of 103

5.1.5 Maximum viral disease-related mortality97 on farm
≤ 10%
during the most recent production cycle
5.1.6 Maximum unexplained mortality rate from each of

the previous two production cycles, for farms with ≤ 40% of total mortalities
total mortality > 6%
5.1.7 A farm-specific mortalities reduction programme

that includes defined annual targets for reductions
Yes
in mortalities and reductions in unexplained
mortalities
Rationale - Farmed salmon are susceptible to numerous diseases that have the potential to be
amplified and transferred, thereby posing a risk to the health of fish and other marine organisms in
adjacent ecosystems. One of the best ways to mitigate the risk of disease transfer to wild stocks is to
reduce or eliminate the disease from happening initially.
These requirements seek to ensure proactive health management on the farm through a detailed health
management plan and frequent visits by the designated veterinarian and other fish health professionals.
The requirements under Criterion 5.1 are complemented by requirements related to the health of
smolts, as outlined under Section 8 of this document. Requirements related to smolt seek to ensure
that farmed salmon have all relevant vaccinations and enter the water as healthy as possible.
Healthy farms also must keep detailed records of all mortalities and cause of death. The post-mortem
analysis required in this requirement is essential to provide an early warning against emerging diseases.
Repeated high mortality rates, or a high rate of unexplained mortalities, may indicate poor management
or poor siting. The mortality requirements in 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 are not intended as a goal, but rather a
minimum required. The requirement focuses on mortalities from viral disease and unknown causes, as
those categories were highlighted by experts as presenting a greater potential risk to wild fish
populations and neighbouring farms. The requirement requires that mortalities from viral disease be
kept at or below 10 per cent. Only farms with mortality rates greater than six per cent per production
cycle must also then meet the requirement related to percentage of unexplained mortalities. The farm
must be able to demonstrate that it is working seriously to reduce its mortalities, including tracking
diseases and carrying out a farm-specific plan to reduce diseases and mortalities. The information
collected on mortalities will be useful for future revisions of the requirements.
97 Viral disease-related mortality count shall include unspecified and unexplained mortality as it could be related to viral
disease.
Page 41 of 103

Criterion 5.2 Therapeutic treatments98
5.2.1 On-farm documentation that includes, at a

minimum, detailed information on all chemicals99
and therapeutants used during the most recent
production cycle, the amounts used (including
Yes
grams per ton of fish produced), the dates used,
which group of fish were treated and against which
diseases, proof of proper dosing, and all disease
and pathogens detected on the site
5.2.2 Allowance for use of therapeutic treatments that

include antibiotics or chemicals that are banned100
None
in any of the primary salmon producing or
importing countries101
5.2.3 Percentage of medication events that are

100%
prescribed by a veterinarian
5.2.4 Compliance with all withholding periods after

Yes
treatments
5.2.5 The farm shall publicly report (via Appendix VI)

the:
1. Weighted Number of Medicinal Treatments (see
Appendix VII) for each production cycle
Yes
2. The parasiticide load for each agent over the
production cycle
3. The benthic parasiticide residue levels
98 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 5.2.1, 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and 5.2.10.
99 Chemicals used for the treatment of fish.
100“Banned” means proactively prohibited by a government entity because of concerns around the substance. A substance
banned in any of the primary salmon-producing or importing countries, as defined here, cannot be used in any salmon farm
certified under the SAD, regardless of country of production or destination of the product. The SAD recommends that ASC
maintain a list of a banned therapeutants.
101 For purposes of this standard, those countries are Norway, the UK, Canada, Chile, the United States, Japan and France.
Page 42 of 103

5.2.6 The Weighted Number of Medicinal Treatments
shall be at or below the country Entry Level (see Yes
Appendix VII)
5.2.7 The farm shall reduce the Weighted Number of

Medicinal Treatments, after achieving indicator
Yes
5.2.6, with 25% per 2 years until the WNMT is at
or below the Global Level (see Appendix VII).
5.2.8 The farm shall implement Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) according to the guidance in Yes
Appendix VII.
5.2.9 The farm shall public present (e.g. via company

website) the IPM-measures that the company Yes
applies which need to be approved by a
authorised veterinarian.
5.2.10 The farm shall monitor parasiticide residue levels

annually in the benthic sediment directly outside Yes
the AZE.
5.2.11 Allowance for prophylactic use of antimicrobial

None
treatments102
5.2.12 Allowance for use of antibiotics listed as critically

important for human medicine by the World Health None104
Organization (WHO103)
5.2.13 Number of treatments105 of antibiotics over the

≤3
most recent production cycle
5.2.14 If more than one antibiotic treatment is used in the Yes107

most recent production cycle, demonstration that
102 The designated veterinarian must certify that a pathogen or disease is present before prescribing medication.
103 WHO 2018 list of “Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine” 2018 or most recent release:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515528
104If the antibiotic treatment is applied to only a portion of the pens on a farm site, fish from pens that did not receive treatment
are still eligible for certification.
105 A treatment is a single course medication given to address a specific disease issue and that may last a number of days.
107Reduction in load required, regardless of whether production increases on the site. Farms that consolidate production
across multiple sites within an ABM can calculate reduction based on the combined antibiotic load of the consolidated sites.
Page 43 of 103

the antibiotic load106 is at least 15% less that of the
average of the two previous production cycles
5.2.15 Presence of documents demonstrating that the

farm has provided buyers108 of its salmon a list of Yes
all therapeutants used in production
Rationale - When disease outbreaks occur on salmon farms, farmers often opt to treat using chemical
therapeutants as a means of protecting on-farm fish and the health of wild populations near the farm.
With any chemical introduction into a wild environment, there is a need to ensure that non-target
organisms are not being negatively impacted by the use of that chemical. Accurate and detailed
documentation of all treatments is the first step to ensure proper dosing and safe use of therapeutants.
The data collected from this requirement will also help the ASC set more measurable requirements in
the future.
To minimise the risk of treatments posing a risk to the environment, farms shall not use treatments that
have been banned by any of the regulatory bodies in the world’s largest salmon-producing or importing
countries. The chemical must have been proactively prohibited or banned, versus being not approved.
Part of a farm’s responsibility to operate within the law involves taking appropriate measures to ensure
that its product complies with import laws of the countries where the salmon is eventually sold.
Requirement 5.2.15 above ensures that buyers and importers have the information they need to verify
that the product complies with import regulations.
Prophylactic use of antimicrobial treatments, and treatments that aren’t prescribed by a licensed
professional, are unacceptable under the requirement because they open the door to overuse and
abuse of therapeutants.
Stakeholders within the SAD shared a common interest and common goal of reducing the use of
parasiticides and reducing the risk of needed chemical treatments to the environment. The ultimate
goal would be that farms could meet the ASC Salmon Standard without using therapeutants or without
the risk of those therapeutants negatively impacting the environment. Simultaneously, the SAD focused
on protecting wild stocks of salmonids and thus sets low thresholds (requirement 3.1.9) for allowable
lice on farmed fish in areas with wild salmonids. Taking into account current technology and knowledge
and balancing between the objectives of minimising impact on wild stocks and at the same time
addressing threats to the environment related to unrestricted use of therapeutants, the SAD allowed
restricted use of parasiticides to treat sea lice under the requirement.
The purpose of the requirement of Indicator 5.2.5 and 5.2.7 is to place a limit on the number of
treatments using parasiticides, while taking into account regional differences in ecosystems and
epidemiology, including differences in lice species, wild host reservoirs and susceptibility to lice attack,
together with differences in mandatory regulatory requirements in the different countries. The standard
seeks to use a progressive indicator which encourages reductions in medicinal product use and the
associated risks of resistance from overuse whilst incentivising an increasing shift to non-medicinal
means of control through expansion of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. To promote this,
106 Antibiotic load = the sum of the total amount of active ingredient of antibiotics used (kg).
108 Buyer: The company or entity to which the farm or the producing company is directly selling its product.
Page 44 of 103

the entry to the process is relatively inclusive in order to promote the progressive changes sought. For
this purpose, after the first audit, the farm should show improvement in management against a progress
ladder based on the principles of IPM against a time bound plan (Appendix VII) and a shift towards low
to zero medicinal product usage (Indicator 5.2.7).
Indicator 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 addresses the number of medicinal treatments used on certified farms. The
total amount of active ingredient used for medicinal treatments will be provided by the parasiticide loadIn
addition, some more direct assessment of the fate of the various agents in the environment, both in the
sediment and the water, is to be encouraged (Indicator 5.2.10) by requiring some monitoring of the
concentration of the various agents in water and sediments at the edge and outside the Allowable Zone
of Effects (AZE) either by using tools such as direct assay or models that have been scientifically
validated (e.g. by peer review and documented testing) and which are approved by national regulatory
bodies
In order to monitor effective progress in reduction of medicinal treatments, Indicator 5.2.7 requires that
at the end of the second certification cycle following the introduction of the new requirements, that is
after 6 years, and of every subsequent cycle, the WMNT can be audited over the preceding 6 years for
an overall downward trend indicative of a reduction in medicinal treatment frequency. By this means
there should be at least 4 or 5 data points upon which to base judgment. Reductions can be
demonstrated at the individual farm or Area Based Management (ABM) level.
These requirements are consistent with industry efforts to reduce both frequency and amount of
parasiticide used, as well as with initiatives to develop treatment methods that do not release
parasiticides into the environment. To encourage thinking about cumulative use across a broader area,
tracking of total use of parasiticides is required under the ABM.
With regards to the use of antibiotics, there is a global effort led by the WHO to ensure that antibiotics
important for human medicine are used in a way that doesn’t jeopardise their effectiveness in treating
human diseases. These requirements seek to be in line with that effort. The requirements set a cap on
a maximum allowable number of treatments of antibiotics on certified farms that is intended to set a
reasonable limit on what may be needed on a well-managed farm and excludes any farms that fail to
follow industry guidelines for prudent use of antibiotics. Through 5.2.14, the ASC Salmon Standard
addresses environmental risk from cumulative load of antibiotics entering the environment from certified
farms. The requirement requires a reduction, within five years, of the actual load of antibiotics released
from farms that use more than one treatment of antibiotics. This is in line with industry goals to reduce
total antibiotic use and with trends in industry to use precise pen-by-pen treatments when appropriate.
Additionally, the SAD’s technical working group on chemical inputs recommended that antibiotics
important for human health only be used with extreme reluctance. These requirements are also
intended to further raise awareness within the aquatic veterinary community on the use of medically
important antimicrobial drugs in food-animal production, and the public health risks associated with
antibiotic resistance. This issue is addressed in requirement 5.2.12 and through a coordination
requirement within the ABM related to the use of antibiotics classified by the WHO as “highly important”
for human health.
Page 45 of 103

Criterion 5.3 Resistance of parasites, viruses and bacteria to medicinal
treatments
5.3.1 Bio-assay analysis to determine resistance when

two applications of a treatment have not produced Yes
the expected effect
5.3.2 When bio-assay tests determine resistance is

forming, use of an alternative, permitted treatment, Yes
or an immediate harvest of all fish on the site
5.3.3 Specific rotation, providing that the farm has >1

effective medicinal treatment product available,
Yes
every third treatment must belong to a different
family of drugs.
Rationale - One of the more serious risks of overusing medicinal treatments is the development of
parasite drug resistance, which lowers the overall effectiveness of treatments. In some salmon-growing
regions, resistance to a number of drugs has become a growing problem, increasing the challenge for
salmon farmers to control sea lice on farmed and wild fish.
Efforts to prevent and monitor resistance are made most effectively through an area-based approach.
Timely, accurate sea lice counts on the farm can detect when sea lice treatment is no longer effective.
Bioassays are important to confirm if resistance is developing and a limit has been set on the number
of repeat treatments of the same family of drugs that can be applied. A single treatment is considered
to have taken place when the majority of a site (more than half of all cages) is treated. No more than
two such treatments should use the same family of drugs; that is, at least every third treatment should
be with a drug of a different class.
Page 46 of 103

Criterion 5.4 Biosecurity management109
5.4.1 Evidence that all salmon on the site are a single

100%111
year class110
5.4.2 Evidence that if the farm suspects an unidentifiable

transmissible agent, or if the farm experiences
unexplained increased mortality,112 the farm has:
1. Reported the issue to the ABM and to the
appropriate regulatory authority Yes
2. Increased monitoring and surveillance113 on

the farm and within the ABM
3. Promptly114 made findings publicly available
5.4.3 Evidence of compliance115 with the OIE Aquatic

Yes
Animal Health Code116
5.4.4 If an OIE-notifiable disease117 is confirmed on the

Yes
farm, evidence that:
109 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 5.4.2 and 5.4.4.
110Gaps of up to six months between inputs of smolts derived from the same stripping are acceptable as long as there remains
a period of time when the site is fully fallow after harvest.
111 Exception is allowed for: 1) farm sites that have closed, contained production units where there is complete separation of
water between units and no sharing of filtration systems or other systems that could spread disease, or, 2) farm sites that have
≥95% water recirculation, a pre-entry disease screening protocol, dedicated quarantine capability and biosecurity measures
for waste to ensure there is no discharge of live biological material to the natural environment (e.g. UV or other effective
treatment of effluent) .
112 Increased mortality: A statistically significant increase over background rate on a monthly basis.
113 Primary aim of monitoring and surveillance is to investigate whether a new or adapted disease is present in the area.
114 Within one month.
115 Compliance is defined as farm practices consistent with the intentions of the Code, to be further outlined in auditing
guidance. For purposes of this standard, this includes an aggressive response to detection of an exotic OIE-notifiable disease
on the farm, which includes depopulating the infected site and implementation of quarantine zones in accordance with
guidelines from OIE for the specific pathogen. Quarantine zones will likely incorporate mandatory depopulation of sites close
to the infected site and affect some, though not necessarily all, of the ABM. Exotic signifies not previously found in the area or
had been fully eradicated (area declared free of the pathogen).
116 OIE 2022 or most recent release. Aquatic Animal Health Code. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-
and-manuals/aquatic-code-online-access/
117OIE-notifiable diseases relevant to salmon aquaculture as of the release of Salmon Standard V 1.4: Epizootic
hematopoietic necrosis, gyrodactylussalaris, ISA, salmonid alphavirus, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, and viral
Page 47 of 103

1. the farm at a minimum, immediately culled the pen(s)
in which the disease was detected
2. the farm immediately notified the other farms in the
ABM118
3. the farm and the ABM enhanced monitoring and
conducted rigorous testing for the disease
4. the farm promptly119 made findings publicly available
Rationale - Biosecurity measures reduce the risk of disease transmission to the wild and between
farms. These requirements aim to ensure that farms don’t harm the health of wild populations by
amplifying or spreading disease. It is recognised that disease flow is bidirectional between farmed and
wild fish, and these requirements aim to minimise effect of disease transmission and retransmission.
The ASC recognises that broad-level response to disease, in particular aggressive response to OIE-
notifiable disease, must be led by regulators in the jurisdiction. This is important both because of legal
implications of actions and because a mandatory response required by government has greatest
potential to be effective.
haemorrhagic septicaemia virus. The actions required are applicable to exotic OIE notifiable diseases. Actions taken need to
comply with national regulations.
118 This is in addition to any notifications to regulatory bodies required under law and the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code.
119 Within one month.
Page 48 of 103

PRINCIPLE 6: DEVELOP AND OPERATE FARMS IN A SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE MANNER
Principle 6 aims to address potential negative social impacts related to farm development and
operation, including labour concerns.
Criterion 6.1 Freedom of association and collective bargaining120

6.1.1 Evidence that workers have access to trade

unions (if they exist) and union representative(s)
Yes
chosen by themselves without managerial
interference
6.1.2 Evidence that workers are free to form

organizations, including unions, to advocate for Yes
and protect their rights
6.1.3 Evidence that workers are free and able to

Yes
bargain collectively for their rights
Rationale - Having the freedom to associate and bargain collectively is a critical right of workers
because it enables them to engage in collective bargaining over issues such as wages and other
working conditions. Freedom of Association and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining is one of the core principles of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) “Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” The declaration was adopted in 1998 by the 86th
International Labour Conference and has since been ratified by the overwhelming majority of ILO’s 183
member nation-states.
120Bargain collectively: A voluntary negotiation between employers and organizations of workers in order to establish the
terms and conditions of employment by means of collective (written) agreements.
Page 49 of 103

Criterion 6.2 Child labour
6.2.1 Number of incidences of child121 labour122 None
6.2.2 Percentage of young workers123 that are

100%
protected124
Rationale - The effective abolition of child labour is one of the core principles of the ILO “Declaration
on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” Adherence to the child labour codes and definitions
included in this section indicates compliance with what the ILO and international conventions generally
recognise as the key areas for the protection of child and young workers. Children are particularly
vulnerable to economic exploitation, due to their inherent age-related limitations in physical
development, knowledge and experience. Children and youth need adequate time for education,
development and play. Therefore, they should not have to work or be exposed to working hours and
conditions that are hazardous125,126 to their physical or mental well-being. To this end, the requirements
related to what constitutes child labour will protect the interests of children and young workers at salmon
farms certified to these requirements.
121 Child: Any person under 15 years of age. A higher age would apply if the minimum age law of an area stipulates a higher
age for work or mandatory schooling. Minimum age may be 14 if the country allows it under the developing country exceptions
in ILO convention 138.
122 Child Labour: Any work by a child younger than the age specified in the definition of a child.
123 Young Worker: Any worker between the age of a child, as defined above, and under the age of 18.
124Protected: Workers between 15 and 18 years of age will not be exposed to hazardous health and safety conditions; working
hours shall not interfere with their education and the combined daily transportation time and school time, and work time shall
not exceed 10 hours.
125Hazard: The inherent potential to cause injury or damage to a person’s health (e.g. unequipped to handle heavy machinery
safely, and unprotected exposure to harmful chemicals).
126Hazardous work: Work that, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety
or morals of workers (e.g. heavy lifting disproportionate to a person’s body size, operating heavy machinery, exposure to toxic
chemicals).
Page 50 of 103

Criterion 6.3 Forced, bonded or compulsory labour
6.3.1 Number of incidences of forced,127 bonded128 or

None
compulsory labour
Rationale - Forced labour - such as slavery, debt bondage and human trafficking - is a serious concern
in many industries and regions of the world. The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour
is one of the core principles of the ILO “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.”
Ensuring that contracts are clearly articulated and understood by workers is critical to determining that
labour is not forced. The inability of a worker to freely leave the workplace and/or an employer
withholding original identity documents of workers are indicators that employment may not be at-will.
Adherence to these policies shall indicate that an aquaculture operation is not using forced, bonded or
compulsory labour forces.
Criterion 6.4 Discrimination129

6.4.1 Evidence of comprehensive130 and proactive

anti-discrimination policies, procedures and Yes
practices
6.4.2 Number of incidences of discrimination None
Rationale - The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation is one of the
core principles of the ILO “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” Unequal
127Forced (Compulsory) labour: All work or service that is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty for
which a person has not offered himself/herself voluntarily or for which such work or service is demanded as a repayment of
debt. “Penalty” can imply monetary sanctions, physical punishment, or the loss of rights and privileges or restriction of
movement (e.g. withholding of identity documents).
128Bonded labour: When a person is forced by the employer or creditor to work to repay a financial debt to the crediting
agency.
129 Discrimination: Any distinction, exclusion or preference that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity
or treatment. Not every distinction, exclusion or preference constitutes discrimination. For instance, a merit- or performance-
based pay increase or bonus is not by itself discriminatory. Positive discrimination in favour of people from certain
underrepresented groups may be legal in some countries.
130 Employers shall have written anti-discrimination policies stating that the company does not engage in or support
discrimination in hiring, remuneration, access to training, promotion, termination or retirement based on race, caste, national
origin, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation, age or any other condition that may
give rise to discrimination.
Page 51 of 103

treatment of workers based on certain characteristics (such as sex or race), is a violation of a workers’
human rights. Additionally, widespread discrimination in the working environment can negatively affect
overall poverty and economic development rates. Discrimination occurs in many work environments
and takes many forms. A common form is discrimination against women workers.
In order to ensure that discrimination does not occur at salmon farms certified to this requirement,
employers must demonstrate their commitment to equality with an official anti-discrimination policy, a
policy of equal pay for equal work, and clearly outlined procedures to raise, file and respond to a
discrimination complaint in an effective manner. Evidence, including worker testimony, of adherence to
these policies and procedures will indicate minimisation of discrimination. “Positive” discrimination (i.e.,
special treatment to protect the rights and health of particular groups of workers, or to provide
opportunities for groups which have historically been disadvantaged) is allowed, and often required by
laws related to such issues as maternity and affirmative action.
Criterion 6.5 Work environment health and safety

6.5.1 Percentage of workers trained in health and 100%

safety practices, procedures131 and policies on
a yearly basis
6.5.2 Evidence that workers use Personal Protective

Yes
Equipment (PPE) effectively
6.5.3 Presence of a health and safety risk

assessment and evidence of preventive actions Yes
taken
6.5.4 Evidence that all health- and safety-related

accidents and violations are recorded and Yes
corrective actions are taken when necessary
6.5.5 Evidence of employer responsibility and/or

proof of insurance (accident or injury) for 100%
Yes
of worker costs in a job-related accident or
injury when not covered under national law
6.5.6 Evidence that all diving operations are

Yes
conducted by divers who are certified
Rationale - A safe and healthy working environment is essential for protecting workers from harm. It is
critical for a responsible aquaculture operation to minimise these risks. One of the key risks to workers
is hazards resulting from accidents and injuries. Consistent, effective and regular worker training in
health and safety practices is an important preventative measure. When an accident, injury or violation
131 Health and safety training shall include emergency response procedures and practices.
Page 52 of 103

occurs, the company must record it and take corrective action to identify the root causes of the incident,
remediate, and take steps to prevent future occurrences of similar incidents. This addresses violations
and the long-term health and safety risks. Finally, while many national laws require that employers
assume responsibility for job-related accidents and injuries, not all countries require this and not all
workers (in some cases migrant and other workers) will be covered under such laws. When not covered
under national law, employers must prove they are insured to cover 100 per cent of worker costs when
a job-related accident or injury occurs.
Criterion 6.6 Wages

6.6.1 The percentage of workers whose basic wage132

(before overtime and bonuses) is below the 0 (None)
minimum wage133
6.6.2 Evidence that the employer is working toward

Yes
the payment of basic needs wage134
6.6.3 Evidence of transparency in wage-setting and

Yes
rendering135
Rationale - Wages and the process for setting wages are important components of the ILO core
principles. For this reason, it is important to highlight under these requirements the importance of
workers’ basic wages meeting the legal minimum wage and being rendered to workers in a convenient
manner. Unfortunately, minimum wage in many countries does not always cover the basic needs of
workers. Unfairly and insufficiently compensated workers can be subject to a life of sustained poverty.
Therefore, it is important for socially responsible employers to pay or be working toward paying a basic
needs wage. The calculation of a basic needs wage can be complex, and it is important for employers
to consult with workers, their representatives and other credible sources when assessing what a basic
needs wage would be.
Certified salmon farms shall also demonstrate their commitment to fair and equitable wages by having
and sharing a clear and transparent mechanism for wage-setting and a labour conflict resolution
policy136 that tracks wage-related complaints and responses. Having these policies outlined in a clear
and transparent manner will empower the workers to negotiate effectively for fair and equitable wages
that shall, at a minimum, satisfy basic needs.
132 Basic wage: The wages paid for a standard working week (no more than 48 hours).
133 If there is no legal minimum wage in a country, basic wages must meet the industry-standard minimum wage.
134Basic needs wage: A wage that covers the basic needs of an individual or family, including housing, food and transport.
This concept differs from a minimum wage, which is set by law and may or may not cover the basic needs of workers.
135 Payments shall be rendered to workers in a convenient manner.
136 See Criterion 6.8.
Page 53 of 103

Criterion 6.7 Contracts (labour) including subcontracting
6.7.1 Percentage of workers who have contracts137 100%
6.7.2 Evidence of a policy to ensure social

Yes
compliance of its suppliers and contractors
Rationale - Fair contracting is important to ensure transparency between the employer and employee
and fairness in the employment relation. Short-term and temporary contracts are acceptable but cannot
be used to avoid paying benefits or to deny other rights. The company shall also have policies and
mechanisms to ensure that workers contracted from other companies for specific services (e.g., divers,
cleaning, or maintenance) and the companies providing them with primary inputs or supplies have
socially responsible practices and policies.
Criterion 6.8 Conflict resolution

6.8.1 Evidence of worker access to effective, fair and

Yes
confidential grievance procedures
6.8.2 Percentage of grievances handled that are

100%
addressed138 within a 90-day timeframe
Rationale - Companies must have a clear labour conflict resolution policy in place for the presentation,
treatment, and resolution of worker grievances in a confidential manner. Workers shall be familiar with
the policy and its effective use. Such a policy is necessary to track conflicts and complaints raised, and
responses to conflicts and complaints.
137 Labor-only contracting relationships or false apprenticeship schemes are not acceptable. This includes
revolving/consecutive labor contracts to deny benefit accrual or equitable remuneration. False Apprenticeship Scheme: The
practice of hiring workers under apprenticeship terms without stipulating terms of the apprenticeship or wages under contract.
It is a “false” apprenticeship if its purpose is to underpay people, avoid legal obligations or employ underage workers. Labor-
only contracting arrangement: The practice of hiring workers without establishing a formal employment relationship for the
purpose of avoiding payment of regular wages or the provision of legally required benefits, such as health and safety
protections.
Addressed: Acknowledged and received, moving through the company’s process for grievances, corrective action taken
138
when necessary.
Page 54 of 103

Criterion 6.9 Disciplinary practices
6.9.1 Incidences of excessive or abusive disciplinary

None
actions
6.9.2 Evidence of a functioning disciplinary action

Yes
policy whose aim is to improve the worker139
Rationale - The rationale for discipline in the workplace is to correct improper actions and maintain
effective levels of worker conduct and performance. However, abusive disciplinary actions can violate
workers’ human rights. The focus of disciplinary practices shall always be on the improvement of the
worker. Fines or basic wage deductions shall not be acceptable as methods for disciplining workforce.
A certified salmon farm shall never employ threatening, humiliating or punishing disciplinary practices
that negatively impact a worker’s physical and mental140 health or dignity.
Criterion 6.10 Working hours and overtime

6.10.1 Incidences, violations or abuse of working

None
hours141 and overtime laws
6.10.2 Overtime is limited, voluntary,142 paid at a

premium rate and restricted to exceptional Yes
circumstances
Rationale - Abuse of overtime working hours is a widespread issue in many industries and regions.
Workers subject to extensive overtime can suffer consequences in their work-life balance and are
subject to higher fatigue-related accident rates. In accordance with better practices, workers in certified
salmon farms are permitted to work—within defined guidelines—beyond normal work week hours but
139If disciplinary action is required, progressive verbal and written warnings shall be engaged. The aim shall always be to
improve the worker; dismissal shall be the last resort. Policies for bonuses, incentives, access to training and promotions are
clearly stated and understood, and not used arbitrarily. Fines or basic wage deductions shall not be acceptable disciplinary
practices.
140Mental Abuse: Characterised by the intentional use of power, including verbal abuse, isolation, sexual or racial
harassment, intimidation or threat of physical force.
141In cases where local legislation on working hours and overtime exceed internationally accepted recommendations (48
regular hours, 12 hours overtime), the international standards will apply.
142 Compulsory overtime is permitted if previously agreed to under a collective bargaining agreement.
Page 55 of 103

must be compensated at premium rates.143 Requirements for time off, working hours and compensation
rates as described should reduce the impacts of overtime.
Criterion 6.11 Education and training

6.11.1 Evidence that the company regularly performs

training of staff in fish husbandry, general farm
Yes
and fish escape management and health and
safety procedures
Rationale - Education and training can be beneficial to companies and enable workers to improve their
incomes. Such human capital development should be encouraged where it is in the interest of the
company. Incentives, such as subsidies for tuition or textbooks and time off prior to exams, should be
offered. The offer of training may be contingent on workers committing to stay with the company for a
pre-arranged time. This should be made clear to participants before they start the training.
Workers employed in husbandry activities require specific and adequate training and are aware of their
responsibilities in aquatic animal health management practices.
Criterion 6.12 Corporate policies for social responsibility

6.12.1 Demonstration of company-level144 policies in line

Yes
with the requirements under 6.1 to 6.11 above
Rationale - Companies must be able to demonstrate that not only are the specific farm sites applying
for certification able to meet this robust set of social and labour requirements, but that they also have
company-wide policies related to these key issue areas that are in line with the ASC Salmon Standard
requirements. Such policies must relate to all of the company’s salmon operations in the region, whether
they be smolt production facilities, grow-out facilities or processing plants.
143Premium rate: A rate of pay higher than the regular work week rate. Must comply with national laws/regulations and/or
industry standards.
144Applies to the headquarters of the company in a region or country where the site applying for certification is located. The
policy shall relate to all of the company’s operations in the region or country, including grow-out, smolt production and
processing facilities.
Page 56 of 103

PRINCIPLE 7: BE A GOOD NEIGHBOUR AND CONSCIENTIOUS
CITIZEN
Principle 7 aims to address any broader off-site potential social impacts associated with salmon
production, including interactions with local communities.
Criterion 7.1 Community engagement

7.1.1 Evidence of regular and meaningful145

consultation and engagement with community Yes
representatives and organizations
7.1.2 Presence and evidence of an effective146 policy

and mechanism for the presentation, treatment
Yes
and resolution of complaints by community
stakeholders and organizations
7.1.3 Evidence that the farm has posted visible

notice147 at the farm during times of therapeutic
treatments and has, as part of consultation with Yes
communities under 7.1.1, communicated about
potential health risks from treatments
Rationale - A salmon farm must respond to human concerns that arise in communities located near
the farm and to concerns related to the farm’s overall operations. In particular, appropriate consultation
must be undertaken within local communities so that risks, impacts and potential conflicts are properly
identified, avoided, minimised and/or mitigated through open and transparent negotiations.
Communities shall have the opportunity to be part of the assessment process (e.g. by including them
in the discussion of any social investments and contributions by companies to neighbouring
communities).
Channels of communication with community stakeholders are important. Regular consultation with
community representatives and a transparent procedure for handling complaints are key components
of this communication. Negative impacts may not always be avoidable. However, the process for
addressing them must be open, fair and transparent and demonstrate due diligence. A company shall
share with neighbouring communities’ information about any potential human health risks that may be
145
Regular and meaningful: Meetings shall be held at least bi-annually with elected representatives of affected communities.
The agenda for the meetings should in part be set by the community representatives. Participatory Social Impact Assessment
methods may be one option to consider here.
146 Effective: In order to demonstrate that the mechanism is effective, evidence of resolutions of complaints can be given.
147 Signage shall be visible to mariners and, for example, to fishermen passing by the farm.
Page 57 of 103

associated with the use of therapeutic treatments and communicate about typical treatment patterns.
They shall also post notices around the farm during times of treatment.
Criterion 7.2 Respect for indigenous and aboriginal cultures and

traditional territories
7.2.1 Evidence that indigenous groups were

consulted as required by relevant local and/or Yes
national laws and regulations
7.2.2 Evidence that the farm has undertaken

proactive consultation with indigenous Yes148
communities
7.2.3 Evidence of a protocol agreement, or an active

process149 to establish a protocol agreement, Yes
with indigenous communities
Rationale - Interactions with and evidence of due diligence to prevent and mitigate negative impacts
on communities is important globally, and takes on an additional dimension in regions where indigenous
or aboriginal people or traditional territories are involved. In some jurisdictions, aboriginal groups have
legal rights related to their territories. These shall be respected, as in Principle 1. It is also expected
that operations seeking to meet the ASC Salmon Standard have directly consulted with bodies
functioning as territorial governments and have come to agreement with indigenous governments, or
are working towards an agreement, for farms that are operating in indigenous territories. The
requirements are designed to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
148 All standards related to indigenous rights only apply where relevant, based on proximity of indigenous territories.
149To demonstrate an active process, a farm must show ongoing efforts to communicate with indigenous communities, an
understanding of key community concerns and responsiveness to key community concerns through adaptive farm
management and other actions.
Page 58 of 103

Criterion 7.3 Access to resources
7.3.1 Changes undertaken restricting access to vital

community resources150 without community None
approval
7.3.2 Evidence of assessments of company’s impact

Yes
on access to resources
Rationale - Companies should make a maximum effort to not affect the surrounding community’s
access to vital resources as a result of its presence and activities. Some change in access is expected.
What is to be prevented is an unacceptable degree of change.
150 Vital community resources can include freshwater, land or other natural resources that communities rely on for their
livelihood. If a farm site were to block, for example, a community’s sole access point to a needed freshwater resource, this
would be unacceptable under the ASC Salmon Standard.
Page 59 of 103

INDICATORS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SMOLT PRODUCTION
This section of the document contains the full suite of principles, criteria, indicators, and requirements
for responsible salmon farming at freshwater smolt sites.
SECTION 8: REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIERS OF SMOLT

A farm seeking certification must have documentation from all of its smolt suppliers to demonstrate
compliance with the following requirements.151 The requirements are, in general, a subset of the
requirements in Principles 1 through 7, focusing on the impacts that are most relevant for smolt facilities.
In addition, specific requirements are applied to open systems (net pens), and to closed and semi-
closed systems (recirculation and flow-through).
Requirements related to Principle 1
8.1 Compliance with local and national regulations on

water use and discharge, specifically providing Yes
permits related to water quality
8.2 Compliance with labour laws and regulations Yes
Rationale - Please see the relevant Rationale in Principle 1. The requirements do not require the smolt
producer to provide confidential business documents such as tax documentation.
8.3 Evidence of an assessment of the farm’s potential

impacts on biodiversity and nearby ecosystems that
Yes
contains the same components as the assessment
for grow-out facilities under 2.4.1
8.4 Maximum total amount of phosphorus released into

the environment per metric tonne (t) of fish 4 kg /t of fish produced over a 12-month
produced over a 12-month period (see Appendix period
VIII-1)
151 The SAD SC proposed this approach to addressing environmental and social performance during the smolt phase of
production. In the medium term, the SC anticipates a system to audit smolt production facilities on site. In the meantime, farms
will need to work with their smolt suppliers to generate the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with the
standards. The documentation will be reviewed as part of the audit at the grow-out facility.
Page 60 of 103

Rationale - Please see the relevant Rationale in Principle 2. See also the relevant Rationale related to
Additional Requirements for both open net-pen smolt production and closed and semi-closed smolt
production.
8.5 If a non-native species is being produced, the

species shall have been widely commercially
Yes153
produced in the area prior to the publication152 of
the ASC Salmon Standard
8.6 Maximum number of escapees154 in the most

300155 fish
8.7 Accuracy156 of the counting technology or counting

≥98%
method used for calculating the number of fish
Rationale - Please see the relevant Rationale in Principle 3.
8.8 Evidence of a functioning policy for proper and

responsible treatment of non-biological waste from Yes
production (e.g. disposal and recycling)
152Publication: Refers to the date when the final standards and accompanying guidelines are completed and made publicly
available. This definition of publication applies throughout this document.
153Exceptions shall be made for production systems that use 100 percent sterile fish or systems that demonstrate separation
from the wild by effective physical barriers that are in place and well-maintained to ensure no escapes of reared specimens or
biological material that might survive and subsequently reproduce.
154 Farms shall report all escapes; the total aggregated number of escapees per production cycle must be less than 300 fish.
155A rare exception to this standard may be made for an escape event that is clearly documented as being outside of the
farm’s control. Only one such exceptional episode is allowed in a 10-year period for the purposes of this standard. The 10-
year period starts at the beginning of the production cycle for which the farm is applying for certification. The farmer must
demonstrate that there was no reasonable way to predict the events that caused the episode. Extreme weather (e.g. 100-year
storms) or accidents caused by farms located near high-traffic waterways are not intended to be covered under this exception.
156Accuracy shall be determined by the spec sheet for counting machines and through common estimates of error for any
hand counts.
Page 61 of 103

8.9 Presence of an energy-use assessment verifying
the energy consumption at the smolt production
Yes, measured in kilojoule / t fish
facility (see Appendix V subsection 1 for guidance
produced /production cycle
and required components of the records and
assessment)
8.10 Records of greenhouse gas (GHG157) emissions158

at the smolt production facility and evidence of an
Yes
annual GHG assessment (See Appendix V,
subsection 1)
8.11 Evidence of a fish health management plan,

approved by the designated veterinarian, for the
Yes
identification and monitoring of fish diseases and
parasites
8.12 Percentage of fish that are vaccinated for selected

diseases that are known to present a significant
100%
risk in the region and for which an effective
vaccine exists159
157
For the purposes of this standard, GHGs are defined as the six gases listed in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO 2);
methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
158 GHG emissions must be recorded using recognised methods, standards and records as outlined in Appendix V.
159The farm’s designated veterinarian is responsible for undertaking and providing written documentation of the analysis of
the diseases that pose a risk in the region and the vaccines that are effective. The veterinarian shall determine which
vaccinations to use and demonstrate to the auditor that this decision is consistent with the analysis.
Page 62 of 103

8.13 Percentage of smolt groups160 tested for select
diseases of regional concern prior to entering the 100%
grow-out phase on farm161
8.14 Detailed information, provided by the designated

veterinarian, of all chemicals and therapeutants
used during the smolt production cycle, the
amounts used (including grams per ton of fish
Yes
produced), the dates used, which group of fish
were treated and against which diseases, proof of
proper dosing and all disease and pathogens
detected on the site
8.15 Allowance for use of therapeutic treatments that

include antibiotics or chemicals that are banned162
None
in any of the primary salmon producing or
importing countries163
8.16 Number of treatments of antibiotics over the most

≤3
8.17 Allowance for use of antibiotics listed as critically

None165
important for human medicine by the WHO164
160 A smolt group is any population that shares disease risk, including environment, husbandry and host factors that might
contribute to sharing disease agents for each group. Only diseases that are proven, or suspected, as occurring in seawater
(and for which seawater fish-to-fish transmission is a concern) but originating in freshwater should be on the list of diseases
tested. The designated veterinarian to the smolt farm is required to evaluate, based on scientific criteria and publicly available
information, which diseases should be tested for. This analysis shall include an evaluation of whether clinical disease or a
pathogen carrier state in fresh water is deemed to have a negative impact on the grow-out phase, thereby disqualifying a smolt
group from being transferred. A written analysis must be available to the certifier on demand.
161 Suitable measures must be in place to ensure that hatchery-raised seed are free from relevant/important pathogens
before stocking for grow-out. This includes addressing on farm disease and parasite transfer (such as the ability to
quarantine diseased stocks, separating equipment) as well as between the facility and natural fauna (such as disinfection of
effluents for diseased stocks, fallowing). The approach should be relevant to the species, production system, scale of
production, and legal requirements. Appropriate procedures or systems should include specific requirements or actions
defined by the aquaculture facility through a suitable risk assessment or other evidence such as local or national regulations.
Appropriate management measures in these cases could include treatment trigger levels of parasite numbers on the farm-
facility or siting requirements that require that the aquaculture facility is located at suitable distances from wild populations.
The CAB should verify that the management measures are suitable and employed.
162 “Banned” means proactively prohibited by a government entity because of concerns around the substance.
163 For purposes of this standard, those countries are Norway, the UK, Canada, Chile, the United States, Japan and France.
165If the antibiotic treatment is applied to only a portion of the pens on a farm site, fish from pens that did not receive treatment
are still eligible for certification.
Page 63 of 103

8.18 Evidence of compliance166 with the OIE Aquatic
Yes
Animal Health Code167
8.19 Evidence of company-level policies and procedures

Yes
in line with the labour standards under 6.1 to 6.11
8.20 Evidence of regular consultation and engagement

Yes
with community representatives and organizations
8.21 Evidence of a policy for the presentation, treatment

and resolution of complaints by community Yes
stakeholders and organizations
8.22 Where relevant, evidence that indigenous groups

were consulted as required by relevant local and/or Yes
national laws and regulations
8.23 Where relevant, evidence that the farm has

undertaken proactive consultation with indigenous Yes
communities
166 Compliance is defined as farm practices consistent with the intentions of the Code, to be further outlined in auditing
guidance. For purposes of this standard, this includes an aggressive response to detection of an exotic OIE-notifiable disease
on the farm, which includes depopulating the infected site and implementation of quarantine zones in accordance with
guidelines from OIE for the specific pathogen. Exotic signifies not previously found in the area or had been fully eradicated
(area declared free of the pathogen).
167OIE 2022 or most recent release. Aquatic Animal Health Code. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-
and-manuals/aquatic-code-online-access/
Page 64 of 103

Additional requirements for open (net-pen) production of smolt

In addition to the requirements above, if the smolt is produced in an open system, evidence shall be
provided that the following is met:
Permitted only if supplying farms are 1)

operated in a region where indigenous
8.24 Allowance for stocking smolts produced in cage- salmonids are present of the same
culture species being cultivated and 2) the farm is
certified to the ASC Freshwater trout
Standard
Rationale - Due to the broader range of impacts associated with cage-culture smolt production in non-
native regions, the ASC Salmon Standard prohibits the use of smolts produced in cage-culture in
regions without indigenous salmonid species.
Using smolts produced from cage-culture is only allowed if they are produced in regions where
indigenous salmonids are present of the same species being cultivated, and, if the farm is certified to
the ASC Freshwater Trout Standard.
Page 65 of 103

Additional requirements for semi-closed and closed production of
smolts
Additionally, if the smolt is produced in a closed or semi-closed system (flow through or recirculation)
that discharges into freshwater, evidence shall be provided that the following are met:168
8.25 Water quality monitoring matrix completed and

Yes169
submitted to ASC (see Appendix VIII-2)
8.26 Minimum oxygen saturation in the outflow 60%170,171

(methodology in Appendix VIII-2)
8.27 Macro-invertebrate surveys downstream from the Yes

farm’s effluent discharge demonstrate benthic
health that is similar or better than surveys
upstream from the discharge (methodology in
Appendix VIII-3)
8.28 Evidence of implementation of biosolids (sludge) Yes

Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix
VIII-4)
Rationale - Effluent from semi-closed and closed smolt facilities can have an environmental effect on
rivers, streams and other bodies of water that receive the discharge. Phosphorus is the key limiting
nutrient in most temperate and cool freshwater systems. It is a stable nutrient in that it does not volatilize
like nitrogen compounds. It is also added to feeds in proportions that can allow estimations of other
waste constituents (organic matter and nitrogen). Thus, phosphorus is an ideal variable to set load limits
for freshwater aquaculture. The SAD developed the phosphorus load requirement (8.4) based on a unit
of production, making it an indicator of how well a farm is minimising nutrient discharges per ton of fish
produced. From an environmental standpoint, farms should aim for as low an annual load of phosphorus
per ton of fish as possible. Farms can lower their phosphorus load on the environment by using a better
feeding strategy (ratio and feed distribution), improving feed conversion efficiency through the
improvement of the environmental conditions in the farm, utilizing feed that is more digestible and has
lower phosphorus content, and by employing cleaning technologies such as settling ponds and filters.
Smolt production facilities are encouraged to develop methodologies to reduce their phosphorus
168 Production systems that don’t discharge into fresh water are exempt from these standards.
169 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 8.25.
170A single oxygen reading below 60 per cent would require daily continuous monitoring with an electronic probe and recorder
for at least a week demonstrating a minimum 60 per cent saturation at all times.
171 See Appendix VI for transparency requirements for 8.26.
Page 66 of 103

burdens over time, while ensuring farmed fish are getting the appropriate nutrients to protect the health
of the smolt.
In an attempt to limit the oxygen burden on natural water bodies from the release of nutrients, these
requirements include a minimum saturation level of dissolved oxygen at discharge. Benthic biodiversity
is often a measure of aquatic ecosystem health. These requirements use faunal surveys as a reference
for a farm’s actual impact on the environment. By comparing surveys downstream and upstream from
the farm’s effluent discharge, the requirement aims to isolate the impact of the production facility and
ensure that no significant impact is occurring.
Biosolids are a mixture of organic waste and sediment produced or accumulated through the farming
activity. Biosolids discharged into natural water bodies are of concern because solids can restrict light
penetration in water bodies, accumulate downstream, cover plants and habitat, and cause general
shallowing of water bodies. Additionally, the organic component of biosolids will exert an oxygen
demand as the organic matter decays. The simplest and best way to minimise these impacts is to
remove sediments from the water column and allow organic matter to decay prior to discharge.
Functionally, this infers the use of settling basins or ponds to let solids settle out of the water column,
and for bacterial decomposition and oxygen depletion to occur at the same time prior to disposal of
biosolids. To provide assurance of appropriate disposal of biosolids, these requirements include a small
number of BMPs. These requirements do not require a specific effluent monitoring regime beyond the
dissolved oxygen requirement and benthic analyses. However, the requirements do require farms to
submit to the ASC the results of the effluent monitoring they conduct as part of their regulatory
requirements. In particular, the requirement requires data on any sampling of phosphorus, nitrogen,
total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD). This data will help to distinguish
the performance of farms certified by this requirement over time and assist in revisions to the
requirement.
Page 67 of 103

Appendix I: Methodologies Related to Principle 2 and Benthic
Testing
Subsections
1. Sampling methodology for calculation of faunal index, macrofaunal taxa, sulphide and redox,
and copper
2. Calculation methodology for the percent fines in feed
3. Biodiversity-focused impact assessment
4. Methodology for sampling dissolved oxygen
5. Methodology for sampling nitrogen and phosphorous
Appendix I-1. Sampling methodology for calculation of faunal index,

macrofaunal taxa, sulphide and redox, and copper172
Grab sampling for the faunal index, macrofaunal taxa measurements, and sulphide and redox should
be conducted at nine stations in duplicate during peak cage biomass for the production cycle.
1. Two stations should be from the cage edge, one at each end of the long axis of the farm.
2. Three should be from within the Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE), 25 metres from the edge of the
array of cages at slack tide measured with a marked line and recorded using GPS. Of these
three, one should be upstream and one downstream with respect to the direction of the residual
current, and the other should be to one side of the farm in a direction orthogonal to the residual
current.
3. Three should be 25 metres outside the AZE, or 55 metres from the edge of the array of cages
measured with a marked line and recorded using GPS. Of these, one should be upstream and
one downstream with respect to the direction of the residual current, and the other should be to
one side of the farm in a direction orthogonal to the residual current.
4. One from a reference site 500-1000 metres from the farm (edge of the array of cages), in similar
water depth and substratum type (where this exists) and recorded using GPS.
5. For farm sites using a site-specific AZE, sampling locations shall be determined based on that
AZE, at distances consistent from the boundary of the AZE as for other farms (e.g., five metres
inside of AZE and 25 metres outside of the AZE, recorded using GPS, and in multiple directions
as determined appropriate through the modelling.
6. Values for requirements in Criterion 2.1 must be calculated using the results of samples from
the edge of the AZE and the reference point. The CAB shall confirm that the AZE is correct and
then to default to the social principles (P6 and P7) to ensure the farm is responding to
stakeholder comments with the intention that the AZE is not arbitrary and meets stakeholder
expectations.
For farms using copper-based nets or copper-treated nets, copper sampling shall be conducted at the
same locations outside the AZE as the other benthic sampling, at three stations outside the AZE, in
172 When biomass is estimated at ≥75% until harvest the audit can take place according to this guidance.
Page 68 of 103

duplicate. The reference site used shall also be the same, and two additional reference sites are
needed. Timing shall also be the same, sampling at peak cage biomass during the production cycle.
Although the site visit should coincide with harvest period, it may be undertaken before end of harvest
(at >75% peak biomass) and estimates of indicators requiring data from peak biomass / end of cycle
provided in the draft report. The CAB shall review actual figures before the certification decision is made
and include these figures in the final report.
Methodology for auditing indicators relating to peak biomass and end of cycle:
1) CABs shall carry out site visit audit at >75% peak biomass.
2) At the time of the audit the farm shall provide the CAB with estimates of values at that date for
indicators that rely on information only available with the farm reaches peak biomass / end of cycle.
The Farm shall provide the CAB with values of samples taken at peak biomass and end of cycle when
they become available.
3) CAB shall raise a non-conformity for indicators where estimated values are used instead of actual
values and note the estimated value in the draft audit report. It shall be explained in the draft audit report
where figures are estimated and explain that these are to be updated in the final audit report.
4) CAB shall review the actual values and supporting evidence when they come back at peak biomass
/ end of cycle in order to make a certification decision.
5) CAB shall not make a certification decision and issue final report until actual values are provided for
all indicators except biotic indicators 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.
6) In the case that biotic values are not available at the time of drafting the final report the CAB shall
carry out a risk assessment to evaluate whether the biotic values are likely to meet the ASC standard.
If the CAB finds evidence that the results of the biotic analyses are likely to meet the ASC standard
then certification can be granted.
7) The CAB shall review biotic findings at the surveillance audit and raise non-conformities as
appropriate when results have been found not meet the ASC standard.
Page 69 of 103

Appendix I-2. Calculation methodology for the percentage of fines in feed
Introduction
This method determines the fines (dust and small fragments) in finished fish feed product, which has a
diameter of 3 mm or more.
The amount of dust and fragments shall be determined when the feed is delivered to the farming site.173
Procedure
The test can be performed either by use of a sieving machine or by a manual test.
The sample of feed shall be put through a sieve with a maximum sieve opening of:
1. 1 mm when the particle diameter is equal to 5 mm or less
2. 2.36 mm when the particle diameter is more than 5 mm
Manual test
1. Put the accumulation box and the sieves on top of each other, with the accumulation box on the
lowest part, then the smallest sieve and the biggest on top
2. Place the sieves on the balance and tare it
3. Weigh at least 300 g of the feed on the upper sieve, note the weight (𝒎𝟎)
4. Put on the lid
5. Sieve the feed smoothly and carefully for about 30 seconds
6. Remove the lid and weigh what is left in the accumulation box
7. Use a brush to remove all the particles from the sieves
8. The feed particles that have passed through all sieves are called dust (𝒎𝑫)
9. If the feed is fatty, or if dust is unevenly distributed, two replicates must be taken
Sifting machine
1. Put the accumulation box and the sieves on top of each other, with the accumulation box at the
bottom and the biggest sieve on top
2. Place the sieves on the balance and tare it
3. Weigh at least 300 g of feed on the upper sieve, note the weight 𝒎𝟎
4. Place the sieves on the sifting machine and then close the cover properly
5. Press the "START" button by holding it for 2-3 seconds, and then run the machine twice (2 x 1
min)
6. Remove the sieves and weigh what is left in the accumulation box
7. The feed particles that have passed through all sieves are called dust (𝒎𝑫)
173 Feed can be sampled prior to delivery to farm site for sites where there is no feed storage.
Page 70 of 103

Calculations
𝑚𝐷
𝐷𝑢𝑠𝑡 % = ( ) × 100%
𝑚0
Where:
1. 𝑚0 = Weight of feed before sieving
2. 𝑚𝐷 = Weight of feed that has passed through all sieves
Feed Sampling Protocol

Sampling of feed lots—delivered as material in bulk, big bags or small bags—shall, at a minimum, be
sampled as follows:
1. Cut a minimum of six increment samples from the lot, evenly distributed throughout the lot
2. Each increment sample should have a mass of approximately 500 grams
3. Make a pooled sample from all the increment samples and be sure to use all sampled material
(i.e., around 6 kg)
4. Reduce the pooled sample to one analysis sample (for testing), each of approximately 500
grams
Page 71 of 103

Appendix I-3. Biodiversity-focused impact assessment
Requirement 2.4.1 requires the farm to demonstrate that a biodiversity-focused environmental impact
assessment has been undertaken for the farm.
The assessment shall include habitats and species that could reasonably be impacted by the farm. For
example, cold-water corals near the farm could be impacted by nutrients, or whale populations in the
region could be impacted by acoustic deterrent devices.
The assessment shall incorporate:
1. Identification of proximity to critical, sensitive, or protected habitats and species:

a. This includes key wild species within the marine environment around the farm
b. Particular attention to be paid to species listed on International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or national threatened/endangered lists and on any areas
that have been identified as HCVAs, areas important for conservation/biodiversity or the
equivalent
c. Sensitive species may include non-threatened species of high economic value in the
area that may be affected by the salmon farm (e.g., lobsters)
2. Identification and description of the potential impacts the farm might have on biodiversity, with
a focus on those habitats or species
3. Description of strategies and current and future program(s) underway on the farm to eliminate
or minimise any identified impacts the farm may have, and for the monitoring of outcomes of
said programs and strategies
4. Where damage of sensitive habitats has been caused by the farm (as defined in the impact
assessment) previously and where restoration is possible and effective; restoration efforts will
or have resulted in a meaningful amount of restored habitat; either through direct on-farm
restoration or by an off-farm offsetting approach. Grandfathering of historical losses is allowed.
Page 72 of 103

Appendix I-4. Methodology for sampling dissolved oxygen
Requirements 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 require the sampling of dissolved oxygen on the farm site and the
calculation of the percent saturation for those samples.
• DO, salinity and temperature shall be measured twice daily (proposed at 6 am and 3 pm, but
with recognition that this will vary depending on region and operational practices). Percent
saturation shall be calculated for each sample from the data and a weekly average percent
saturation shall result.
o A minimal amount of missed samples due to extreme weather conditions will be
considered acceptable.
o Sampling once daily shall also be considered acceptable, though not preferred.
• DO shall be measured at a depth of five metres at a location where the conditions of the water
will be similar to those the fish experience. For example, measurements can be taken at the
edge of the net-pen array, in the downstream direction of the current, or off a feed shed or
housing structure on the site. Measurements shall be taken at the same location, recorded with
GPS, at the same time to allow for comparison between days.
• Weekly averages shall be calculated and remain at or above 70 per cent saturation.
• Should a farm not meet the minimum 70 per cent weekly average saturation requirement, the
farm must demonstrate the consistency of percent saturation with a reference site. The
reference site shall be at least 500 metres from the edge of the net pen array, in a location that
is understood to follow similar patterns in upwelling to the farm site and is not influenced by
nutrient inputs from anthropogenic causes including aquaculture, agricultural runoff or nutrient
releases from coastal communities.
Page 73 of 103

Appendix I-5. Methodology for sampling nitrogen and phosphorous
Under requirement 2.2.4, some farms are required to monitor nitrogen and phosphorous levels on the
farm and at reference sites. Farms shall monitor total N, NH4NO3, total P and Ortho-P in the water
column. Monitoring of nitrogen and phosphorous shall follow the following methodology or an
equivalent:
• This sampling regime should be carried out monthly for the first year to create the baseline
against which long term changes can be assessed.
• The N and P sampling shall then be conducted four times a year (quarterly), once during each
of the seasons, with three replicate samples at the edge of the AZE and three at the reference
site 500m downstream on each occasion.
• Samples should be taken using a VanDorn or Kemmerer type water sampler. 500 ml samples
should be placed in clear plastic bottles, placed on ice and in a cooler, and analysed within 48
hours. Ideally, analyses shall be done by a private (third-party) laboratory following standard
methods. However, Hach field kits can be used. Clear and detailed records or the sampling
frequency and analytical results must be kept. For best practice, the samples from Hach kits
should be sent periodically (e.g., once a quarter and at minimum once a year) to an independent
laboratory for analysis to ensure consistency of results and ensure/establish quality control.
Page 74 of 103

Appendix II: Area-Based Management (ABM) Scheme
Subsections
1. Attributes and Required Components of the ABM
2. Setting and Revising ABM Lice Loads and On-farm Lice Levels
Appendix II-1. Attributes and required components of the ABM

Participation in an area-based scheme174 for managing disease and parasites and resistance to
treatments is required under the ASC Salmon Standard. This appendix outlines the main components
of the area-based management scheme that the ASC Salmon Standard requires under Criteria 3.1 and
5.4.
The purpose of the area-based management scheme is to improve health and biosecurity management
on the farm, with the ultimate goal of minimising potential negative impacts on wild salmonids
populations.
II-1. A Definition of “area”

If area-based management is already a regulatory requirement of the farm’s jurisdiction, then farms will
use this definition of “area” for the purposes of these requirements. In jurisdictions where ABM is not a
regulatory requirement, the area covered under the ABM must reflect a logical geographic scope such
as a fjord or a collection of fjords that are ecologically connected. The boundaries of an area should be
defined, taking into account the zone in which key cumulative impacts on wild populations may occur,
water movement and other relevant aspects of ecosystem structure and function.
II-1. B Requirements related to participation in the scheme

Within the defined area, at least 80 per cent of farmed production (by weight) must participate in the
area-based management scheme, even if not all farms are seeking certification under this requirement.
Without the vast majority of farms participation, the scheme will likely be ineffective. All farms owned
by the company applying for certification in the area must participate in the ABM, though not all must
be applying for certification.
II-1. C ABM components and guidance

In order to be considered as applicable under the ASC Salmon Standard, the ABM scheme used by a
farm must ensure that there is:
1. Clear documentation of the farms/companies included in the ABM, contact people (including
contact information) and mechanisms for communication
2. Development and documentation of shared disease management goals and objectives for the
ABM. Goals shall include components related to understanding and minimising risk of on-farm
disease to wild fish. Objectives shall be updated regularly based on new information, including
concerns raised to the farms in the ABM from communities and wild fish interests are part of
174For more information on the principles of place-based or area-based management, see Young et al., 2007. Solving the
Crisis in Ocean Governance: Place-Based Management of Marine Ecosystems. Environment: Volume 49, Number 4, pages
20–32.
Page 75 of 103

company engagement with stakeholders as outlined under 7.1.1.
3. Information and data-sharing among farms of any data needed to ensure coordination, including
plans for stocking and fallowing; on-farm disease and parasite monitoring results including sea
lice numbers; suspicion of an unidentifiable transmissible agent, information on therapeutic
treatments; and data on resistance including information related to treatments not being as
effective as expected.
The ABM scheme must include coordination among farms as relates to:
1. Application and rotation of treatments:
a. Farmers must be able to demonstrate a coordinated treatment plan and evidence that
the schedule and rotation of treatments are being implemented.
b. Consideration of the cumulative use, and potential risks175 of this use, of antibiotics
classified as “highly important” by the WHO176 is a required component of coordination
and information-sharing about treatments.
c. Where applicable, treatments and/or strategic harvesting of salmon is coordinated prior
to outmigration of wild salmonids to ensure minimal on-farm lice levels at this sensitive
time period for those species (as has been determined under 3.1.4).
d. Tracking of cumulative use of parasiticides (by chemical, annually and by production
cycle) within the ABM.
2. Stocking: Records must demonstrate that all stocked fish within the ABM are of the same year
class and that stocking dates were coordinated with other farms.
3. Fallowing: Coordination of fallowing between each production cycle to help break disease
cycles, with a clear period of time when there are no farmed salmon in the area in the water.
4. Monitoring schemes:
a. On-farm disease and pathogen monitoring and information sharing among farms
b. On-farm resistance monitoring and information sharing among farms
c. For farms located in areas where there are wild salmonids, monitoring of wild salmonid
populations that is relevant for the area must occur as specified under 3.1.5, either under
the auspices of the ABM or under some other auspices
5. Setting and revising a maximum ABM lice load:
a. The entire ABM scheme will set a maximum lice load, expressed as total mature female
lice on all farms in the area. In areas of wild salmonids, the ABM scheme must
demonstrate how the scheme incorporates the results of wild monitoring into revisions
of this total lice load over time (see Section 2 below for additional details on this feedback
loop).
175Assessment of risk shall take into account the cumulative use of these antibiotics from salmon production within the area
in order to assess the potential risk to human health from the development of resistance in the environment. Prescribing
antibiotics highly important for human health shall be considered as a last resort.
Page 76 of 103

Appendix II-2. Setting and revising ABM lice loads and on-farm lice levels
Requirement 3.1.2 requires that the ABM scheme set a maximum lice load. A core purpose of this
requirement is to be able to see the potential cumulative infection pressure from on-farm lice, expressed
as the number of mature female lice on all farms in the scheme. This “total load” figure is a better
reflection of the potential risks to wild populations than on-farm lice levels, measured as lice per farmed
fish.
An ABM scheme shall initially set this total load figure based on the regulatory obligations of
the jurisdiction in which it operates, and the results of any wild monitoring done to date. In
practice, this would mean that farms in most ABM schemes would take the on-farm lice levels they are
required to achieve by regulators and multiply them times the number of farmed fish in the area. This
would be a starting place.
For farms located in areas of wild salmonids, the ABM scheme shall demonstrate how the
scheme is using the results of wild monitoring to review and potentially revise the maximum
lice load for the area each year and/or production cycle. Adjustments to the area’s lice load would
lead to corresponding limits on lice levels on individual farms. This feedback loop must be transparent
and document how the ABM scheme is being protective of wild fish through the interpretation of wild
monitoring data. Specifically:
• The outcome of the review shall include a final recommendation and justification for maintaining or
adjusting maximum sea lice loads in an ABM scheme.
• The review shall be documented and made available to auditors. Documentation shall include, as
a minimum, the name of participant farms/companies (including responsible contact people),
meetings minutes, recommendations, actions, and its justification.
Given the time lag in collecting and analysing data from wild monitoring, it is expected that the ABM
scheme will look at data from previous periods, particularly sensitive periods such as outmigration of
wild salmon juveniles.The results of wild salmonids monitoring must over time inform the threshold level
for on-farm sea lice levels during sensitive periods, with a similar type of feedback loop as described
for the ABM total lice level. If wild monitoring reveals that the established threshold is not being
protective of wild salmonids populations, the farm must set a lower level in subsequent sensitive
periods. Conversely, data from wild salmonid monitoring that consistently demonstrates healthy wild
salmonid populations would allow a farm to make the case for a level higher than the established
threshold. This case would need to be made for the ABM as a whole to ASC.
Page 77 of 103

Appendix III: Methodologies Related to Monitoring Wild Salmonids,
On-farm Sea Lice Sampling Requirements and On-farm Sea Lice
Thresholds for Sensitive Periods
Appendix III-1. Methodologies for monitoring wild salmonids
The ASC Salmon Standard requires all farms located in areas of wild salmonids to participate in
monitoring of sea lice on wild salmonids. The purpose of this monitoring is to assist in clarifying the link
between the health of wild and farmed fish through objective information. These requirements do not
demand a specific methodology for this monitoring. Nonetheless, the monitoring must comply with the
following requirements:
• The methodology, the results and the analysis are made publicly available and demonstrate
scientific rigor in the sampling size, location, and method.
• Monitoring must be geographically relevant to the area where the farm/ABM is located, so it
provides meaningful information for ABM management practices.
• The process must involve third parties beyond the farm, such as independent scientists.
Government programs, in which the company may be contributing little, or nothing are
acceptable, given the programme is geographically relevant.
• Numbers of lice per wild fish, and prevalence of lice are both meaningful metrics that could be
considered in the research.
• Species should be chosen based on importance to area (i.e., sea trout vs. salmon vs. arctic
char).
If national or local regulations prohibit the handling of wild salmonids, then it should be clear that
wild populations are being monitored and protected in another way. Cooperation from the farm is
necessary so it must be able to provide the data, but the farm is not expected to catch the salmon
themselves.
Page 78 of 103

Appendix III-2. On-Farm Sea Lice Sampling Requirements
1) Frequency: Weekly sampling during the sensitive period. Monthly sampling during the rest of the
year.
2) Number of cages: At least 50% of cages shall be sampled over a 2-week period, with the entire farm
sampled over at least a 6-week period.
3) Number of fish per cage: A minimum of 10 fish per cage should be sampled.
4) Sea lice stage: At a minimum provide data on mobiles177 and adult females
Farms shall ensure that sea lice which are detached from the fish while sampling are included in the final
sampling count.
Fish welfare (exemption from sampling): The veterinarian or fish health professional may exempt fish
from being sampled during a certain period of time within the sensitive period. The reason for the
exemption shall be documented178.
Within closed production systems, alternative methods for monitoring sea lice, such as video monitoring,
may be used.
Note: The sampling requirements apply only to farms in areas with wild salmonids.
177 Pre-adult and adult sea lice males.
178 Grounds for exemption may include: Immediately after smolting and stocking, undergoing a disease event and/or being
treated (including treatment for sea lice). In case the reason for the exemption is related to fish treatment, the maximum
duration for the exemption shall be 2 weeks), during specific environmental events (e.g. water temperature [i.e. below 4oC],
low oxygen, algal bloom, jellyfish event).
Page 79 of 103

Appendix III-3. Sea Lice Thresholds for Sensitive Periods
The table below reflects ASC’s regional sea lice thresholds and sensitive periods for the major salmon
farming regions/jurisdictions. The table corresponds to the lowest sea lice limits established in the
different regions/jurisdictions at the date of release of this version of the standard179. This is the ASC’s
starting place for setting regionally relevant sea lice thresholds and sensitive periods. ASC will remain
open to evidence that would compel it to change these levels and will conduct reviews every six months,
following ASC’s Standard Setting Procedure for developing revisions to this table as required.
Table: Sea lice (L. salmonis) thresholds and sensitive period per region/jurisdiction.
Region/Jurisdiction Sea Lice Thresholds (L. Sensitive Period**

salmonis)*
Canada (West Coast) 3 motile*** 1st March to 30th June

Faroe Islands 0.5 adult female 1st May to 31st July
Iceland 0.5 mature female Not established
Ireland 0.3 ovigerous female 1st March to 31st May
- Nord-Trøndelag and southwards: weeks 16 to 21
Norway 0.2 adult female - Nordland, Troms and Finnmark: week 21 to 26
Scotland 0.5 adult female**** 1st February to 30th June****
* In situations where there are no established limits regions/jurisdictions, ASC will require the use of the most rigorous limit in
effect at that point in time (e.g., 0.2 adult female).
** In situation where it is not established, the length and timing of the sensitive period should be specified according to a defined
criterion (e.g., when juveniles are in proximity to cages) and using the latest knowledge.
*** Motile includes adult L. salmonis females (with or without egg strings) and other motile L. salmonis (including adult males,
and preadults). Mobile is considered a synonym of motile.
****From the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture (CoGP).
The veterinarian or fish health professional may exempt fish from being treated, and therefore affect the
farm’s ability to reduce the on-farm sea lice levels below the threshold within 21 days upon exceedance,
during a certain period of time within the sensitive period. The reason for the exemption shall be
documented180. In case of an exemption, the farm shall reduce the on-farm sea lice levels below the
threshold within 14 days from the first day of treatment.
179 Established either by the regulators or agreed by the industry (e.g., through an industry code of practice).
180Grounds for exemption may include: specific environmental events (extreme weather event, water temperature [i.e. below
4oC], low oxygen, algal bloom, jellyfish event), unforeseen increases in on-farm lice levels, documented logistical roadblocks
or delays for implementing treatment.
Page 80 of 103

Appendix IV: Feed Resource Calculations and Methodologies
Subsections
1. Forage Fish Dependency Ratio calculation
2. Calculation of EPA and DHA in feed
3. Explanation of FishSource scoring
Appendix IV-1. Forage Fish Dependency Ratio calculation

Feed Fish Dependency Ratio (FFDR) is the quantity of wild fish used per quantity of cultured fish
produced. It is expected that the CABs raise major NCRs when FFDRs do not meet ASC requirements.
This measure can be calculated based on fishmeal (FM) and/or fish oil (FO). In the case of salmon
currently, in most cases the FFDR for fish oil will be higher than that for fishmeal. The dependency on
wild forage fish resources shall be calculated for both FM and FO using the formulas noted below. This
formula calculates the dependency of a single site on wild forage fish resources, independent of any
other farm.
(% 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠)(𝑒𝐹𝐶𝑅)

𝐹𝐹𝐷𝑅 𝑚 =
24
(% 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠)(𝑒𝐹𝐶𝑅)
𝐹𝐹𝐷𝑅 𝑜 =
5.0 𝑜𝑟 7.0, 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ
Where:
1. Economic Feed Conversion Ratio (eFCR) is the quantity of feed used to produce the quantity
of fish harvested (net production is the live weight).
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑, 𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑇
𝑒𝐹𝐶𝑅 =
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑇 (𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡)
2. The percentage of fishmeal and fish oil excludes fishmeal and fish oil derived from fisheries’ by-
products.181 Only fishmeal and fish oil that is derived directly from a pelagic fishery (e.g.,
anchoveta) or fisheries where the catch is directly reduced (such as krill or blue whiting) is to be
included in the calculation of FFDR. Fishmeal and fish oil derived from fisheries’ by-products
(e.g., trimmings and offal) should not be included because the FFDR is intended to be a
calculation of direct dependency on wild fisheries.
3. The amount of fishmeal in the diet is calculated back to live fish weight by using a yield of 24%.182
This is an assumed average yield.
181 Trimmings are defined as by-products when fish are processed for human consumption or if whole fish is rejected for use
of human consumption because the quality at the time of landing do not meet official regulations with regard to fish suitable
for human consumption. Restrictions on what trimmings are allowed for use under the standard are under 4.3.4.
182 Reference for FM and FO yields: Péron, G., et al. 2010. Where do fishmeal and fish oil products come from? An analysis
of the conversion ratios in the global fishmeal industry. Marine Policy, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.027.
Page 81 of 103

4. The amount of fish oil in the diet is calculated back to live fish weight by using an average yield
in accordance with this procedure:
a. Group a - Fish oil originating from Peru and Chile and Gulf of Mexico, five per cent yield
of fish oil
b. Group b - Fish oil originating from the North Atlantic (Denmark, Norway, Iceland and the
UK) seven per cent yield of fish oil
c. If fish oil is used from other areas than mentioned above, they should be classified as
belonging to group a if documentation shows a yield less than six per cent, and into
group b if documentation shows a yield more than six per cent.
5. FFDR is calculated for the grow-out period in the sea as long as the smolt phase does not go
past 200 grams per smolt. If the smolt phase goes past 200g then FFDR is calculated based on
all feed used from 200 grams and onwards. If needed, the grow-out site shall collect this data
from the smolt supplier.
Appendix IV-2. Calculation of EPA and DHA in feed

In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirement related to the maximum amount EPA and
DHA from direct forage fisheries in the feed, the calculations shall be done according to the following
formula:
(𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑔)(% 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑃𝐴 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝐻𝐴 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑜𝑖𝑙)
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑃𝐴 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝐻𝐴 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 =
100
Where:
1. If the fish oil content varies in different feeds used during the production cycle, a weighted
average can be used. The grams of fish oil relate to fish oil originating from forage fisheries for
industrial purposes.
2. The content of EPA and DHA of the fish oil shall be calculated using the average figures:
a. group a - Fish oil originating from Peru and Chile and Gulf of Mexico, 30 per cent EPA
and DHA in fish oil
b. group b - Fish oil originating from the North Atlantic (Denmark, Norway, Iceland and UK)
20 per cent EPA and DHA in fish oil
c. If fish oil is used from other areas than mentioned above, they should be classified as
belonging to group a if analyses of EPA and DHA is above 25 per cent, and into group
b if analyses of EPA and DHA is below 25 per cent.
Analyses of EPA and DHA are the percentage of fatty acids in the oil that are EPA and DHA. In the
calculation above, we make the simplification that 100 per cent of the oil consists of fatty acids. EPA
and DHA originating from fish oil originating from by-products and trimmings are not included in the
calculation above. The feed producer can justify and demonstrate the amount of fish oil coming from
trimmings and by-products by using a percentage of fish oil originating from trimmings based on
information from purchases in an annual year, either using information related to the current year when
the feed is produced or the previous year.
Page 82 of 103

Appendix IV-3. Explanation of FishSource scoring
FishSource scores provide a rough guide to how a fishery stacks up against existing definitions and
measures of sustainability. The FishSource scores currently only cover five criteria of sustainability,
whereas a full assessment—such as that by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)—will typically
cover more than 60. As such, the FishSource scores are not a firm guide to how a fishery will perform
overall. Nonetheless, the FishSource scores do capture the main outcome-based measures of
sustainability.
FishSource scores are based on common measures of sustainability, as used by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the MSC, among
others (e.g. current fishing mortality relative to the fishing mortality target reference point, or current
adult fish biomass relative to its maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy)).
Components of the FishSource score
Issue Measure Underlying Ratio
Is the management strategy Determine whether harvest rates Fadvised/Ftarget reference point or
precautionary? are reduced at low stock levels Factual/Ftarget reference point
Determine whether the catch
Do managers follow scientific limits set by managers are in line
Set TAC / Advised TAC
advice? with the advice in the stock
assessment
Determine whether the actual
Do fishers comply? catches are in line with the catch
Actual Catch / Set TAC
limits set by managers
Determine if current biomass is
Is the fish stock healthy? SSB/B40 (or equivalent)
at long-term target levels
Determine if current fishing
Will the fish stock be healthy in
mortality is at the long-term F/Ftarget reference point
future?
target level
If existing measures of sustainability consider a fishery to be relatively well-managed, then it will typically
score eight or more out of 10 on FishSource. If the fishery is judged to be doing okay, but requires
improvement, then it will typically score between six and eight on FishSource. A fishery falling short of
minimum requirements of existing measures of sustainability is scored six or below, with the score
declining as the condition of the fishery deteriorates.
The key relation between the MSC scoring system and FishSource scores is “80 <-> 8”. For example,
a FishSource score of eight or above would mean an unconditioned passing for that particular aspect
on the MSC system. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership devised scores in a way that, departing from
eight, a score of six relates to a score of 60, and below six, an MSC “below 60”, “no-pass” condition.
Please note, however, that the MSC criteria have been interpreted through time with a substantial
degree of variability among fisheries.
More information on FishSource is available at www.fishsource.com, and an overview of the
FishSource indices is available at http://assets.fishsource.org/indices_overview.pdf
Page 83 of 103

About scoring and availability of product meeting a minimum score
A typical full assessment of a fishery through the MSC will include significantly more areas/criteria
assessed than through FishSource, typically including more than 60 sustainability criteria. A fishery is
deemed sustainable by the MSC if it scores 60 or more in every performance indicator, and an average
of 80 or more at the principle level. The MSC requires certified fisheries to take corrective actions to
improve any areas of the fishery that scored between 60 and 80, with the intention of achieving a score
of 80 or above in every area of the fishery.
As of May 2011, FishSource released updated information on the ratings of the 25 principal forage
fisheries around the Atlantic and South America in their “Reduction Fisheries League Table 2011.” Ten
of the 25 fisheries met a minimum FishSource score of six in all categories with a minimum score of
eight in the biomass category. These ten fisheries had a total combined 2009 catch of 9157 thousand
t, accounting for just over 66 per cent of the total catch of those 25 forage fisheries.
The ratings of fisheries under the FishSource methodology will change over time based on the
performance of those fisheries. Farms undergoing certification and feed companies should be attuned
to updates of the “Reduction Fisheries League Table” and use the latest version publicly available.
Auditing guidelines will be developed around the timing of purchasing of fishmeal and fish oil and the
updates of the ratings to ensure reasonable interpretation of the requirement and timing of shifts in
purchasing if a fishery’s performance declines to a point where it fails to meet the minimum score
needed under the requirement.
Page 84 of 103

Appendix V: Energy Records and Assessment
Subsections
1. Energy use assessment and greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting for farms
2. GHG accounting for feed
Appendix V-1. Energy use assessment and GHG accounting for farms
The ASC encourages companies to integrate energy use assessments and GHG accounting into their
policies and procedures across the board in the company. However, this requirement only requires that
operational energy use and GHG assessments have been done for the farm sites that are applying for
certification.
Assessments shall follow either the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard or ISO 14064-1 (references
below). These are the commonly accepted international requirements, and they are largely consistent
with one another. Both are also high level enough not to be prescriptive and they allow companies some
flexibility in determining the best approach for calculating emissions for their operations.
If a company wants to go beyond the requirement of the ASC Salmon Standard and conduct this
assessment for their entire company, then the full protocols are applicable. If the assessment is being
done only on sites that are being certified, the farms shall follow the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard
and/or ISO 14064-1 requirements pertaining to:
- Accounting principles of relevance, completeness, transparency, consistency and accuracy
- Setting operational boundaries
- Tracking emissions over time
- Reporting GHG emissions
Regarding the operational boundaries, farm sites shall include in the assessment:
• Scope 1 emissions, which are emissions that come directly from a source that is either owned
or controlled by the farm/facility.
o For example, if the farm has a diesel generator, this will generate Scope 1 emissions. So
will a farm-owned/-operated truck.
• Scope 2 emissions, which are emissions resulting from the generation of purchased electricity,
heating, or cooling.
Quantification of emissions is done by multiplying activity data (e.g. quantity of fuel or kwh consumed)
by an emission factor (e.g. CO2/kwh). For non-CO2 gases, you then need to multiply by a Global
Warming Potential (GWP) to convert non-CO2 gases into the CO2-equivalent. Neither the GHG
Protocol nor the ISO require specific approaches to quantifying emissions, so the ASC Salmon
Standard provides the following additional information on the quantification of emissions:
- Farms shall clearly document the emission factors they use and the source of the emission
factors. Recommended sources include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) or factors provided by national government agencies such as the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Companies shall survey available emission factors
and select the one that is most accurate for their situation, and transparently report their
selection.
- Farms shall clearly document the GWPs that they use and the source of those GWPs.
Recommended sources include the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report, on which the Kyoto Protocol
and related policies are based, or more recent Assessment Reports.
Page 85 of 103

References:
• GHG Protocol Corporate Standard Website: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-
standard
• ISO 14064-1 available for download (with fee) at https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html
• IPCC 2nd Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar2/
• All IPCC Assessment Reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
Appendix V-2. GHG accounting for feed

The requirement requires the calculation of the GHG emissions for the feed used during the prior
production cycle at the grow-out site undergoing certification. This calculation requires farms to multiply
the GHG emissions per unit of feed, provided to them by the feed manufacturer, by the amount of feed
used on the farm during the production cycle.
The feed manufacturer is responsible for calculating GHG emissions per unit feed. GHG emissions
from feed can be calculated based on the average raw material composition used to produce the salmon
(by weight) and not as documentation linked to each single product used during the production cycle.
The scope of the study to determine GHG emissions should include the growing, harvesting, processing
and transportation of raw materials (vegetable and marine raw materials) to the feed mill and processing
at feed mill. Vitamins and trace elements can be excluded from the analysis. The method of allocation
of GHG emissions linked to by-products must be specified.
The study to determine GHG emissions can follow one of the following methodological approaches:
1. A cradle-to-gate assessment, taking into account upstream inputs and the feed manufacturing
process, according to the GHG Product Standard
2. A Life Cycle Analysis following the ISO 14040 and 14044 requirements for life cycle
assessments
Should the feed manufacturer choose to do a cradle-to-gate assessment:
1. It shall incorporate the first three phases from the methodology, covering materials acquisition
and processing, production, and product distribution and storage (everything upstream and the
feed manufacturing process itself).
Should the manufacturer follow the ISO 14040 and 14044 requirements for Life Cycle Assessment:
1. Feed manufacturers may follow either an ISO-compliant life cycle assessment methodology or
the GHG Protocol product standard.
Regardless of which methodology is chosen, feed manufacturers shall include in the assessment:
• Scope 1 emissions, which are emissions that come directly from a source that is either owned
or controlled by the farm/facility.
• Scope 2 emissions, which are emissions resulting from the generation of purchased electricity,
heating or cooling.
• Scope 3 emissions, which are emissions resulting from upstream inputs and other indirect
emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased materials, following the Scope 3
standard.
Quantification of emissions is done by multiplying activity data (e.g. quantity of fuel or kwh consumed)
by an emission factor (e.g. CO2/kwh). For non-CO2 gases, you then need to multiply by a Global
Page 86 of 103

Warming Potential (GWP) to convert non-CO2 gases into CO2-equivalent. The ASC Salmon Standard
provides the following additional information on the quantification of emissions:
- Farms shall clearly document the emission factors they use and the source of the emission
factors. Recommended sources include the IPCC or factors provided by national government
agencies, such as the USEPA. Companies shall survey available emission factors and select
the one that is most accurate for their situation, and transparently report their selection.
- Farms shall clearly document the GWPs that they use and the source of those GWPs.
Recommended sources include the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report, on which the Kyoto Protocol
and related policies are based, or more recent Assessment Reports.
References:
- GHG Product Standard: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/product-standard
- ISO 14044 available for download (with fee) at: https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.htmlIPCC
2nd Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar2/
- All IPCC Assessment Reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
Page 87 of 103

Appendix VI: Transparency of Farm-Level Performance Data
The farm must provide evidence that it has submitted to ASC in the requested format the following
information about its environmental and social performance.
Information pertaining to biomass and or stocking from which production volumes, timing and financial
information can be extracted or inferred should be considered confidential in order to not put certified
companies at a competitive disadvantage. Information related to production volumes or harvest timing
may be made public with a time delay (e.g., if released post-harvest and sale).
Calculations
and Sampling
Methodologies,
Option
Relevant Measurement Additional

Item
Requirement Measurement Units Frequency Notes

1 Species in production species
2 a 2.1.1 Redox potential mV production Appendix I-1
cycle
b Sulfide levels μMol/L production Appendix I-1
cycle
3 a 2.1.2 AZTI Marine Biotic Index AMBI production Appendix I-1
(AMBI) score cycle
b Shannon-Wiener Index S-WI production Appendix I-1
score cycle
c Benthic Quality Index (BQI) BQI score production Appendix I-1
cycle
d Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) ITI score production Appendix I-1
cycle
4 2.1.3 # of microfaunal taxa # production Appendix I-1
cycle
5 2.2.1 Average % DO saturation % weekly Appendix I-4
6 2.2.2 Max % samples under 1.85 % weekly Appendix I-4
mg/L DO
7 2.2.4 Nitrogen monitoring mg N/L quarterly Appendix I-5
8 2.2.4 Phosphorous monitoring mg P/L quarterly Appendix I-5
9 2.2.5 Calculated BOD production Footnote in
cycle 2.2.5
10 2.5.2 # days ADDs/AHDs # ongoing183,
183Ongoing: Logged as needed or as occurs. Data shall be logged such that it can be analysed on both an annual and a
production cycle basis. This definition of “ongoing” applies throughout Appendix VI.
Page 88 of 103

Calculations
and Sampling
Option Methodologies,
Item

11 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 Lethal incidents of marine #, species ongoing To be made
mammals and birds and publicly
cause per available (e.g.
episode on web) by
farming
company shortly
after incident
12 3.1.1 Fallowing period dates
13 3.1.2 Maximum sea lice load set number annual Appendix II

for the ABM
14 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 In areas of wild salmonids, Appendix III, to
monitoring of sea lice on out- be made
migrating salmon juveniles or publicly
costal sea trout available within
eight weeks of
completion of
monitoring
15 3.1.7 and 3.1.8 Weekly, on-farm sea lice weekly To be made
levels directly publicly
available by
farming
company within
a week
16 3.4.1-3.4.2 Escapes data # production
episodes cycle
date of ongoing
episode
cause of ongoing
episode
# ongoing
escapees
per
episode
# total production
escapees cycle
17 3.4.2 Counting technology % production Footnote 58
accuracy cycle
3.4.3 Estimated unexplained loss # production Footnote 59
cycle
Page 89 of 103

Calculations
and Sampling
Item

18 4.2.1 FFDR fishmeal (during grow- FFDRm production Appendix IV
out) cycle
19 a 4.2.2 FFDR fish oil (during grow- FFDRo production Appendix IV
out) cycle
b Max amount EPA and DHA g/kg feed production Appendix IV
cycle
20 4.4.3 Transgenic feed ingredients Y/N production
cycle
21 4.6.1 Energy use kJ/t fish production Appendix V-1
cycle
22 4.6.2 GHG emissions on farm annual Appendix V-1
23 4.6.3 GHG emissions of feed production Appendix V-2

cycle (not
immediately
applicable)
24 4.7.1 Copper-based antifoulants Y/N production
cycle
25 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 Results of copper sampling mg Cu/kg production Appendix I-1
(outside AZE and at sediment cycle
reference sites), if required
26 5.1.5 Total mortality of farmed fish % ongoing
27 5.1.4 Cause of mortalities (post- # ongoing

mortem analysis) mortalities
per cause
or
disease
28 5.1.6 Maximum unexplained % of total production
mortalities mortality cycle
29 5.2.1 Amount of each product ongoing Also 5.2.9
chemical/therapeutant used name
for each (antibiotics,
parasiticides, etc.)
active ongoing
compone
nt name
reason for ongoing
use
date ongoing
Page 90 of 103

Calculations
and Sampling
Item

kg ongoing
t fish ongoing
treated
dosage ongoing
# of ongoing
treatment
s
WHO ongoing
classificati
on
(antibiotic
s only)
30 5.2.7 Reduction in WNMT % per 2 year
after first audit
after effective
date
Amount of each parasiticide product ongoing
used name
Active ongoing
compone
nt name
date ongoing
kg ongoing
t fish ongoing
treated
dosage ongoing
Applicatio ongoing
n method
# of ongoing
treatment
s
31 5.2.6 Weighted Number of No. WNMT Appendix VII
Medicinal Treatments
(WNMT)
32 5.2.10 Results of environmental Name of Public
monitoring of benthic active disclosure of
parasiticide levels ingredient results within 30
and/or days of findings
residue
found
Page 91 of 103

Calculations
and Sampling
Item

33 5.4.2 Unidentifiable transmissible Date(s) ongoing Public
agent concern disclosure of
raised; results of
disease surveillance
detected within 30 days
from of findings
monitorin
g (if
applicable
)
34 5.4.4 OIE-notifiable disease Disease(s ongoing Public
detected on farm ), exotic disclosure of
or detection and
endemic, results of
and surveillance
detection within 30 days
date(s) of findings
35 Section 8 Type of smolt production Open, production
system semi or cycle
closed
36 8.25 and 8.26 Monitoring results from water See
quality analyses Appendix
VIII-2
Page 92 of 103

Appendix VII: Parasiticide Treatment Methodology
Continuous reduction of applying medicinal parasiticide treatments
The ASC Salmon Standard requires farms to continuously reduce the number of medicinal treatments
applied in treating sea lice, a persistent marine ectoparasite. The ultimate vision is to no longer having
to treat sea lice with medicinal treatments. However, at the same time it is also recognised that this
scenario is not yet achievable for the far majority of the industry at this moment in time.
In order to incentivise the development and implementation of non-medicinal measures (e.g. biological
and mechanical control), the relevant indicators under Criteria 5.2 require farms to meet an Entry Level
(EL) that expresses the Weighted Number of Medicinal Treatments (WNMT), after which a fixed rate of
reduction needs to be achieved until the WNMT meets the defined Global Level (GL).
Parallel to the improvement process as described above, the Standard requires that farms apply
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in order to mitigate in an effective manner.
This Appendix gives more detail on the various concepts referenced above, as well as providing metric
levels that relate to the EL, GL and rate of reduction.
Weighted Number of Medicinal Treatments (WNMT)184
The Weighted Number of Medicinal Treatment frequency is the total number medicinal parasiticide
treatments applied over the production cycle, within the UoC. Partial treatments should be counted as
a proportion of the cages treated.
Some examples are given on how to count the WNMT, e.g.

– treating an entire farm (all cages) once, counts as WNMT = 1;
– treating 1 cage, out of 10, once, will count as WNMT = 0.1;
– treating 1 cage, out of 10, twice (i.e., two unique treatments), will count as WNMT = 0.2;
– treating 5 cages, out of 20, once, will count as WNMT = 0.25.
Additional considerations:
1. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) must be considered as medicinal parasiticide treatment and thus be
included in the WNMT-count;
2. If a single bath-treatment is prescribed to be applied as “coupled-treatment” (i.e. one treatment
at t1 and a follow-up treatment at t2), then each treatment (t1 and t2) must be included in the
WNMT-count.
Some more examples are given on how to count the WNMT, e.g.
– treating 1 cage, out of 10, once with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), will count as WNMT = 0.1;
– treating 1 cage, out of 10, once with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a coupled-treatment, will count
as WNMT = 0.2;
184 Medicinal parasiticide includes hydrogen peroxide.
Page 93 of 103

Defining Entry Level (EL) and Global Level (GL)
A detailed statistical study was conducted and reviewed by a Technical Working Group in order to
understand the regional characteristics of the number of sealice treatments applied per production cycle
within the various production regions. The study, including the used data (in Excel) is publicly available
on the ASC-website.
In summary, the study used 4 datasets, resulting in N = 896 data points. The data sets covered the
following production regions: West Canada (BC), Chile, Faroe Islands, Ireland, Norway and Scotland.
Subsequently, the study established distribution curves of the number of medicinal treatments applied
per region and one global curve on the basis of N = 896.
On the basis of the 50th percentile for each of the regional curves, regional WNMT-numbers are set that
form an Entry Level for farms in that region. Farms must be below, or at, EL for compliance. The results
are presented in the table below:
Table: Regional Entry Level and Global Level (both in WNMT)
Region* Entry Level (WNMT) Global Level (WNMT)
Canada (West Coast) 1

Canada (East Coast) 9
Chile 9
Faroe Islands 6
3**
Iceland 6
Ireland 3
Norway 5
Scotland 9
*Farms based outside the regions listed in this table shall apply an EL = 6 and GL = 3. For these
regions insufficient data was available at the time of the revision and the global WNMT distribution is
used to set the EL. Since EL is set at the 50th percentile of the regional data sets, an equal percentile
is applied to the global data set (resulting in EL=6).
** GL is set at 3 WNMT, unless twice a “coupled-treatment” is applied (counted as 2*2 = 4 WNMT),
then GL = 4 WNMT applies. In case of this exception, additional medicinal treatments applied will
result in exceedance of GL=4
In addition to the defined regional Entry Levels, a Global Level (GL) was determined as well. It is
required that farms progress from EL to GL according to a fixed timeframe. The GL is based on the 20-
25th percentile of the used overall dataset. This resulted into GL = 3 WNMT. However, some bath-
treatments are given as “coupled-treatment” (as per above), which with a GL = 3, could result into
having a part of the treatment falling beyond GL = 3. In order to reflect the realities of applying these
coupled-treatments, an exception is defined in case two times a coupled-treatment is applied. For this
specific situation, GL = 4 WNMT applies. Situations that do not meet this exception, shall apply GL = 3
WNMT.
Page 94 of 103

Reducing from EL to GL
It is required for farms to reduce from EL to GL by means of a fixed rate of reduction. This rate is
determined at 25% WNMT per 2-year.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has long been recognised as being critical to effective and robust
sea lice management. IPM is based upon the implementation of a number of proven techniques and
approaches developed for pest management in terrestrial agriculture systems, often with the central
aim of slowing the development of drug resistance in pest species.
The strategy of IPM generally involves coordinated application and integrated use of all available
management practices, with surveillance, communication and cooperation between operators within a
defined area. IPM seeks in particular to reduce reliance upon medicinal treatments, thus reducing scope
for development of drug resistance and is therefore a process that ASC intends to promote.
The ASC Salmon Standard already contains several aspects of IPM through its current Criteria and
Indicators, namely:
- Adherence to relevant thresholds/limits on sea lice levels and required action (Ind. 3.1.9)
- Regular counting and reported of sea lice levels (Ind. 3.1.7 and 3.1.8)
- Maintenance of treatment records (Appendix VI)
- Single year-class stocking (Ind. 5.4.1)
- Fallowing between cycles (Ind. 3.1.1)
- Health management / veterinary health plan (Ind. 5.1.1)
- Cleaning of nets to increase water flow
- Routine removal of moribund fish (Ind. 5.1.3)
- Monitoring of fish state (e.g. behaviour – 5.1.1)
- Monitoring and control of other fish diseases (Ind. 5.1.1)
- Strategic use of medicines i.e. the appropriate medicine used for the targeted stage/s of lice
(Ind. 5.1.1)
- Medicine rotation, where possible (Crit. 5.3)
- Medicine resistance surveillance (site or area) (Crit. 5.3)
- Monitoring of treatment efficacy (Crit. 5.3)
- Area coordinated planning and management (Ind. 3.1.2)
In addition to the list above, the use of non-medicinal, mechanical, and biological controls should be
applied in order to reduce sea lice load and risk for resistance built-up. Some examples are given here:
https://globalsalmoninitiative.org/en/our-work/biosecurity/non-medicinal-approaches-to-sea-lice-
management/
As applying these measures depends on various factors – including state of technological development,
unintended health side-effects on fish, site-specific situations like strong currents – the standard
requires farms to prepare a strategic plan that outlines which non-medicinal measures are (to be)
applied at the farms. The plan must be made public and signed-off by an authorized veterinarian. It is
required that the plan is reviewed and updated on a production cycle basis to reflect the effectiveness
of applied methods and determine next approaches.
Page 95 of 103

Appendix VIII: Methodologies Related to Water Quality and Smolt
Systems
Appendix VIII-1. Calculation of Total Phosphorous discharged per tonne
of smolt produced
Requirement 8.4 looks at how much phosphorus is discharged from the farm per unit of smolt produced.
The requirement is set at 5 kg/t for the first three years from date of publication of the ASC Salmon
Standard, dropping to 4 kg/t thereafter. Smolt facilities would calculate their discharge using a “mass
balance” approach that calculates the discharge from the phosphorus in the feed and the phosphorus
in the fish biomass. Farms would be able to subtract P that is physically removed in sludge (documented
sludge removal with P levels tested).
To calculate P released to the environment, one must calculate the P used to produce one unit of fish
and subtract the P taken up by the fish and P removed in sludge. The basic formula per time period, to
be calculated for a maximum period of 12 months, is:
𝑃𝑖𝑛 − 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 =
𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑
Where:
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 + 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑
Where the following definitions of the parameters apply in the basic formula:
1. Total P in feed
a. ∑ (Total amount of feed type (product) multiplied by content of phosphorus) 1…….X), where
1…….X represents the number of different feed types (products) used.
i. The phosphorus content per feed type can be determined either by chemical
analyses of the feed type or based on declaration by the feed producer of
phosphorus content in the feed type in jurisdictions where national legislation
order phosphorus content of feed to be declared.
2. Biomass produced
a. Biomass of fish produced over the specific time period is calculated as: (biomass
harvested + biomass of mortalities + remaining standing biomass) – biomass at start of
time period.
3. P content in biomass produced
a. P content in biomass produced = (biomass produced)*(% of P in fish)
i. For purposes of calculating this requirement, the following phosphorus
percentages will be used for harvested fish or mortalities:
1. Less than 1 kg: 0.43%
2. More than 1 kg: 0.4%
4. Total P in removed sludge
a. P content in sludge removed = (sludge removed) * (% of P in sludge)
i. Phosphorus in sludge removed per unit shall be determined based on analytical
values that are representative of the batch of sludge removed from the farm.
ii. The smolt farm must demonstrate the sludge was physically removed from the
farm site and that the sludge was deposed of according to the principles in
requirement 8.35.
Page 96 of 103

Appendix VIII-2: Water quality sampling methodology and data sharing for
land-based systems
Land-based farms (flow-through and recirculation systems) must measure dissolved oxygen in the
effluent. They also must submit to ASC the results from the effluent monitoring they conduct to comply
with their local regulatory requirements. In particular, the requirement requires data on any sampling of
phosphorus, nitrogen, TSS and BOD. This data will help to distinguish the performance of farms certified
by this requirement over time, and assist in revisions to the ASC Salmon Standard.
Oxygen saturation must be measured at least monthly in the early morning and late afternoon. A single
oxygen reading below 60 per cent would require daily continuous monitoring with an electronic probe
and recorder for at least a week demonstrating a minimum 60 per cent saturation at all times.
Farms shall use the following table to submit the results of effluent monitoring to ASC. Please list each
analysis separately over the previous 12-month period.
Date Analysis Location Method Sampling Analysis Result

by Third by Third
(TP, TN, (Effluent, (Single (including
Party? Party?
BOD, TSS, Inlet, etc.) grab, 24- units)
etc.) hour bulk, (Yes/No) (Yes/No)
etc.)
Appendix VIII-3: Sampling methodology for benthic macro-invertebrate

surveys
Land-based smolt production systems must conduct sampling of the benthic macro-invertebrate
habitats in the receiving body of water downstream and upstream of the effluent discharge point. The
requirement requires that the downstream benthic status be similar or better than the upstream benthic
status. To demonstrate this, the survey must demonstrate that the downstream location has the same
or better benthic health classification as the upstream location.
Below are required components of the sampling methodology and classification scheme that a farm
shall use. It is expected that a farm will use the faunal sampling regime in its own jurisdiction, as long
as the regime includes the following minimum requirements.
This appendix also includes additional suggested ideas on conducting the surveys. The suggestions
are intended as a guide only. The entity conducting the faunal survey should use its own discretion
based on local knowledge, national fauna index systems, and expertise as to what specific sub-element
or parameter will provide the best representation to document the status of the benthic macro
invertebrates and the impact that the fish farm may have on this environment in the receiving water
body.
Page 97 of 103

Minimum requirements for faunal surveys:
Classification System
• The benthic health classification system must have at least five categories of benthic status.
Focus of the survey
• The survey must detect the composition, abundance diversity and presence of benthic
invertebrate fauna in the receiving water body (upstream and downstream from farm outlet).
The survey must focus on key sensitive indicator species for the region.
When and how often
• The samples must be collected once every year upstream and downstream from the farm outlet.
In case the downstream survey drops a category according to the faunal index, two consecutive
faunal surveys must be conducted during the following 12 months, using the same faunal index
system, that demonstrate compliance with the requirement.
• After three years of demonstrating consistent results, a farm may reduce sampling to once every
two years.
Where to sample
• The samples must be taken from both midstream and near the bank and must also include
marginal areas with slacker water flow.
• All efforts must be made to isolate the impact of the farm, for example by seeking similar
conditions, such as type of bottom, water flow and/or substrate types present along the bank, in
the upstream and downstream locations.
• The location of sampling sites downstream from the farm must reflect a scientific assessment
of the most likely area of potential impact from the farm, with consideration to the mixing of water
and the minimum and maximum distance from the farm outlet.
Number of samples
• The survey must collect samples in at least three transects (10 metres apart), with at least four
samples in each transect across the river. This must be conducted both upstream and
downstream from the farm outlet.
Analysis of the samples and how to samples
• All collected samples must be analysed by an accredited laboratory and the sampling
methodology must be approved by the laboratory conducting the analysis.
Further recommendations to sampling:
When and how
When collecting macro-invertebrates, consideration should be given to the seasonality of the presence
of the macro-invertebrate species, namely insects in their larval stage of the life cycle. It is generally
Page 98 of 103

recommended that samples are conducted during summer and/or winter. In geographical regions like
Scandinavia, spring and autumn are recommended as the best times for sampling.
Sampling gear
The sampling should be undertaken using standard equipment such as surber sampler, handnet and
grab. More detailed sampling guidelines can also be found in ISO standards ISO 8265, 7828 and 9391.
References:
• Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Guidance
document no. 7. Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive.
• Biological assessment of running waters in Denmark: introduction to the Danish Stream Fauna
Index (DSFI) Skriver et al.; 2000.
• The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macro-invertebrates
over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Amitage, P.D. et al., 1982.
• Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Guidance
document no. 13. Overall approach to the classification of ecological status and ecological
potential.
• UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring & Assessment under the Convention on the Protection and
Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) Volume
3:Biological Assessment Methods for Watercourses.
Page 99 of 103

Appendix VIII-4: Sludge BMPs for closed and semi-closed smolt systems
Methods to mitigate the impacts from fish metabolic wastes on water can range from the employment
of simple settling ponds to the use of advanced technology filters and biological process. Dealing
responsibly with the waste (sludge, liquid slurry, biosolids) from these processes is a critical element to
responsible smolt facility management. The ASC acknowledges that BMPs related to other principles
such as correct feed composition and texture as well as good feed management practices—such as
not storing feed for too long—can also influence the effectiveness of biosolids capture, however this
section deals with practices for cleaning, storage and disposal that will minimise the potential impacts
of sludge/biosolids being released into the environment.
All closed and semi-closed smolt systems shall employ/undertake the following in relation to
sludge/biosolids:
1. A process flow drawing that tracks/maps the water and waste flow of a farm including treatment
of waste, transfer of wastes, waste storage and final waste utilisation options. Flow diagram
should demonstrate the farm is dealing with biosolids responsibly.
2. Farm shall have a management plan for sludge/biosolids that details cleaning and maintenance
procedures of the water treatment system. The plan must also identify and address the farm’s
specific risks such as—but not limited to—loss of power, fire and drought. The management can
be evaluated in relation to maintenance records.
3. Farm must keep detailed records/log of sludge/bio-solid cleaning and maintenance including
how sludge is discarded after being dug out of settlement ponds/basins.
4. Biosolids accumulated in settling ponds/basins shall not be discharged into natural water bodies.
Appendix VIII-5: Assimilative capacity assessment for cage (net-pen)

smolt systems
Under 8.26, all open smolt farms in lake or reservoir settings must demonstrate that an assimilative
capacity assessment has been conducted to determine if there is sufficient capacity from a water quality
perspective to allow for the level of additional loading to the system.
Many suitable models exist that can help determine assimilative capacity, such as Dillon and Rigler
(1975), Kirchener and Dillon (1975), Reckhow (1977), and Dillon and Molot (1996). The requirement
does not favour one existing model over another but it is important to outline key elements of a credible
assimilative capacity study.
At a minimum, the study must do the following:
• Undertake assessment as to allocation of capacity for the whole water body
• Undertake assessment as to land use, slope, sewage, other discharges, stream input
• Account for retention in lake and mixing
• Predict total phosphorus concentration
• Classify trophic status
• Undertake impact assessment of fish farm
The study must pay particular attention to the nature and morphology of the lake basin where the farm
will be established. The study must analyse at a minimum:
Page 100 of 103

1. Mixing of the surface and bottom waters
2. Whether bottom waters are isolated within the water body
3. The naturally occurring oxygen levels in the surface and bottom waters
4. Whether the water forms part of an enclosed basin, or an area with isolated bottom waters
Page 101 of 103

Appendix VIII-6: Receiving water monitoring for open (net-pen) smolt
systems
Sampling Regime for Receiving Water Quality Monitoring
Location of sampling stations: Stations will be established at the limit of the cage farm management
zone on each side of the farm, roughly 50 metres from the edge of the cages and at reference stations
located approximately 1-2 kilometres (km). All sampling locations will be identified with GPS coordinates
on a schematic outline of the farm operations and on available satellite imagery.
Sampling methods: All water samples testing for total phosphorus shall be taken from a representative
composite sample through the water column to a depth of the bottom of the cages. Samples will be
submitted to an accredited laboratory for analysis of TP to a method detection limit of < 0.002 mg/L.
Dissolved oxygen measurements will be taken at 50 centimetres from the bottom sediment.
Frequency: At least once every three months during periods without ice, including at peak biomass.
**NOTE: Some flexibility on the exact location and method of sampling is allowed to avoid farms
needing to duplicate similar sampling for their local regulatory regime.
Boundary Stations (Note: if the farm is attached Reference Stations

to land via a walkway, only three stations would
be used)
North South East West Upcurrent Downcurrent
TP
X X X X X X
(mg/L)
DO profile
X X X X X X
(mg/L)
Page 102 of 103

Appendix VIII-7: Trophic status classification and determining baseline
trophic status
Requirement 8.30 requires a farm to determine a baseline trophic status for the water body and
demonstrate through monitoring that the status is maintained. The ASC Salmon Standard use a
modified version of the trophic status system developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
Development (OECD) (Vollenweider and Kerekes, 1982). Trophic status is determined by the
concentration of total phosphorus.
Trophic Status Range of Total Phosphorus

Concentration (≤ 20 g/l)
Ultra-oligotrophic <4
Oligotrophic 4-10
Mesotrophic 10-20
Meso-eutrophic 20-35
Eutrophic 35-100
Hyper-eutrophic > 100
(Note: these ranges are identical to ones described in an Environment Canada report titled “Canadian
Guidance Framework for the Management of Phosphorus in Freshwater Systems, Science-based
Solutions Report 1-8, February 2004”)
Determining Baseline
Basic approach: Use the concentration in the most pristine area of the water body as possible, i.e., far
from point sources of nutrients such as stream inflows, wastewater runoff, the farm or other fish farms.
If the regulatory body has determined a historical baseline for the water body, that baseline shall be
used.
Page 103 of 103

ASC Salmon Standard v1.4 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Salmon Standard v1.4 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Salmon Standard v1.4 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Salmon Standard

Effective Date: February 1st, 2023

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Trade register number 34389683

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

Document version history:

Version Release Effective Remarks/changes

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Theory of Change

ASC’s Theory of Change can be found on the ASC website.

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

I. Scheme Owner i.e. Aquaculture Stewardship Council

II. Accreditation Body i.e. Assurance Services International (ASI)

III. Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) i.e. Accredited CAB’s

ASC, as scheme owner:

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

Conformity Assessment Body

ASC Audit and Certification Process

The UoC is audited at Indicator-level.

ASC Logo use

Unauthorised logo display is prohibited and will be treated as a trademark infringement.

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Standards are as follows designed:

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

The Criteria within the Principles apply to every UoC.

Unit of Certification (UoC)

Biological and geographic scope to which the Standard applies

How to read this document?

Definitions are provided in footnotes.

Metric Performance Levels

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

1.1.1 Presence of documents demonstrating

1.1.2 Presence of documents demonstrating

1.1.3 Presence of documents demonstrating

1.1.4 Presence of documents demonstrating

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

Criterion 2.1 Benthic biodiversity and benthic effects4

AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) score ≤ 3.3,

2.1.3 Number of macrofaunal taxa in the sediment

2.1.4 Definition of a site-specific AZE based on a

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

2.2.1 Weekly average percent saturation14 of dissolved

2.2.2 Maximum percentage of weekly samples from 2.2.1

2.2.3 For jurisdictions that have national or regional

2.2.4 For jurisdictions without national or regional coastal

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

2.2.6 Appropriate controls are in place that maintains

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

Criterion 2.3 Nutrient release from production

2.3.1 Percentage of fines23 in the feed at point of entry to

ASC Salmon Standard – version 1.4 – Sept 2022

2.4.1 Evidence of an assessment of the farm’s potential