i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i
News
i i i i i i i i i i
Dr Thierry Chopin
I
Seafood Watch revised standards have just been published and Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is now considered under the aquaculture standard
n the July 2019 issue of International Aquafeed, I relayed my involvement with the Aquaculture Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Seafood Watch program of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Since, there has been a lot of work and meetings - through public consultations, Expert Working Groups, TACs and the Multi-Stakeholder Group approval - leading to the recent release of the revised aquaculture, fisheries and salmon-specific fisheries standards.
An extensive review and revision process
These standards undergo regular review and revision to ensure the latest science on sustainability and best management practices are incorporated. The process includes three phases over a five-year cycle. In the first three years (Phase 1: Implementation), Seafood Watch performs assessments against the most current standards and documents potential revisions. In year four (Phase 2: Review), they refine potential changes in consultation with experts; in year five (Phase 3: Revision), they propose revisions, implement changes based on feedback from the public and their advisory groups, and publish new or updated standards.
The scope of the Aquaculture Standard considerably broadened to include multi-species and multi-trophic systems
While the scope of assessment in the Aquaculture Standard has always been “all aquaculture species and production systems at all scales”, this new revision considerably broadened the scope to include “those involving multiple species (hereafter termed “polyculture” and inclusive of all multi-species and multi-trophic systems).” The distinction between “multi-species” and “multi-trophic” systems is to recognize that in the first case, it could include, for example, three species of fish, while in the second case the species are selected based on their complementary functions in the ecosystem, with a mixture of fed and extractive species, for example a combination of fish, seaweeds and invertebrates.
Highlights of the revisions in the assessments concerning polyculture systems
The Seafood Watch Standard for Aquaculture contains ten criteria and five appendices. Guidance for polyculture has been inserted into all criteria, but the most substantial changes have been its incorporation into Criterion 2 (Effluent) and Criterion 5 (Feed),
with the development of an Appendix 4 dedicated specifically to the polyculture assessment methodology for effluent and feed. In Criterion 1 (Data), the assessments concerning polyculture systems must be carried out so that each Data category for each species must be assessed and scored independently. Some guidance for assessing polyculture systems was inserted in Criterion 2 (Effluent), with further guidance described in Appendix 4. This guidance intends to ensure that basic nutrient dynamics, associated with multi-species systems, can be accounted for in the calculation of likely impact from discharges of such systems. The assessment methodology is dependent on whether there is enough data availability to allocate impacts between all species in the polyculture system and, if there is not, whether there is a physical boundary between the production system and the environment, in order to estimate the nutrient flows and allocate impacts. In Criterion 3 (Habitat), the assessment concerning polyculture systems must be carried out by considering the impacts of the entire production system on the occupied habitat. In Criterion 4 (Chemical use), it is recommended to conduct multiple assessments (one for each species in the system) with impacts or risk of impacts allocated to the species for whom chemical treatment/ application is intended. If more than one species is treated, then impacts are allocated accordingly to each treated species. If data are not available to determine which species are treated and which are not, all species in the system will receive the score appropriate for the chemical use that is known. Some guidance for assessing polyculture systems (inclusive of cleaner fish and multi-trophic systems) was inserted in Criterion 5 (Feed), with further guidance described in Appendix 4. Seafood Watch assesses all ingredients, inclusive of those considered “by products”, “co-products”, “edible” or “inedible”. The methodology is dependent upon whether there is enough data availability to allocate feed impacts between all species in the polyculture system. Further guidance is described in Appendix 4 to determine which methodology to use. In all cases, unfed species are assigned a score of 10 out of 10. In Criterion 6 (Escapes) and Criterion 7 (Disease, pathogen and parasite interaction), multiple assessments must be conducted (one for each species in the system) and a score must be assigned to each species. In Criterion 8X (Source of stock – independence from wild fish stocks) and Criterion 10X (Introduction of secondary species), multiple assessments (inclusive of the use of cleanerfish) must be conducted (one for each species in the system) and the lowest score must be used. In Criterion 9X (Wildlife mortalities), multiple assessments must be conducted (one for each species in the system) with impacts allocated to the species responsible for the impacts. If data are not available to determine which species are responsible for the impact, all species in the system will receive the score appropriate for the impact that is known.
Appendix 4: An appendix dedicated specifically to the polyculture assessment methodology for effluent and feed
For assessments concerning polyculture systems, the methodologies for Effluent and Feed are dependent on whether there is enough data availability to differentiate and/or allocate impacts between all species in the system. Appendix 4 offers guidance to determine which methodology to use. For Criterion 2 (Effluent), if there is good research information and/or data on the ecological impacts are available, the Evidence-Based Assessment approach is recommended. If the assessed operations do not have good effluent and/or impact data, or they cannot be easily addressed using the Evidence-Based Assessment, the Risk-Based Assessment approach must be used.
14 | May 2020 - International Aquafeed