Final report - Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Transkript

BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION
Aquaculture Stewardship Council Farm Audit Report
ASC-F-E13-1-13
Aquaculture Stewardship Council Audit Report for Farms Trout
Alabalık Çiftlikleri için Su Ürünleri Yetiştiriciliği Konseyi Denetim Raporu
GÜMÜŞDOĞA CAN ALABALIK ÜRETİM VE
YETİŞTİRME PROJESİ YANIKLAR TESİSİ
FETHİYE/MUĞLA
Date:
10.3.- 12.3.2015
CLIENT :
MAIN CONTACT
(Audited person):
REPORT REFERENCE :
LEAD ASSESSOR :
By:
BUREAU VERITAS Certification - Denmark - Oldenborggade 2, 7000 Fredericia
GÜMÜŞDOĞA SU ÜRÜNLERİ ÜRETİM İHRACAT VE İTHALAT A.Ş.
İlkim Funda TABAN
ASSESSORS TEAM :
ASC
REPORT WRITING DATE :
Sølvi Skare
INITIAL
ASSESSMENT / MISSION
Sølvi Skare, ASC Lead Auditor, Vicdan Uzunoğlu, LA SA 8000
16.3.-30.3.2015
REPORT REVIEWING DATE :
X
SURVEILLANCE
COMPLEMENTARY /SUPPLEMENTARY
1. Summary: Özet
The audit report shows the results from the first ASC Trout Standard audit of Yaniklar Farm. The audit was performed onsite 10. - 12.3.2015, for the farm audit as well the social part of the audit. The audit day was performed
onsite on the freshwater farm with interviews of the employees, in addition to quality management of Yaniklar farm. It was focused on all principle in ASC Freshwater Standard and social responsibility, review of documentation,
processes and handling of equipment was examined. The interviews of the employees were performed on the farm, the interview was performed without interruption. The results of the audit are 12 major non-conformities and
28 minor non-conformities. They are documented and described in the non-conformity report. Audit covering principle no 6 are done by walk around. review of relevant documentation, intreviews with the quality management
and confidential interviews with the employee. Auditor was given assess to all places, documentation and employees.
Denetim raporu Sahilceylan Çiftliğinin ilk ASC (Su Ürünleri Yetiştiriciliği Koruma Konseyi) Alabalık Standardı denetiminden sonuçları göstermektedir. Denetim tesiste 10 ila 12.3.2015’te hem çiftlik denetimi hemde denetimin
sosyal kısmı için yapılmıştır, Denetim günü Sahilceylan çiftliğinin kalite yönetimiyle ilaveten tatlı su çiftliğinin çalışanlarıyla görüşmelerle tesiste gerçekleştirilmiştir. ASC Tatlı su Standardının ve sosyal sorumluluğunun tüm
ilkelerine, belgelerin incelenmesine odaklanmış olup, süreçler ve donanımın idaresi incelenmiştir. Çalışanlarla görüşmeler çiftlikte gerçekleştirilmiş, görüşmeler kesintisiz olarak yapılmıştır. Denetim sonuçları 12 major
uygunsuzluk ve 29 minör uygunsuzluktur. Bunlar uygunsuzluk raporunda açıklanmış ve belgelenmiştir. 6 numaralı ilkeyi kapsayan denetim çevrede gezilerek, ilgili belgeler incelenerek, kalite yönetimiyle görüşmeler ve çalışanla
gizli görüşmelerle yapılmıştır. Denetçiye tüm yerlere, belgelere ve çalışanlara erişim olanağı verilmiştir.
Yaniklar Freshwater farm is an on-growing farm for trout until delivering to Sahilceylan farm or the trout is ready for slaughtering at about 300 grams. The farm is located in Fethiye, Mugla region. Water inlet from Yanıklar Çayı
(Kargicay) river and outlet of water to same river. Total production is 250 tons per year. There is 13 employees at the farm
Yanıklar Tatlı su çiftliği Sahilceylan çiftliğine teslime kadar veya alabalık yaklaşık 300 gramda kesime hazır olana kadar alabalık büyütme çiftliğidir. Çiftlik Fethiye/MUĞLA bölgesinde yerleşiktir. Su girişi Yanıklar çayından olup
su çıkışı aynı nehre yapılmaktadır. Toplam üretim yıllık 250 tondur. Çiftlikte 13 çalışan bulunmaktadır.
3. Scope: Kapsam
STANDARD
ASC trout Standard Version 1.0 - February 2013
« Le Guillaumet » 60 avenue du Général De Gaulle - 92046 PARIS LA DEFENSE CEDEX
Téléphone : 01.41.97.00.74 Fax : 01.41.97.08.32 - [email protected]
1
ASC-F-E13-1-13
Activities at Yaniklar freshwater farm is farming trout from juvenils until delivery to Sahilceylan farm or for slaughering at about 300 grams There are small concrete basin for
juvenils and bigger for growing of fish. Water abstraction from river for the concrete basins. Treatment of water in settling basins and micro sieves. The fish are transported to
growing farm, during cahnge there was not a possibility for escape of fish. Control of the fish as well as feeding, is managed at the farm. The farm has a building containing feed
storage and workshop, The farm has an environmental approvement from Agricultural Ministry
Yanıklar Tatlı su çiftliği Sahilceylan çiftliğine teslime kadar veya yaklaşık 300 gramda kesime hazır olana kadar yavrulardan alabalık yetiştirmektedir. Yavrular için küçük beton
havzalar ve balığı büyütmek için daha büyük havuzlar vardır. Beton havzalar için nehirden su çekilmektedir. Çökeltme havzalarında ve mikro eleklerde su arıtılmaktadır. Balık
yetiştirme çiftliğine nakledilir, değişim sırasında balığın kaçma olanağı yoktur. Balığın olduğu kadar yemleme kontrolü de çiftlikte yönetilmektedir.. Çiftlik yem deposu ve atölye
Activity & scope of the audit: içeren bir binaya sahiptir. Çiftlik Tarım Bakanlığından çevre onayına sahiptir.
Species :
Description of receiving water
body :
Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Alabalık (Oncorhynchus mykiss- gökkuşağı alabalığı))
Yaniklar çayı (Kargıçay) river, in Muğla, Fethiye is receiving water body, Muğla Fethiye’deki Yanıklar çayı alıcı su kaynağıdır.
2
ASC-F-E13-1-13
4. Audit Plan:Denetim Planı
Desk reviews and other activities undertaken before or after any site visits. Herhangi bir tesis ziyaretinden
önce ve sonra masa başı incelemeler ve diğer faaliyetler gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Stakeholder submissions, including written or other documented information and CAB written responses to
each submission.
Yazılı veya diğer belgelenmiş bilgiler ve her bir teklife CAB yazılı cevapları dahil paydaş görüşleri alınmıştır.
Documentation review in oct 2013
Ekim 2013 belgelerin incelenmesi
Stakeholder list in copy from client
Müşteriden kopya şeklinde paydaş listesi
GÜMÜŞDOĞA CAN ALABALIK ÜRETİM VE
FETHİYE/MUĞLA
Name of site :
FETHİYE/MUĞLA
Adress :
Contact :
Sites of the Company
concerned by the ASC.
ASC tarafından ilgilenilen
Şirketin Tesisleri.
For each site show:
İLKİM FUNDA TABAN
Names and affiliations of
individuals consulted or otherwise
involved in the audit (
representatives of the client,
employees, contractors,
stakeholders and any observers
that participated in the audit):
Denetimde görüşülen veya başka
türlü ilgilenilen ( müşterinin
temsilcileri, çalışanlar, taşeronlar,
paydaşlar ve denetime katılan
gözlemciler) bireylerin isimleri ve
şirketle bağlantıları.
3
Date & Duration of the visit :
ASC-F-E13-1-13
The audit on the site 10.3..2015 - 12.3.2015
Previous Audits (if applicable): (Varsa) Önceki denetimler:
No ASC audit has been performed in this site or in any other sites belonging to GÜMÜŞDOĞA SU ÜRÜNLERİ ÜRETİM İHRACAT VE İTHALAT A.Ş.
Tesiste veya GÜMÜŞDOĞA SU ÜRÜNLERİ ÜRETİM İHRACAT VE İTHALAT A.Ş.’ne ait diğer tesislerde hiçbir ASC denetimi yapılmamıştır.
5. Findings Bulgular
PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS REVIEW
Number
NON-CONFORMANCES REFERENCES
CURRENT ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION
Open/closed
Number
Observations
NA
NA
NA
-
Minor NC
NA
NA
NA
28
Major NC
NA
NA
NA
12
NON-CONFORMANCES REFERENCES
Open /closed
Summary of Conditions :
6. Evaluation Results: Değerlendirme Sonuçları :
Yaniklar farm has a quality system, which cover the whole organization from eg to finished slaughtered fish. The audit was performed at Yaniklar farm. The company are concernied of health of employees,
environment and safety, social requirements and laws. There was not during audit, found non-conformities regarding industrial accidents. The farm is managed with actual documentations and employees
have long experience with farming of fish. During interview of employees was found that the work with ASC standard was met with a favorable reception. All documents and quality system was available for
auditors.
Yanıklar Çiftliği yumurtadan bitmiş kesilmiş balığa kadar tüm organizasyonu kapsayan bir kalite sistemine sahiptir. Denetim Yanıklar çiftliğinde yapılmıştır. Şirket çalışanları sağlığı, çevre ve güvenlik, sosyal
gereksinimler ve kanunlarla ilgilidir. Denetim sırasında endüstriyel kazalara ilişkin bulunan uygunsuzluklar meydana gelmemiştir. Çiftlik gerçek belgelerle yönetilmektedir ve çalışanların balık çiftçiliğinde uzun
vadeli deneyimleri vardır. Çalışanlarla görüşmeler sırasında ASC standardıyla çalışmanın iyi karşılandığı tespit edilmiştir. Tüm belgeler ve kalite sistemi denetçiler için hazır bulundurulmuştur.
7. Non-conformity Report(s) Uygunsuzluk Raporları
Please see non-conformity reports attached
4
ASC-F-E13-1-13
8. Determination of the start of the COC COC (Uygunluk Sertifikası) başlangıcının belirlenmesi:
It will be neccesay with COC certification from the point where the fish is delivered to the smoke house. This happends when the fish is moved from the farm. The fish will at that time be covered by the COC - ASC Trout
Standard for the smokehouse. The fish are transported in trucks, delivered in boxes with ice. COC sertifikasyonunda balığın tütsüleme tesisine teslim edildiği noktadan itibaren gerekli olacaktır. Bu durum balık çiftlikten
taşındığı zaman meydana gelmektedir. Bu zamanda balık tütsü tesisi için COC- Alabalık Standardı kapsamında olacaktır. Balık kamyonlara, buzlu kutular içinde nakledilmektedir.
Determination of the eligibility of aquaculture products to enter further Chains of Custody and the points at which they can enter
Su ürünleri yetiştiriciliği ürünlerinin girdikleri ilave Denetim Zincirlerine ve noktalarına girmeye elverişliliklerinin belirlenmesi
Evaluation of the system of tracking, tracing and segregation in the aquaculture operation is sufficient to make sure all aquaculture products identified and sold as certified by the operation originate from the unit of certification certified
su yetiştiriciliği üretiminde izleme, takip ve ayırma sisteminin değerlendirmesi tüm su yetiştiriciliği ürünlerinin tasdik edilen sertifikasyon biriminden kaynaklanan işlem tarafından onaylandığı şekilde saptandığı ve satıldığından emin olmaya yeterlidir.
Risk Level
Item
Low risk
Medium risk
high risk
comments of the auditor and evidences
Denetçinin yorumları ve kanıtlar
1. The tracking, tracing and segregation systems in use
İzleme, takip ve ayırma sistemi kullanımdadır
x
Tracking system is manual registered
İzleme sistemi manüel kaydedilmektedir
2. The opportunity of substitution of certified with non-certified product prior to and at harvesting
Yetiştirme öncesinde ve sırasında onaylanmış ürünü onaylanmamışla değiştirme fırsatı
x
There will be only certified fish af farm
Çiftlikte sadece onaylanmış balık bulunacaktır
3. The possibility of introducing product from outside the unit of certification
Ürünü sertifikasyon ünitesi dışından getirme olanağı
x
There will be only certified fish af farm
Çiftlikte sadece onaylanmış balık bulunacaktır
4. The robustness of the applicant or certificate holders’ management system
Başvuru sahibinin veya sertifika sahiplerinin yönetim sisteminin sağlamlığı
x
Management system is new and based on experience
Yönetim sistemi yenidir ve tecrübeye dayanmaktadır
5. Any transhipment activities taking place Meydana gelen aktarma faaliyetleri
x
The transport of fish is well known at the farm
Balığın nakliyesi çiftlikte iyi bilinmektedir
6. Any subcontracted post-harvest handling or processing Yetiştirme sonrası taşere edilmiş taşıma ve işleme
x
There is not a subcontracted post-harvest handling
Yetiştirme sonrası taşere edilmiş taşıma ve işleme yoktur
Advice of the auditor Denetçinin tavsiyesi:
YES
the systems are sufficient, aquaculture products from the operation may enter into further certified
chains of custody and be eligible to carry the ASC label. sistemler yeterlidir, faaliyetin su ürünleri
ileri onaylı gözetim zincirlerine girebilir ve ASC etiketi taşımaya uygundur.
X
Describe points of change of ownership after which chain of custody certification is needed
Gözetim zinciri sertifikasyonundan sonra ihtiyaç duyulan mülkiyette değişiklik noktalarını
açıklayınız.
NO
JUSTIFICATION
From the point where the fish is transported from farm in boxes with ice, where it will be necessary to have a CoC certification for the smoke house
Balığın çiftlikten buzlu kutular içinde nakledildiği noktadan itibaren tütsüleme tesisi için CoC sertifikasyonuna ihtiyaç duyulacak noktaya kadar.
Confidential data for commercially sensitive information Ticari olarak kritik bilgi için gizli veri:
This report do not contain confidential annexes for commercially sensitive information. Bu rapor ticari olarak kritik bilgiye ilişkin gizli ekler içermemektedir.
Bureau Veritas had been agree the content of commercially sensitive information with the applicant. Bureau Veritas başvuru sahibiyle ticari olarak kritik bilgi içeriğinde anlaşmaya varmıştır.
5
ASC-F-E13-1-13
Signature - Approval
Signature of the client
Signature of the auditor
6
ASC-F-E13-1-13
CERTIFICATION DECISION
RESERVED
The company complies with general requirements of ASC standardand
Certification status of the
applicant:
Based on the results of the first audit, certification will not be recommended before all the nonconformities are satisfactory closed with documented corrective actions and regarding to
the given timeline and ASC Trout Standards requirements.
Date of issuing of Certificate:
Date of expiring:
Scope of the certificate:
List of all outstanding nonconformities:
All non-conformities are closed
7
FARM
Date
SAHILCEYLAN
10.3.2015
Non Conformity
No.
CLAUSE
1
2
4
5
6
DESCRIPTION OF THE NON CONFORMITY: UYGUNSUZLUĞUN TANIMI:
ROOT CAUSE KÖK Neden
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
DÜZELTİCİ FAALİYET
RAPORU:
ACCEPTED
12
28
Major
Minor
2.1.3a
IUCN list will be taken in to
account monitoring
Endangered species monitored endangered species and
from different list. Govertment addtional assessment will be
Farm could show from IUCN list there was no endangered species in area,
authorities assessment reletad asked from university of sea
there is however no analyse or survey from expert assessment, showing no
food department.This subject
with the habitat was think
consequence or negatively affect the habitat
will be done in the summer
enough.
Çiftlik alanda türü tehlikede olan türlerin bulunmadığına dair IUNC
season of 2015.
Tehlikede olan türler farklı
IUCN listesi tehlikedeki türlerin
(Uluslararası Doğanın ve Doğal Kaynakların Korunması Birliği) listesini
listeden takip edilmektedir.
denetiminde dikkate
göstermiştir ancak yaşam ortamını olumsuz olarak etkileyen veya hiçbir sonuç
Yaşam ortamına (habitata)
alınacaktır ve üniversitenin
gösteren uzman değerlendirmesi yapılmış bir analiz veya araştırma
ilişkin hükümet makamlarının deniz gıdası bölümünden ilave
bulunmamaktadır.
değerlendirme talep
değerlendirilmesinin yeterli
edilecektir. Bu konu 2015 yaz
olduğu düşünülmektedir.
mevsimi sırasında
tamamlanacaktır.
1.6.2015 Sølvi Skare
1
2.4.1b
Letters are available showing
that non transgenic cultered
stocks from supplier has not
There is not a statement or recording from supplier that the cultured stock is
shown
not transgenic
Tedarikçiden genetik olarak
Yetiştirilen stokun genetik yapısı değiştirilmiş hayvan olmadığını gösteren
değiştirilmemiş üretilen
tedarikçi beyanı veya kaydı bulunmamaktadır
stoklardan olduğunu gösteren
mevcut mektuplar
gösterilmemiştir.
Letter from suppliers will be
keep updated.
Tedarikçilerin mektupları
güncel olarak muhafaza
edilecektir.
1
3.2.1d
There are records for biomass and numbers of fish in ponds at start period,
dead fish, harvest fish and fish at end of period for the last 12 month. The
resulting FCR per month is considered relative low (0,7-0,9) for the feed used
FCR reports has not seen
(15-20 % oil in feed) and the farm must show FCR from controlled trials from 3
enough
ponds in one month
FCR raporları yeterli
Son 12 ay için başlangıç döneminde biyolojik kütle ve havuzlardaki balık sayısı
görülmemiştir.
ve dönem sonunda ölü balık, hasat edilen balık ve balık sayısının kayıtları
vardır. Aylık sonuçlanan FCR (yen Yararlanma Oranı) kullanılan yem (yemde
%15-20 yağ) için göreceli olarak düşük (0,7-0,9) olarak bulunmuştur ve çiftlik
bir ayda 3 havuzdan kontrollü denemelerden FCR’nı göstermelidir.
The trials from 3 ponds in one
month of FCR studies will be
started in 01 May 2015 and
the records will be kept.
Bir aylık FCR çalışmalarında
denemeler 01 Mayıs 2015’te
başlatılacak ve kayıtları
tutulacaktır.
1
Fish flour quantity will be
reduced in fish meal ratio for
achieving total phosphorus
level. 28.04.2015 is the
Fish flour % is high in fish meal. production date of new
formulated feed.
Balık yeminde balık unu %’si
Balık unu miktarı toplam fosfor
yüksektir.
seviyesini elde etmek için
balık yemi oranı içinde
azaltılacaktır. 28.04.2015 yeni
formüllü yem için üretim
tarihidir.
3.2.1g
The result for total phosphorus is 9 kg/mt of fish, this must be showed to be
lowered before certification
Toplam fosfor için sonuç balığın 9kg/mt olup, bunun düşürüleceği
sertifikasyondan önce gösterilmelidir.
3.2.3c
Test performed by the
universtity by means of
The macro invertebrate has been requested by farm to be done in accordance
appendix II_C is not well
with appendix II-C, there is not a confirmation of compiance from University
understood.
Çiftlik tarafından makro omurgasızların II-C ekine göre yapılması talep edilmiş
II-C ekine göre üniversite
olup, Üniversiteden bir uygunluk beyanı bulunmamaktadır
tarafından yapılan test iyi
anlaşılmamıştır.
Next test will be made and
approved according to
appendix II_C
Gelecek test II_C ekine göre
yapılacak ve onaylanacaktır.
1
1
7
8
9
10
11
There is no accredited
laboratory for analyses for
benthic samples in Turkey
Türkiye’de deniz dibi
numunelerinin analizi için
akredite edilmiş laboratuar
yoktur.
Both sampling and analysis
has been commissioned by
the environmental authorities.
Sampling and analysis are
performed either by the
environmental authority or
specialized consulting
company. We will search for
alternative possiblities for
accreditated analyses
Hem numune alımı hem de
analizler çevre yetkilileri
tarafından işletmeye
alınmıştır. Numune alımı ve
analizler çevre yetkilisi veya
uzmanlaşmış danışmanlık
şirketi tarafından
yapılmaktadır. Akredite edilmiş
analizler için alternatifleri
araştıracağız.
1
Water monitoring will be
submitted to ASC
Su takip verisi ASC’ne
sunulacaktır.
1
3.2.3d
The university laboratory is not accredited for analyses of benthic samples
Üniversite laboratuarı deniz dibi numunelerinin analizi için akredite
edilmemiştir.
3.2.5h
Lack of knowladge that
Dataset for water monitoring as per Appendix II-B, has not been submitted to submitting water monitoring
ASC
to ASC
II-B Ekine göre su takip verisi ASC’ye sunulmamıştır.
ASC için su takip veri
sunumunda bilgi eksikliği vardır
4.1.8c
There is not a letter from senior manager stating that maximum stock density
was determined by the designated veterinarian and site management
Üst yöneticiden belirlenmiş veteriner ve tesis yönetimi tarafından maksimum
stok yoğunluğunun belirlendiğini beyan eden bir mektup bulunmamaktadır.
The letter from senior manager
was not included in system as
training in ASC standard was
not complete.
Üst yöneticinin mektubu
sisteme dahil edilmemiştir.
Letter from senior manager is
established and included in
system
Üst yönetici mektubu temin
edilmiş ve sisteme dahil
edilmiştir.
1
4.2.4b
There has not been published Information about antimicrobial treatments
Antimikrobiyal işlemler hakkında yayınlanmış bilgi yoktur.
Lack of knowladge that
puplished antimicrobial
treatments
Antimikrobiyal işlemlerin
yayınlanmasında bilgi eksikliği
Treatments will be published
in webpage of the company
İşlemler şirketin web
sayfasında yayınlanacaktır.
1
5.1.1b
Next audit will be ordered
including feed mill production
audit. And fish flour related
certificates will be supplied.
An agreement has been made
There has not been showed a certified traceability for all feed ingredients for Internal traceability has been with a Danish Company who
provides IFFO RS certification
think that eanough for
production site and for fish products, fishing area, landing site, species and
for fish meal in 24.04.2015.
traceability of the feed.
harvest method.
Gelecek denetim yem
Üretim tesisinin tüm yem içerik maddeleri ve balık ürünleri, balıkçılık alanı,
Dahili izlenebilirliğin yemin
fabrikası üretim denetimiyle
tahliye tesisi, türler ve hasat yöntemi hakkında onaylanmış bir izlenebilirlik
izlenebilirliği için yeterli olduğu birlikte talep edilecektir. Ve
gösterilmemiştir.
düşünülmektedir.
balık ununa ilişkin sertifikalar
temin edilecektir.
24.04.2015’te balık yemi için
IFFO RS sertifikası sağlayan
bir Danimarka Şirketiyle
sözleşme yapılmıştır.
1
12
13
14
5.1.1c
Internal traceability has been with a Danish Company who
There has not been shown examples of traceback to the point of landing and think that eanough for
vessel, in the source fishery.
Gelecek denetim yem
Kaynak balık yatağında tahliye noktasına ve kabına geri izleme numuneleri
gösterilmemiştir.
temin edilecektir.
5.1.1d
Internal traceability has been with a Danish Company who
think that eanough for
The farm has not a defined position if they will use the mass balance approach
Çiftlik kütle denge yaklaşımı kullanacaklarına dair tanımlanmış bir konuma
Gelecek denetim yem
sahip değildir.
temin edilecektir.
1
5.2.1a
Letter available from owner has
There is a not policy for supporting responsible feed sourcing, signed by owner
not shown
Mal sahibi tarafından imzalanmış destekleyici sorumlu yem tedariki için bir
Mal sahibinin mektubu
politika bulunmamaktadır.
gösterilmemiştir.
1
Letter of owner keep updated
and will be present.
Mal sahibinin mektubu güncel
tutulacak ve hazır
bulundurulacaktır
1
15
17
5.2.1b
There is not a letter to feed producer Gumudosa Fish Feed Plant for
preferentially source feed containing fishmeal and fish oil originating from
fisheries certified under the type of certification scheme in 5.2.1a
5.2.1a’daki sertifikalandırma planı tipi altında onaylanmış balık yataklarından
kaynaklanan balık yemi ve balık yağı içeren tercihli kaynak yem için yem
üreticisi Gumudosa Balık yemi Tesisinden bir mektup bulunmamaktadır.
A mail to feed producers for
preferentially source feed
containing fishmeal and fish
oil originating from fisheries
certified under the type of
certification scheme in 5.2.1a.
is going to be sent.An
agreement has been made
with a Danish Company who
5.2.1a planı sertifikasyon tipi
altında onaylanmış balık
yataklarından elde edilen
balık yemi ve balık unu içeren
tercih edilen kaynak için yem
üreticilerine bir mektup
gönderilecektir. 24.04.2015’te
balık yemi için IFFO RS
sertifikası sağlayan bir
Danimarka Şirketiyle
1
5.2.1c
audit from third party. And
fish flour related certificates
will be supplied. An
The farm has not suffient evidence for the origin of all fish products in feed to The requirement was not
understood well.
demonstrate compliance with indicator 5.2.1.
Gelecek denetim üçüncü
Çiftlik 5.2.1. göstergesine uygunluğu göstermek için yemdeki tüm balık
Gereksinim iyi anlaşılmamıştır.
şahıstan yem fabrikası üretimi
ürünlerinin menşeine ilişkin yeterli kanıta sahip değildir.
denetimi dahil olarak talep
edilecektir. Ve balık ununa
ilişkin sertifikalar temin
edilecektir. 24.04.2015’te
1
The requirement was not
trained and understood at
audit.
Gereksinim hakkında eğitim
yapılmamış ve denetimde
18
19
5.2.1d
will be supplied. An
The farm do not identify which ingredients are certified as described in 5.2.1d.
Çiftlik hangi içerik maddelerinin 5.2.1d’de tanımlandığı gibi onaylandığını
understood well.
belirlememiştir.
Gereksinim iyi anlaşılmamıştır. şahıstan yem fabrikası üretimi
1
5.2.2a
will be supplied according to
the requirements.An
understood well.
1
The farm do not obtain FS scores for fish species
Çiftlik balık türleri için FS (Balık Kaynağı) puanlarını temin etmemektedir
20
21
5.2.2b
The fish specie as is used according to farm, is sardins from Morocco, the
result from Fish Source score is not compliant to requirement
Çiftliğe göre olduğu gibi kullanılan balık cinsi Morocco sardalyesidir, Balık
Kaynağı puanından elde edilen sonuç gereksinime uygun değildir
the requirements.An
understood well.
5.2.3a
the requirements.An
Feed supplier documentary evidence do not show that the origin of all
fishmeal and fish oil used in the feed is traceable via a third-party verified
chain of custody or traceability program, ISEAL-accredited or ISO 65-compliant
certification scheme
understood well.
Yem tedarikçisi belgeli kanıtı yemde kullanılan tüm balık yemi ve balık yağının
menşeinin üçüncü şahsın doğrulanmış gözetim zinciri veya izlenebilirlik
programı, ISEAL tarafından akredite edilmiş veya ISO-65’e uygun sertifikasyon
planı aracılığıyla izlenebilir olduğunu göstermemektedir.
1
1
22
23
24
25
5.2.3b
See 5.2.3a
audit from third part. And fish
flour related certificates will
be supplied according to the
requirements.An agreement
has been made with a Danish
Company who provides IFFO
RS certification for fish meal
in 24.04.2015.
understood well.
5.3.1b
The result from calculation of FFDRm is 1,61, no use of fish by-products
FFDRm ölçümünden alınan sonuç 1,61 olup, balık yan ürünleri
kullanılmamaktadır.
Wron calculation tools using
Yanlış hesaplama araçları
kullanılmaktadır.
5.4.2a
There is not a letter stating the farm's intent to source 100% of its feed
containing soya certified under the Roundtable for Responsible Soy (RTRS) or
equivalent
Çiftliğin amacının yemin %100’ünü Sorumlu Soya için Yuvarlak Masa (RRTS)
veya eşdeğeri altında onaylanmış soya içeren yemden tedarik edeceğini
gösteren bir beyan bulunmamaktadır.
audit.
5.4.2b
There is not a letter to feed producer Gümüşdoğa Feed for the farm's intent
to source 100% of its feed containing soya certified under the Roundtable for
Responsible Soy (RTRS) or equivalent within five years from 7 February 2013
Çiftliğin 7 Şubat 2013’ten itibaren beş yıl içinde yemin %100’ünü Sorumlu
Soya için Yuvarlak Masa (RRTS) veya eşdeğeri altında onaylanmış soya içeren
yemden tedarik etme amacını belirten yem üreticisi Gümüşdoğa Yeme
iletilmiş bir mektubu bulunmamaktadır.
Lack of information related to
letter.
Mektuba ilişkin bilgi eksikliği
vardır.
Calculation tools will be
updated and fish meal ratio
will be revised. The revised
formulation will be applied in
the production in 28.04.2015
Hesaplama araçları
güncellenecektir ve balık yemi
oranı değiştirilecektir.
Değiştirilen formül
28.04.2015’te üretimde
uygulanacaktır.
A letter stating the farm's
intent to source 100% of its
feed containing soya certified
under the Roundtable for
Responsible Soy (RTRS) or
equivalent, is sent
Çiftliğin yeminin %100’ünü
Sorumlu Soya Yuvarlak
Masası (RTRS) veya eşdeğeri
altında onaylanmış soya
içeren yemden tedarik etme
amacını ifade eden bir mektup
gönderilmiştir.
A letter stating the farm's
intent to source 100% of its
feed containing soya certified
under the Roundtable for
Responsible Soy (RTRS) or
equivalent, is sent
Çiftliğin yeminin %100’ünü
Sorumlu Soya Yuvarlak
Masası (RTRS) veya eşdeğeri
altında onaylanmış soya
içeren yemden tedarik etme
amacını ifade eden bir mektup
gönderilmiştir.
1
1
1
1
26
5.5.1b
27
5.5.1d
28
5.6.5b
29
30
6.5.1.D
6.5.1.E
There is not a calculation of Energy GHG scheme, for total energy using
calculation from electricity and diesel fuel, resulting in KJ per produced tons of trained and understood at
fish.
audit.
Üretilen balık tonu başına ortaya çıkan KJ (Kilojul) , elektrik ve dizel yakıttan
hesaplamayı kullanarak toplam enerji için Enerji Sera Gazı Planının bir
hesaplaması yapılmamıştır.
Calculation of energy as kJ/ton/year is not done
audit.
kj/ton/yıl olarak enerji hesaplaması yapılmamıştır
The waste from dead fish are buried at site, approved by authority, this
approval is not documented by outside expert
Lack of information
Ölü balık atığı tesiste gömülmektedir, yetkili makam tarafından onaylanmıştır, Bilgi eksikliği
bu onay harici uzman tarafından belgelenmemiştir.
Calculation will be complated
and send.
Hesaplama tamamlanacak ve
gönderilecektir.
1
Calculation will be complated
and send.
Hesaplama tamamlanacak ve
gönderilecektir.
1
Documented approval will be
complated.
Belgelenmiş onay
tamamlanacaktır.
1
There is no evidence that employer engagement with workers and their
representative organizations, and the use of cost of living assessments from
credible sources to assess basic needs wages performed. (Includes review of
any national basic needs wage recommendations from credible sources such lack of information for
as national universities or government.)
asessment.
İşverenin çalışanlarla ve temsilci örgütleriyle sözleşmesinin bir kanıtı yoktur Değerlendirme için bilgi
ve temel ihtiyaç ücretlerini değerlendirmek için güvenilir kaynakların yaptığı eksiktir.
(ulusal üniversiteler veya hükümet gibi güvenilir kaynaklardan ulusal temel
ihtiyaç ücretleri tavsiyelerinin incelemesini de kapsayan) geçim maliyetleri
değerlendirmelerinin kullanıldığının kanıtı yoktur.
Engagement with workers are
available and assessment and
basic needs will be added.
Assessment basis is
goverments min wages in
initial engaging the work and
addtional performance
education details will be
shown.
Çalışanlarla sözleşme
mevcuttur ve değerlendirme
ve temel ihtiyaçlar
eklenecektir.
Değerlendirmenin temeli işe ilk
alışta devletin asgari ücreti
olacaktır ve ilave performans
eğitimi detayları
gösterilecektir.
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
There is no evidence that employer has calculated the basic needs wage for
farm workers and has compared it to the basic (i.e. current) wage for their
farm workers.
İşverenin çiftlik çalışanları için temel ihtiyaç ücretlerini hesapladığını ve bunu
çiftlik çalışanları için taban (yani geçerli= ücretle karşılaştırdığının bir kanıtı
bulunmamaktadır
Assessment basis is
shown.
eklenecektir.
eğitimi detayları
gösterilecektir.
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
lack of information for
asessment.
Değerlendirme için bilgi
eksiktir.
1
1
31
32
33
34
35
lack of information for
asessment.
Değerlendirme için bilgi
eksiktir.
6.5.1.F
No method is defined to ensure that Employer has a system for paying a
basic needs wage to their workers.
İşverenin çalışanlarına temel ihtiyaç ücretini ödemek için bir sisteme sahip
olmasını sağlayan hiçbir yöntem tanımlanmamıştır.
6.9.2.A
Stakeholders (local comminities) are not identified and no evidence could be
seen that consultation with local community (villagers, neighbor companies or
other impacted parties) are consulted. at least twice every year (bi-annually).
Paydaşlar (yerel topluluklar) saptanmış ancak her yıl en az iki kez (altı ayda bir)
yerel topluma (ilçe sakinleri, komşu şirketler veya diğer etkilenen taraflara)
danışıldığına dair hiçbir kanıt görülmemiştir.
Standard requirements has not
been well understood.
Standart gereksinimler iyice
6.9.2.B
No objective evidence is seen that meaningful consultations are performed
as required by ASC standard (OPTIONAL: the farm may choose to use
participatory Social Impact Assessment (pSIA) or an equivalent method for
consultations. Mandatory for all farm sites with greater than ten (10)
staff/employees.)
ASC standardının gerektirdiği şekilde anlamlı müzakerelerin yapıldığına dair
somut kanıt görülmemiştir (İSTEĞE BAĞLI: çiftlik müzakereler için katılımcı
Sosyal Etki Değerlendirmesi (pSIA) veya eşdeğeri yöntemi kullanmayı tercih
edebilir. 10 (on)dan fazla personeli/çalışanı olan tüm çiftlik tesisleri için
zorunludur)
6.9.2.C
No objective evidence could be seen that Consultations include
participation by elected representatives from the local community who were
asked to contribute to the agenda.
Müzakerelerin gündeme katkıda bulunması istenen yerel toplumdan seçilen
temsilcilerin katılımını kapsadığına ilişkin hiçbir somut kanıt görülememiştir.
6.9.2.D
No objective evidence for maintaining records and documentary evidence
(e.g. meeting agenda, minutes, report) to demonstrate that consultations
comply with the above.
Müzakerelerin yukarıdakilere uygunluğunu gösteren kayıtlar ve belgeli
kanıtlar (örn, toplantı gündemi, tutanaklar, rapor) tutulduğunun hiçbir somut anlaşılmamıştır.
kanıtı görülememiştir.
Assessment basis is
shown.
eklenecektir.
eğitimi detayları
gösterilecektir.
Consultation plans has been
prepared and a consultation
with the villagers has been
done in April 2015.The plan
and consultation records will
be sent.
Müzakere planları
hazırlanmıştır ve ilçe
sakinleriyle bir görüşme Nisan
2015’te yapılmıştır. Plan ve
müzakere kayıtları
gönderilecektir.
be sent.
Müzakere planları
gönderilecektir.
be sent.
Müzakere planları
gönderilecektir.
be sent.
Müzakere planları
gönderilecektir.
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
36
37
38
39
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
6.9.3.A
6.9.3.B
No policy exist that The farm follows its policy for handling stakeholder
grievances as evidenced by farm documentation (e.g. follow-up
communications with stakeholders, reports to stakeholder describing
corrective actions).
Çiftlik belgeleri ile kanıtlanan (örneğin paydaşlarla izleme iletişimi,
paydaşlara düzeltici önlemleri açıklayan raporlar gibi) paydaş şikayetlerini
idare eden Çiftliğin izlediği hiçbir politika bulunmamaktadır.
The complaint and demand
procedure has been revised
Standard requirements has not and the working procedure for
personnel has been created in
03 April 2015.
Şikayet ve talep prosedürü
değiştirilmiştir ve personel için
çalışma prosedürü 3 Nisan
2015’te oluşturulmuştur.
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
6.9.3.C
No policy and implementation exist that The farm's mechanism for handling
grievances is effective based on resolution of stakeholder complaints and
community concerns (e.g. follow-up correspondence from stakeholders).
Paydaş şikayetlerini ve toplum kaygılarının çözümünü temel alan (örn,
paydaşlardan izleme iletileri) Çiftliğin şikayetleri idare etme mekanizmasının
etkin olduğunu gösteren hiçbir politika veya uygulama yoktur.
Standard requirements has not and the working procedure for
03 April 2015.
25.5.2015 Vicdan
UZUNOĞLU
1
7.4a
There is not a letter informing egg and fingerling suppliers that the supplier
must compile a list of IUCN Red Listed species in the relevant categories that
may occur on their property following the instructions in Indicator 2.1.3.
Yumurta ve yavru balık tedarikçileri tedarikçinin 2.1.3. göstergesindeki
talimatları takiben kendi mülklerinde meydana gelebilecek ilgili kategorilerde
IUCN Kırmızı Listedeki türlerin bir listesini derlemesinin gerektiğini bildiren bir
mektup bulunmamaktadır.
The letter was sent and not
available at audit
Mektup gönderilmiştir ve
denetimde mevcut değildir.
and the working procedure for
03 April 2015.
1
The letter was sent and not
available at audit
Mektup gönderilmiştir ve
denetimde mevcut değildir
03 April 2015.
1
1
1
7.4b
There is not a copy of the risk assessment produced on behalf of the egg and
fingerling suppliers and that this assessment covers the species listed in 7.4a.
Yumurta ve yavru balı tedarikçileri adına üretilmiş risk değerlendirmesinin ve
bu değerlendirmenin 7.4a’da belirtilen türleri kapsadığını gösteren bir suret
bulunmamaktadır.
41
7.9a
There is only suggestions for a
There is not a copy of supplier policies and procedures to verify the supplier's
policy from supplier.
commitment to address each of the 8 key ILO labor issues.
Tedarikçiden bir politika için
Tedarikçinin 8 kilit ILO işçi sorunlarının her birini ele alma taahhüdünü
sadece tavsiyeler
doğrulayan tedarikçi politika ve prosedürlerinin kopyası mevcut değildir.
bulunmaktadır.
42
7.9b
40
03 April 2015.
No Farm policy coud be seen to provide a mechanism for presentation,
treatment and resolution of grievances (i.e. complaints) lodged by
stakeholders, community members, and organizations.
Paydaşlar, topluluk üyeleri ve örgütler tarafından gönderilen yakınmalar
(yani şikayetlerin) sunumu, işlenmesi ve çözümüne dair bir mekanizma
sağlayan Çiftlik Politikası görülememiştir.
Supplier copies will be
obtained and will be sent as
evidence.
Tedarikçi kopyaları temin
edilecek ve kanıt olarak
gönderilecektir.
Supplier copies will be
There is only suggestions for a
There is not a copy of supplier policies and procedures to verify the supplier's
obtained and will be sent as
policy from supplier.
commitment to address each of the 8 key ILO labor issues.
evidence.
Tedarikçiden bir politika için
Tedarikçinin 8 kilit ILO işçi sorunlarının her birini ele alma taahhüdünü
Tedarikçi kopyaları temin
sadece tavsiyeler
doğrulayan tedarikçi politika ve prosedürlerinin kopyası mevcut değildir
edilecek ve kanıt olarak
bulunmaktadır.
gönderilecektir.
Name:
Company:
Date:
216
) or any other salmonid grown in fresh water
PRIN CIPLE 1: COMPLY W ITH ALL N ATION AL AN D LOCAL LAW S AN D REG U LATION S
14
27
74
331
CONFIRMITY
C
Criterion 1.1 Operate within the legal framework of national and local laws and regulations that are applicable and current
Compliance Criteria (Required Client Actions ):
M ajor NC M inor NC
COMMENTS -RATIONALE
NA
Auditor Evaluation (Required CAB Actions ):
Yaniklar farm was es tablis hed and bought , by the owneroccupier by today G Ü MÜ ŞDOĞ A SU Ü RÜ N LERİ Ü RETİM
İH RACAT VE İTH ALAT A.Ş. Authority requirement are
a. Maintain copies of key land and water us e laws (both local and national) that apply to regulating the
environmental and s ocial impacts of aquaculture.
des cribed in Environmental approval) Authority requirement
A. Confirm that the producer has copies of key land and water us e laws of direct relevance to aquaculture impacts .
1
are des cribed in Environmental approval from T.C. G ıda
Tarım ve H ayvancılık Bakanlığı (Food agricultural minis try)
bas ed on Bios afety law 18.3.2010 and aquaculture
regulation 18/ 06/ 2007 The us e of land and water for
production of trout are given from
Yaniklar farm is leas ed by G Ü MÜ ŞDOĞ A SU Ü RÜ N LERİ
Ü RETİM İH RACAT VE İTH ALAT A.Ş for five years from
b. Maintain original leas e agreements , land titles , or conces s ion permit on file as applicable.
B. Confirm that the client holds original leas e agreements or land titles .
1
21.7.2011 until 21.7.2016 , regis tered with Muğla
Directorate of Provincial Food Agriculture and Lives tock for
the us e of 1000 l/ s ek and a plant capas ity for 250
tons / year
c. Keep records of ins pections for compliance with national and local laws and regulations (if s uch
ins pections are legally required in the country of operation).
d. Obtain permits and maps s howing that the farm does not conflict with national pres ervation areas (s ee
Indicator 2.1.1)
C .Verify pres ence of a copy of records of ins pections (where s uch ins pections are legally required and paperwork can be provided to producers ).
1
D. Confirm that the producer has evidence s howing that the facility does not conflict with des ignated pres ervation areas and has required operational permits if s ited in s uch an area (s ee 2.1.1).
1
There is s upervis ion from for control of daily operations , in
addition to a yearly recipient control of
Map from s howing pres ervation areas in the actual area,
do not conflict with the production facility. This is in
compliance with regis tration
N ote: To ens ure that all tax-related information for 1.1.2 is available for auditor review, farms may wis h to cons olidate required documentation prior to the audit (e.g. when files are held at off s ite facilities s uch as a head office or accountancy).
a. Maintain copies of tax laws for juris diction(s ) where company operates .
A. Verify pres ence of a copy of tax laws .
1
b. Maintain records of tax payments to appropriate authorities (e.g. land us e tax, water us e tax, revenue tax).
N ote that CABs will not dis clos e confidential tax information unles s client is required to or choos es to make it B. Verify that the client has records of tax payments to the appropriate authorities . Do not dis clos e client tax information which is confidential.
1
public.
c. Regis ter with national or local authorities as an “aquaculture activity" where s uch regis tration is
cons is tent with regulations . Maintain copies of regis tration documents and the contact details for relevant
C. Verify that the client is regis tered with local or national authorities .
1
A. Confirm that the producer has copies of key labor laws and regulations of direct relevance to s ocial impacts of aquaculture.
1
authorities .
Tax Procedural Law N o: 213, 1.4.1961 are included in
clients documentation
Yearly invoice and payment of tax, from goverment,
amount given in TL
Yaniklar farm is regis tered with local or national
authorities .
N ote: Indicator 1.1.3 is res tricted in s cope and applies only to thos e farm s ites within the unit of certification.
a. Maintain copies of key labor laws and regulations that are applicable to regulating the s ocial impacts of
aquaculture.
LABOU R ACT OF TU RKEY Law N o. 4857 from Minis try of
Labour and Social Security, are included in clients
documentation
b. Keep records of farm ins pections for compliance with national labor laws and codes (only if s uch
ins pections are legally required in the country of operation).
B. Confirm that the client has the s pecified documentation from the appropriate authorities (where s uch ins pections are legally required and paperwork iprovided to producers ).
1
A. Confirm that the client maintains copies of key regulations and permitting requirements as s pecified.
1
B. Confirm that the client obtains water quality permits as applicable.
1
The documentation from the appropriate authorities T.C.
G ıda Tarım ve H ayvancılık Bakanlığı
The us e of land and water for production of trout are
a. Maintain copies of key regulations and permitting requirements that apply to water quality impacts , effluent
dis charge and water abs traction by the farm.
des cribed in (environmental approval), s een for Yaniklar
farm, and water abs traction permit from s urface water
from water abs traction permit is given
b. Obtain permits for water quality impacts where applicable.
s ee 1.1.4 A
There are analys e rapports from 2015, s ampled by from
inlet and outlet of farm. The requirement is a maximum
c. Maintain records of monitoring and compliance with dis charge laws and regulations as required.
C. Verify that records s how compliance with dis charge laws and regulations .
1
difference, bas ed on mean res ult through the year. The
res ults from outlet and from inlet of water, for N , P,
Sus pended s olids , and BI5
d. Obtain a s tatement from local authorities indicating the water abs traction limits (units given) for the farm. If
local authorities do not s et water abs traction limits for farms operating in the region, obtain of a s tatement
The permit for water abs traction is given from T.C.
D. Review the water abs traction limits s et for the farm by local authorities . If local authorities do not s et water abs traction limits , confirm that the farm has an attes tation.
1
e. Maintain records of water abs traction.
E. Verify that the farm keeps complete records of water abs traction.
1
s ee 1.1.4.C
-
F. Check the farm's water intake agains t the water abs traction limits to verify compliance with regulations or perrmits . Cros s -check agains t reported values for total water abs tracted (s ee 3.1.1b).
1
s ee 1.1.4.C
from local authorities attes ting to this fact.
ORMAN VE SU İŞLERİ BAKAN LIĞ I (Fores t and water
affairs )
[2] To determine its compliance with the requirements in 2.1, a producer will need documentation that analyz es the farm’s s iting and s urrounding habitats and ecos ys tems . Documentation can be bas ed on an Environmental Impact As s es s ment (EIA) or any other credible proces s of environmental as s es s ment.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 2.1.1 - Exceptions to Requirements that Farms are not s ited in National Protected Areas
Audit Manual - ASC Freshwater Trout Standard - version 1.0 Jan2013
Copyright © 2013 Aquaculture Stewardship Council. All rights reserved by Aquaculture Stewardship Council
Page 1 of 23
Map from Yaniklar farm s hows they are not in protected
a. Provide a map s howing the location of the farm relative to nearby protected areas as defined by national
laws (als o s ee 1.1.1e).
A. Review map of national protected areas and cros s -check agains t farm location.
1
B. If the farm is not s ited in a protected area, make note of this fact in the audit report. Otherwis e proceed to 2.1.1c.
1
area, The conclus ion from approval rapport is that Yaniklar
farm does not res ult in an increas ed load the fjord
environment for animal and plant s pecies .
b. If the farm is not s ited in a protected area as defined above, inform the CAB. In this cas e, the requirements
of 2.1.1c-d do not apply.
s ee 2.1.1
c. If the farm is s ited in a protected area, review the Ins tructions for Indicator 2.1.1 (above) to determine if the
farm is allowed an exception to the requirements . If yes , inform the CAB which exception (#1 or #2) is allowed C. Review the applicability of the exception reques ted by the farm together with the s upporting evidence to determine if the farm is eligible. If yes , Indicator 2.1.1 is not applicable.
1
NA
1
NA
and provide s upporting evidence.
d. If the farm is s ited in a protected area and the exceptions provided for Indicator 2.1.1 do not apply, then the
farm does not comply with the requirement and is ineligible for ASC certification.
D. Review evidence to determine whether the farm is allowed to be s ited in a protected area and hence eligible for ASC certification.
[3] A protected area is “a clearly defined geographical s pace, recogniz ed, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means , to achieve the long-term cons ervation of nature with as s ociated ecos ys tem s ervices and cultural values .” Source: Dudley, N . (Editor) (2008), G uidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories , G land, Switz erland: IU CN . x + 86pp.
[4] An exception is made for protected areas that are clas s ified by the International U nion for Cons ervation of N ature (IU CN ) as Category V or VI. Thes e are areas pres erved primarily for their lands capes , or areas that include s us tainable res ource management. Details can be found here: http:/ / www.iucn.org/ about/ work/ programmes / pa/ pa_products / wcpa_categories / .
[5] An exception is als o made for farms located in protected areas that are des ignated as s uch after the farm already was es tablis hed in that location. In thes e s ituations , the farm mus t demons trate that its operation is compatible with the objectives of the protected area, and that it is in compliance with any relevant conditions placed on the farm by authorities as a res ult of the protected
N ote: An exception to Indicator 2.1.2 is allowed where convers ion of wetlands is for water us e (e.g., canals for inlets and outlets ). Converted s urface area mus t be offs et by res toration of 100% of the equivalent area of functional wetlands with the s ame habitat characteris tics [7].
a. Provide documentary evidence s howing all cons truction or habitat convers ion on the farm s ince 1999.
A. Review evidence for date of all cons truction or habitat convers ion on the farm s ince 1999.
1
N o wetland
b. Provide a map delineating all wetlands (as defined in [6]) currently within a 5-km radius of the farm.
B. Evaluate whether there is evidence for any wetland convers ion occuring within a 5-km radius of the farm s ince 1999.
1
N o wetland
c. Prepare a map s howing wetland coverage in 1999 at the farm s ite.
C. If evidence s hows that current farm s iting or related activities have res ulted in los s of wetland habitat s ince 1999, then the farm is not certifiable.
1
N o wetland
Page 2 of 23
[6] W etland: G enerally, wetlands are lands where s aturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of s oil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the s oil and on its s urface. W etlands generally include s wamps , mars hes , bogs and fens (U .S. Environmental Protection Agency).
[7] Exception: Convers ion of wetlands for acces s to water (e.g., canals for inlets and outlets ): Converted s urface area mus t be offs et by res toration of 100% of the equivalent area of functional wetlands with the s ame habitat characteris tics .
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 2.1.3 - As s es sment of Impacts to IUCN Red Lis ted Species
a. Perform above analys is . Record all IU CN red lis ted s pecies and farm-related threats . Farm commis s ions
qualified academic ecologis t or environmental cons ultant to perform ons ite s urvey for s pecies lis ted in farm
analys is .
Farm could s how from IU CN lis t there was no endangered
A. Review credentials of expert who performed ons ite s urvey and report. Verify through interviews with relevant s takeholders (e.g. local community, eN G Os , government agency res pons ible for wildlife
s pecies in area, there is however no analys e or s urvey
1
protection), in order to cros s -check whether endangered s pecies exis t in the immediate vicinity of the farm.
from expert as s es s ment, s howing no cons equence or
negatively affect the habitat
b. Provide a map s howing location of the farm (s ee 1.1.1e) relative to the known dis tribution of IU CN redlis ted s pecies (categories as defined in the indicator) or critical habitats in the area.
B. Review the map and verify that client is aware of IU CN red-lis ted s pecies (categories as defined in the indicator) or critical habitats located near the farm.
1
There was no IU CN red-lis ted s pecies in habitat
C. Verify that client has performed an evaluation of farm impacts to IU CN Red Lis ted s pecies (as applicable).
1
There was no IU CN red-lis ted s pecies in habitat
D. Confirm that the farm has documented all mitigation meas ures and verify implementation during the on-s ite ins pecition (as applicable).
1
There is no potential for negative impact
c. If res ults from 2.1.3a (above) identify that IU CN Red Lis t s pecies occur within a 5 km radius of the farm
(including ups tream and receiving waters ), provide a documented evaluation of the farm's impacts on s uch
s pecies .
d. W here the res ults from 2.1.3c indicate a potential for negative impacts , prepare a s et of written and clearlydefined mitigation meas ures to reduce any negative impacts and allow exis tence of s uch s pecies .
[8] A riparian buffer z one is the land immediately abutting a water body.
N ote: An exception is made if the farm can demons trate through a third-party s cientific analys is that the farm’s s tructures do not impede animal habitats and corridors and do not pres ent eros ion ris ks [9].
a. Inform the CAB of the date when farm ins tallation was originally completed and any farm expans ions
thereafter (als o s ee 2.1.2a).
b. If farm ins tallation was completed before publication of the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard, then indicator
2.2.1 does not apply. Otherwis e proceed to 2.2.1c.
c. Prepare a diagram of the farm s howing the s iting and dimens ions of buffer z ones between the farm and
adjacent water body.
d. Ens ure that buffer z ones are free of farm infras tructure (res cue and s afety equipment is allowed as
appropriate to ens ure worker health and welfare).
A. Review evidence for date of farm ins tallation and expans ions .
1
Yaniklar farm has exis ted s ince 1990
B. Determine whether Indicator 2.2.1 is applicable to the farm.
1
C. Review diagram to verify that s iting of buffer z ones is appropriate and that the farm does not impede wildlife's acces s to the water.
1
D. During the on-s ite vis it, ins pect buffer z ones to verify appropriate s iting and dimens ions .
1
[9] An exception is made if the farm can demons trate through a third-party s cientific analys is that the farm’s s tructures do not impede animal habitats and corridors and do not pres ent eros ion ris ks .
Page 3 of 23
[10] The ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard defines “exotic s pecies ” as non-native animals living in areas outs ide their native boundaries .
N ote: Indicator 2.3.1 does not apply to farms that operate clos ed production s ys tems . A clos ed production s ys tem is defined as a facility with recirculating water that is s eparated from the wild aquatic medium by effective phys ical barriers that are in place and well maintained to ens ure no es capes of reared s pecimens
The farm is not defined as a clos ed production s ys tem,
a. Inform the CAB if the farm us es a clos ed production s ys tem according to the above definition (indicator
2.3.1 does not apply). Otherwis e, proceed to 2.3.1b.
A. Determine which type of culture s ys tem is us ed by the farm. If clos ed, then 2.3.1 does not apply (res pons e "n/ a"). Otherwis e, proceed to 2.3.1B.
1
B. Confirm which s pecies of trout is cultured by the farm.
1
C. Review the literature to determine if the cultured s pecies is generally cons idered native to the area. If yes , then 2.3.1 does not apply (res pons e "n/ a"). Otherwis e, proceed to 2.3.1D.
1
with no recirculation of water, there is however phys ical
barriers , gratings , precipitation bas in and outlet channel
with plants
b. Inform the CAB which trout s pecies is being cultured by the farm and maintain purchas e records (e.g.
receipts ) that identify the s pecies by Latin name.
The trout produced is Oncorhynchus mykis s
The trout produced is Oncorhynchus mykis s , the s pecies
c. Compile available primary literature (e.g. s cientific s tudies , government publications ) to determine whether
or not the cultured s pecies is generally cons idered to be native to the region in which the farm operates .
has been introduced to Turkey fres hwater farms for more
than 50 years ago, according to
http:/ / www.fao.org/ fis hery/ countrys ector/ nas o_turkey/ e
n
d. If the s pecies is cons idered non-native but was previous ly es tablis hed in the area (i.e. if it is an introduced D. If the s pecies is not cons idered native to the area, review available information to determine if it was introduced and had s elf-s us taining population es tablis hed in the wild before publication of the ASC
s pecies ), s earch the literature for a reliable es timate of the year of introduction.
Fres hwater Trout Standard (7 February 2013). If yes , then 2.3.1 does not apply (res pons e "n/ a"). Otherwis e, proceed to 2.3.1E.
-
E. Inform the client that the propos ed culture s tock is cons idered an 'exotic trout' under the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard and therefore the farm is ineligible for certification.
There is not a s elf-s us taining population es tablis h of the
1
s pecies Oncorhynchus mykis s in Turkey
1
[11] A clos ed production s ys tem is defined as a facility with recirculating water that is s eparated from the wild aquatic medium by effective phys ical barriers that are in place and well maintained to ens ure no es capes of reared s pecimens or biological material that might s urvive and s ubs equently reproduce.
[15] Trans genic trout: A s ubs et of genetically modified organis ms , which are organis ms that have ins erted DN A that originated in a different s pecies . Some G MOs contain no DN A from other s pecies and, therefore, are not trans genic but cis genic.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 2.4.1 - Culture of Trans genic vs . G enetically M odified Trout
a. Maintain records for the origin of all cultured s tocks including the s upplier name, addres s and contact
pers on(s ) for s tock purchas es .
b. Ens ure purchas e documents confirm that the culture s tock is not trans genic.
A. Review records to confirm compliance with the requirement.
All s uppliers are recorded with s upplier name, adres s and
1
B. If the auditor s us pects that trans genic fis h are in culture, add condition that the farm mus t have s tock identity tes ted by collecting 3 fis h for genetic analys is at an ISO 17025 certified laboratory.
s upplier contact pers on
1
There is not a s tatement or recording from s upplier that the
cultured s tock is not trans genic
[16] G enetic enhancement: The proces s of genetic improvement via s elective breeding that can res ult in better growth performance and domes tication but does not involve the ins ertion of any foreign genes into the genome of the animal.
The ris k as s es s ment from the farm s how, there is not a
a. Ens ure that farm procedures (s ee 2.5.2a) addres s all the farm meas ures for es cape prevention given in
Appendix VI. Align farm procedures agains t requirements in Appendix VI.
A. Review the lis t s howing how farm's SOP's meet all requirements given in Appendix VI.
1
B. During the on-s ite vis it, ins pect the culture s ys tem to verify proper maintenance of nets , s creens and barriers .
1
pos s ibility for the fis h to es cape from the farm. The farm
detailed map s hows water flow through farm, trough
s ludge bas in, and barriers / s creens 10 mm
b. Ens ure proper maintenance of the culture s ys tem and infras tructure to prevent es capes during grow-out and
harves t.
The barriers are as des cribed at farm map
The harves ting was obs erved; the fis h was collected with
a net and manually landed with a net into a container with
c. Arrange for the auditor to witnes s the farm's method of harves ting during the audit.
C. During the on-s ite vis it, obs erve how the farm haves ts fis h to verify effectivenes s of es cape prevention meas ures .
ice and water. The fis h was s tored in ice s lurry until no
1
activity and packed in boxes with ice immidiately before
trans ported in truck to s moking hous e. During harves t there
was not a pos s ibility for es cape of fis h.
There is not a ris k evaluation for s tocking of trout in net
a. Prepare a written SOP (s ee 2.5.1a) that incorporates an es cape ris k as s es s ment.
A. Review the farm's SOP to confirm it includes an es cape ris k as s es s ment. Include a s ynops is in auditing report for future s tandadiz ation of "ris k as s es s ment" requirements by ASC or s tandards s etting group.
b. Ens ure that the SOP is implemented on the farm.
B. During the on-s ite vis it, confirm that the SOP is implemented by direct ins pection and through interviews with key s taff.
1
1
cages located in s ettling pond before mechanical filter and
outlet. N et cages is not included on map
See 2.5.2a
Page 4 of 23
[17] SOP mus t clearly define the correct procedures for each as pect of farm operation, identify the ris ks involved and define mitigation procedures for prevention of es capes .
The s taff are trained for the operation follow requirements
a. In the SOP for reducing es capes (s ee 2.5.2a), provide a des cription of how the farm ens ures adequate s taff
capacity to addres s ris ks from es capes .
A. Review SOP to verify that farm addres s es s taffing capacity needs in order to reduce es capes .
1
B. Review records to verify that the farm regularly provides its employees with introductory or continuing training on es cape prevention procedures .
1
C. During the on-s ite vis it, conduct interviews with key s taff to confirm that training s es s ions are held regularly and workers are aware of ris ks .
1
in Appendix IV, daily reporting of s orting, weighing,
feeding, counting of dead fis h, including ins pection of
barriers daily
b. Maintain documentary records (e.g. minutes , attendance s heets ) from regular s taff trainings on es cape
prevention procedures .
There has been a training of s taff by farm manager and
s ubs equent at daily morning meetings , SOP and es capes
have been reviewed
-
The operator are fully aware of the ins pection and routines
in connection to pos s ible es capes
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 2.5.4 - Calculation of Es timated Unexplained Los s
a. For each production cycle, maintain detailed records of the following:
- s tocking count;
- harves t count;
A. Review records for completenes s .
1
NA
B. Verify accuracy of farm calculations for es timated unexplained los s .
1
NA
C. Verify that the farm makes the information available to the public and des cribe the means of acces s in the audit report.
1
NA
A. Review the farm's procedure for grading.
1
NA
B. Review records and as k producer to trace back a logical unit from harves t to s tocking, s howing when grading occurred.
1
NA
- mortalities ; and
- recorded es capes .
b. Calculate the es timated unexplained los s as des cribed in the ins tructions (above) for the mos t recent full
production cycle. For firs t audit, farm mus t demons trate unders tanding of calculation and the requirement to
dis clos e EU L after harves t of the current cycle.
c. Make the res ults from 2.5.4b publicly available (e.g. by publis hing information on the farm's webs ite). Keep
records of when and where the res ults were made public for all production cycles .
[18] Calculated as : U nexplained los s = Stocking count - harves t count - mortalities - other known es capes .
a. Prepare a written procedure for grading which des cribes the frequency and methodology for obtaining
counts .
b. Keep records of counts obtained at each grading.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 2.6.1 - Exception to Prohibition on Us e of Lethal Predator Control
There is no intentional us e of lethal predator control. There
a. Prepare a lis t of all predator control devices and their locations .
A. Review lis t and confirm device locations and working condition during the on-s ite ins pection.
1
B. Verify that the farm's predator control procedures are implemented and that there is no evidence the control meas ures are lethal.
1
is a s ound deterent equipement to keep eventually birds
from farm
b. Provide a des cription of farm procedures for managing predators (e.g. in the SOP identified in 2.5.2) which
explains how the farm ens ures that all actions are non-lethal.
The equipement des cribed in 2.6.1.A is es tablis hed
[20] The ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard permits an exception to the prohibition on lethal action in s ituations where the farm can provide evidence of an as s es s ment that demons trates lethal action agains t a particular predator is appropriate, neces s ary and pres ents no ris ks to wild populations or ecos ys tems . This exception cannot be applied to s pecies that are threatened, endangered
or critically endangered. The as s es s ment mus t come from an EIA or any other credible proces s of environmental analys is .
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.1.1 - Exemptions from M eeting the M axima for Water Abs traction
a. Inform the CAB if the farm s eeks an exemption to 3.1.1. and provide s upporting evidence (s ee Ins tructions ).
Otherwis e, proceed to 3.1.1b.
b. Maintain records of all water abs tracted by the farm and us e thes e values to calculate the total volume of
water abs tracted on an annual bas is .
The permit for water abs traction is given from T.C.
A. If the farm s eeks an exemption, review evidence for compliance with regulatory or s cientifically-derived water flow minima and provide a s ynops is in the audit report. Otherwis e, proceed to 3.1.1B.
1
ORMAN VE SU İŞLERİ BAKAN LIĞ I (Fores t and water
affairs )
B. Confirm that the farm maintains records of water abs traction and that calculations are accurate for annual volume of water abs tracted.
1
Page 5 of 23
c. Provide the CAB with reliable es timates of water flow immediately above the farm (e.g. s cientific s tudies ,
government publications ). U s e thes e values to calulate the total volume of water flow on an annual bas is .
C. Confirm that the farm has acces s to reliable es timates for water flow immediately above the farm and that caclulations are accurate for annual volume of water flow immediately above the farm.
d. U s e the res ults of 3.1.1b divided by 3.1.1c multiplied by 100 to determine the percent abs traction of the
D. Review data to verify that the volume of water abs tracted does not exceed 50% of the natural water body's flow immediately above the farm during any month of the year. One annual meas urement at point
natural water body's flow.
of maximum low flow rate period to demons trate les s than 50% water abs traction. The farmer is required to demons trate his torical s tatis tics of what period is definied as "low flow rate".
1
1
[21] Farms will be exempted from this requirement if they can demons trate that they are in a juris diction that regulates the farm’s water abs traction bas ed on a minimum vital water flow for the natural water body, and the farm’s water us e res pects that minimum vital flow. Farms would als o be exempt if they can demons trate abs traction amounts res pect limits determined by a s cientific
There is no us e of water, or s ignificant evaporation or
a. Retain records to s how how the farm ens ures that > 90% of abs tracted water is returned to the natural water
1
body.
-
leakage to the underground, the water is returned to the
river
B. During the on-s ite vis it, ins pect the water intake and dis charge areas to confirm that the farm has means of es timating returned water volume.
1
On-s ite ins pection of farm confirm return of water to river
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.1.3 - D is tinction between Surface Water and Underground Pumped Water
a. Identify any us e of underground pumped water by the farm and include in the farm map or diagram (s ee
A. Verify whether the farm us es underground pumped water or not and record this in the audit report.
1
b. Obtain permits from regulatory authorities .
B. Confirm that the farm has permits for all pumped water (as applicable).
1
-
C. During the on-s ite vis it, ins pect groundwater s ources (as applicable).
1
a. Ens ure that well tes ts are conducted at a s imilar time each year [22] us ing an appropriate methodology.
A. Review evidence to verify that the farm has wells tes ted at a s imilar time each year us ing an appropriate methodology.
1
1.1.1e and 2.2.1c).
The farm do not us e underground pumped water
Page 6 of 23
b. Maintain records of res ults from all tes ts of well depth.
c. Make the res ults from 3.1.4b available publicly (e.g. by pos ting on the farm's webs ite). Keep records of
when and where res ults were made public.
B. Confirm that the farm maintains res ults from tes ts of well depth.
1
C. Verify that the farm makes the information from 3.1.4b available to the public and record the tes ting res ults in the audit report (public s ection).
1
[22] W ell depths mus t be tes ted at s imilar times of the year, with res ults s ubmitted to ASC. More detailed methodology will be provided in the Auditing G uidance document.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.2.1 - Calculating Total Phos phorus Releas ed per Ton of Fis h Produced
a. Maintain records s howing the amount and type of feeds us ed during the pas t 12 months .
b. For all feeds us ed (res ult from 3.2.1a), keep records s howing phos phorus content as determined by
chemical analys is or bas ed on feed s upplier declaration (Appendix II-A).
c. U s ing equation #1 from Appendix II-A and res ults from 3.2.1a and b, calculate the total amount of
phos phorus added as feed during the las t 12 months of production.
A. Verify that farm has records for feeds us ed over the relevant time period.
1
B. Verify that farm has records s howing the phos phorus content in feeds .
1
C. Confirm that calculations are done according to Appendix II-A.
1
Records for us e of feed fom own feed factory G umus doga
Feed mill, kg and type are regis tered in farm
Datas heets for feed us ed s how phos phor content between
1,5and 2 %, the highes t phos por is s tarter feed for fry
Total amount of phos phor is calculated in feed as
des cribed in Appendix II-A
There are records for biomas s and numbers of fis h in
ponds at s tart period, dead fis h, harves t fis h and fis h at
d. Maintain records for s tocking, harves t and mortality which are s ufficient to calculate the amount of
biomas s produced (equation #2 in Appendix II-A) during the pas t 12 months .
D. Verify that the farm maintained all records needed to calculate the amount of biomas s produced during the pas t 12 months .
1
end of period for the las t 12 month. The res ulting FCR per
month is cons idered relative low (0,7-0,9) for the feed us ed
(15-20 % oil in feed) and the farm mus t s how FCR from
controlled trials from 3 ponds in one month
e. Calculate the amount of phos phorus in fis h biomas s produced (res ult from 3.2.1d) us ing equation #3 in
Appendix II-A.
f. If applicable, maintain records s howing the total amount of P removed as s ludge (equation #4 in Appendix IIA) during the pas t 12 months .
g. U s ing the formula in Appendix II-A and res ults from 3.2.1a-f (above), calculate total phos phorus releas ed
per ton of fis h produced.
E. Confirm that P-content calculations are done according to Appendix II-A.
1
F. As applicable, verify records s howing how the farm determined the amount of phos phorus removed from the s ys tem as s ludge.
1
G . Review calculations to confirm that the farm does not exceed requirements for total amount of phos phorus releas ed.
P-content of biomas s are done according to Appendix II-A
Sludge was removed from farm and P in s ludge was us ed
in the calculation
The res ult for total phos phorus is 9 kg/ mt of fis h, this mus t
1
be lowered before certification
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.2.2 - Oxygen Saturation in the Outflow
DO is meas ured morning and afternoon every day
a. Provide monthly monitoring records of DO percent s aturation in outlfow water for the previous 12 months .
For firs t audits , farm records mus t cover ≥ 6 months .
A. Review DO datas et to confirm that monitoring covers the required timeframe and that DO was ≥ 60% for each monthly water s ample.
1
B. If applicable (s ee res ults from 3.2.2a), review the farm's res ults from daily continuous monitoring to verify that DO s aturation in the outflow was ≥ 60% at all times for at leas t one week.
1
C. During the on-s ite vis it, obs erve how the farm calibrates equipment and takes DO meas urements (or takes s amples for chemical analys is ) to confirm compliance.
1
duringthe las t year, with res ults varying from 80-103 %
from inlet meas urements and from 68-80 % from outlet
meas urements .
b. If any s ingle value from 3.2.2a is < 60%, initiate daily continuous monitoring of DO for > 1 week with an
electronic probe and recorder. Maintain a record of the res ults .
c. During the on s ite vis it, make arrangements for the auditor to obs erve calibration of equipment and
meas urements .
There is not a meas urement of DO lower than 60 %
The DO meas urements have been done by trained farm
operators us ing an calibrated Oxyguard at the farm
[23] If a s ingle oxygen reading is below 60 percent, the farm would need to demons trate daily continuous monitoring with an electronic probe and recorder for at leas t a week with a minimum 60 percent s aturation at all times .
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.2.3 - M acroinvertebrate Surveys
The macro invertebrate analys e have been performed by
a. H ave a s cientific as s es s ment done in the area downs tream of the outlet to identify the z one mos t likely to
be impacted by farm dis charge. This as s es s ment mus t cons ider water mixing and dis tance from farm outlet.
A. Confirm that the farm us ed the res ults from a s cientific as s es s ment to determine the location of downs tream s ampling.
1
B. Review map to verify appropriate s iting of s ampling s tations relative to the s cientific as s es s ment (s ee 3.2.3a) and in compliance with Appendix II-C.
1
Süleyman Demirel Ü nivers ites i, EĞ İRDİR SU Ü RÜ N LERİ
FAKÜ LTESİ, Prof. Dr. Os man ÇETİN KAYA, for Biotic Index
Card
b. Prepare a map s howing the ups tream and downs tream trans ects and s ampling s tations us ed for
macroinvertebrate s urveys (s ee Appendix II-C).
c. Collect benthic s amples along trans ects in accordance with Appendix II-C and maintain records of all
s ample collections .
The s tations are des cribed in report from U nivers ity
The macro invertebrate has been reques ted by farm to be
C. Confirm that the s ample collection followed Appendix II-C.
1
confirmation of compiance from U nivers ity
d. H ave an accredited laboratory analyz e the s amples for benthic invertebrate fauna including
characteriz ation of s pecies compos ition, abundance, divers ity, and pres ence of key s ens itive indicator
done in accordance with appendix II-C, there is not a
D. Confirm that the laboratory us ed by the farm is accredited for analys es of benthic s amples . Review the laboratory res ults to confirm that the s amples of benthic fauna were characteriz ed as required.
1
s pecies .
e. U s ing s urvey res ults from 3.2.3d, compare the bentic health of areas downs tream from the dis charge to
E. Review the farm's comparis on of ups tream and downs tream benthic health to comfirm that the farm's conclus ions are directly s upported by objectvie evidence from benthic s urveys . Verify that s urveys s how
thos e areas ups tream of the dis charge to as s ure no change.
compliance with the requirement.
1
The univers ity laboratory is not accredited for analys es of
benthic s amples
The res ults from the s ampling from U nivers ity res ult 20
ups tream and 20 downs tream the farm
There has not been earlier res ults from ups tream and
F. Compare how dis parity between ups tream and downs tream benthic health has or has n't changed through time to determine future s urveillance frequency (s ee ins tructions ).
1
-
downs tream analys e from earlier year, and will be
followed at s urveillance audits
N ote: Detailed des cription of the bios olids (s ludge) Bes t Management Practices is given in Appendix II-D of the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard.
There is a farm bio s olid (s ludge) management plan
a. Prepare a bios olids (s ludge) management plan that addres s es all requirements in Appendix II-D.
A. Review the farm's bios olids (s ludge) management plan for compliance with Appendix II-D.
1
compliance with Appendix II-D, with a map for flow of
water s ludge and water treatment, there is not an
identification and s olution of ris ks as flood
b. Prepare a proces s flow diagram of the key s teps taken to res pons ibly manage s ludge identifying treatment,
trans fer, s torage, utiliz ation and dis pos al.
B. Evaluate the flow diagram to confirm it covers all s teps (e.g. cleaning routines of pipes , s umps , channels and units ).
1
A proces s flow diagram is connected to s ludge
management plan, s how flow of s ludge as s een at farm
Page 7 of 23
c. Maintain records of bios olid (s ludge) cleaning, maintenance, and dis pos al as des cribed in Appendix II-D.
C. Review the farm's records to verify there is evidence of implementation of bios olids management as required in Appendix II-D.
1
-
D. During the on s ite vis it, ins pect the farm and conduct community interviews to verify there is no evidence for dis charge of bios olids into natural water bodies .
1
A. Do not s chedule the on-s ite audit until client has monitoring datas et.
1
B. Review Matrix to verify that client monitored all four required parameters at the required frequency.
1
There is a regis tration of s ludge dis pos al from
There has been no evidence for dis charge of bio s olids
into natural water bodies , no notes from authorities
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.2.5 - Water Quality M onitoring M atrix, Land-Bas ed Sys tems
a. Conduct ≥ 6 months of water quality monitoring before firs t audit. Thereafter, monitoring s hould be part of
production practices for certified farms .
b.Complete the W ater Quality Monitoring Matrix (Appendix II-B) and s ubmit to CAB.
c. Calibrate all equipment at the frequency and by the method recommended by the manufacturer. Calibrate
daily if there is no manufacturer's recommendation.
d. During the audit of the farm, arrange to conduct water quality monitoring. The auditor will witnes s water
s ampling.
e. Collect water s amples and prepare them for s hipment to a laboratory (if applicable).
f. Perform routine analys is of water s amples (i.e. done in the s ame manner as for previous months of water
quality monitoring).
g. Record values for each parameter and s ubmit res ults to CAB.
h. Submit data on water quality monitoring to ASC as per Appendix II-B.
W ater monitoring datas et for 12 month es tablis hed
The matrix fulfilled for TP, TN , BOD and TSS
C. Verify that client calibrates equipment as required.
1
N A, analys es by accredited laboratory
D. W itnes s the client conducting water quality monitoring.
1
E. W itnes s the farm collecting water s amples or (if applicable) preparing s amples to s end to an independent laboratory.
1
F. W itnes s the farm's analys es of water s amples or (if applicable) review evidence that the independent laboratory is s uitably qualified to perform analys es .
1
G .Review the recorded values and examine cons is tency with the farm's previous res ults for water quality monitoring.
H . Confirm that client has s ubmitted data on water quality to ASC (Appendix II-B).
1
Parameters are cons is tent
Datas et for water monitoring as per Appendix II-B, has not
1
been s ubmitted to ASC
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 - Clas s ification of Surface Area of Water Body
a. Determine the s urface area of the water body where the farm operates .
b. Inform the CAB if res ults from 3.3.1a indicate that the water body is les s than 1,000 km2 s urface area and
proceed to 3.3.1c. Otherwis e, go to 3.3.2.
c. Obtain a documentated as s imilative capacity s tudy for the water body where the farm operates . The
as s imilative capacity s tudy mus t addres s all requirements des cribed in Appendix II-E.
A. Review data to confirm that it comes from an accurate and reliable s ource.
1
B. Verify that the farm has correctly as s igned the water body to a s iz e clas s . If the water body is ≥ 1,000 km2 then Indicator 3.3.1 does not apply.
1
C. Review the as s imilative capacity s tudy to verify it meets the requirments of Appendix II-E (e.g. appropriatenes s of model us ed, s cope of inves tigation, and analys es performed).
1
Page 8 of 23
d. Provide evidence that the farm production levels reflect the res ults of the as s imilative capacity s tudy in
3.3.1c.
D. Review the conclus ions pres ented in 3.3.1c to verify that loading from farm production levels does not exceed water body capacity to as s imilate.
1
A. Verify that the farm has correctly as s igned the water body to a s iz e clas s . If the water body is < 1,000 km2 then Indicator 3.3.2 does not apply.
1
B. Review the evidence from the regulatory agency to confirm that the s ite is clas s ified as "Type 3" according to the required methodology (if applicable).
1
C. As applicable, verify that the cons ultant was s uitably qualified and provided a detailed analys is to s upport the determination.
1
D. Confirm that actual cage locations are at s ites clas s ified as Type 3.
1
A. Do not s chedule the on-s ite audit until client has monitoring datas et.
1
B. Verify that client calibrates equipment as required.
1
C. W itnes s the client conducting water quality monitoring.
1
E. Examine independent analys es performed by an independent laboratory (i.e. not by farm s taff) for cons is tency with farm res ults for months where duplicate s amples taken.
1
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.2 - Water Body Clas s ifications as Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3
a. Determine the s urface area of the water body where the farm operates (s ee 3.3.1a). If the s urface area is
1,000 km2 or greater, proceed to 3.3.2b. Otherwis e, go to 3.3.1
b. Provide evidence that the water body clas s ification was performed by a regulatory agency as required
under Appendix II-F. If no regulatory agency has clas s ified the water body, proceed to 3.3.2c.
c. If applicable, hire a qualified independent cons ultant to analyz e and clas s ify the s ite where the farm
operates in accordance with the definitions in Appendix II-F.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.3 - Water Quality M onitoring, Cage-Bas ed Sys tems
a. Conduct ≥ 6 months of water quality monitoring before firs t audit and s ubmit to CAB.
b. Calibrate all equipment at the frequency and by the method recommended by the manufacturer. Calibrate
daily if there is no manufacturer's recommendation.
c. During the audit of the farm, arrange to conduct water quality monitoring at location of auditor's choice.
e. Collect water s amples at the s ame location as 3.3.3a and obtain analys is from a water quality laboratory
at leas t once annually.
f.As s ure that values from laboratory are cons is tent with values obtained from laboratory res ults . If values
differ by >5%, demons trate how equipment has been recalibrated, replaced, or how procedures have been
modified.
g. Submit data on water quality monitoring to ASC as per Appendix II-B.
F. Examine percent error between farm meas urements and auditor meas urements .Determine whether ammendments made are s ufficient. Auditor is at liberty to reques t a s econd s et of tes ts to confirm accurate
recalibration.
G . Confirm that client has s ubmitted data on water quality to ASC (Appendix II-B).
1
1
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.4 - Es tablis hing a Bas eline Total Phos phorus Concentration
a. Provide CAB with a des cription of the farm's TP monitoring program (e.g. s ampling s tation, s ampling
A. Review farm's des cription of the TP monitoring program to verify it complies with requirements . W here s ituations aris e with complex modified water bodies (eg: large lakes and/ or hydroelectric facilities ) ;
1
protocol, name of laboratory us ed).
res ulting in high or variable water depth fluctuations ; s ites s hould record with frequent monitoring flow, depth and water quality
b. Implement monitoring of TP as des cribed in the ins tructions for Indicator 3.3.3.
B. During on s ite vis it, obs erve s ample collection, proces s ing, and trans port or mailing to the laboratory.
1
C. Review the farm's evidence for es tablis hment of a bas eline TP concentration and record the value and rationale in the audit report.
1
d. Provide monthly TP monitoring data to the CAB.
D. Review TP data s et for completenes s and cros s -check agains t previous monitoring res ults for cons is tency.
1
-
E. Review TP monitoring records and verify that no quarterly TP concentration is ≤ 20 µg/ l.
1
a. Provide CAB with a des cription of the farm's oxygen s aturation monitoring program (s ee Indicator 3.3.3).
A. Review farm's des cription of the oxygen s aturation montioring program to verify it complies with requirements .
1
b. Implement monitoring of oxygen s aturation according to the methods des cribed above.
B. During on s ite vis it, obs erve s ample collection, proces s ing, and trans port or mailing? to the laboratory.
1
c. Provide oxygen monitoring data to the CAB.
C. Review oxygen s aturation data s et for completenes s and cros s -check agains t independent laboratory res ults . Rais e a non-conformity for dis parities >/ = 5%.
1
D. Review oxygen s aturation monitoring records and verify that no quarterly value is <50%.
1
A. Verify that farm obtains evidence that the trophic s tatus of the water body has been previous ly s et by a competent authority (as applicable).
1
B. Verify that the farm has correctly as s igned trophic s tatus to the water body us ing bas eline TP concentration.
1
C. Review the farm's conclus ion to verify compliance with the requirement.
1
A. Verify that the farm has jus tification for s electing the TP value to s erve as the bas eline TP concentration for the water body (as was done for 3.3.4).
1
B. Verify that farm has accurately catergoriz ed the s iz e of the water body.
1
C. Verify that farm has accurately calculated the current annual average TP concentration us ing data from the reference s tation.
1
D. Verify that the farm has made accurate calculation of the percentage difference in TP concentration.
1
E. Confirm that any obs erved increas e in phos phorus concentration falls within the maximum allowed range for the s iz e of water body where the farm operates .
1
A. Verify that farm has records for feeds us ed over the relevant time period.
1
B. Verify that farm has records s howing the phos phorus content in feeds .
1
C. Confirm that calculations are done according to Appendix II-A.
1
D. Verify that the farm maintained all records needed to calculate the amount of biomas s produced during the pas t 12 months .
1
c. Identify the bas eline TP concentration of the water body (s ee Ins tructions above) and provide the CAB with
evidence to s how how this value was es tablis hed.
[24] This concentration is equivalent to the upper limit of the Mes otrophic Trophic Status clas s ification as des cribed in Appendix II-H .
d. Collect oxygen s aturation s ample in the pres ence of an auditor and auditor witnes s es trans fer to an
accredited lab or lab employee.
a. Obtain documentary evidence s tating the trophic s tatus of water body if previous ly s et by a competent
authority (if applicable). If not, got to 3.3.6.b
b. If the trophic s tatus of the water body has not previous ly been clas s ified, us e the bas eline TP
concentration (res ult from 3.3.4c) to as s ign a trophic s tatus to the water body according to the table in
Appendix II-H .
c. Compare the current trophic s tatus of the water body (res ults from either 3.3.6a or 3.3.6b) to the trophic
s tatus reported in all previous audits . For firs t audits , this requirement is not applicable.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.7 - Calculation of Percent Increas e in TP from Bas eline
a. U s e the res ult from Indicator 3.3.4 (above) to identify the bas eline TP concentration that will be us ed to
calculate percent change from bas eline.
b. U s e the res ult from Indicator 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (above) to identify the s iz e of the water body in which the
farm operates .
c. U s e TP monitoring data from the reference s tation taken over the pas t 12 months to calculate the current
annual average concentration of TP.
d. Calculate the difference between 'bas eline TP' and the annual average TP concentration over the mos t
recent 12 months according to the ins tructions given above.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 3.3.8 - Calculation of Total Phos phorus Releas ed per Ton of Fis h Produced
a. Maintain records s howing the amount and type of feeds us ed during the pas t 12 months .
b. For all feeds us ed (res ult from 3.3.8a), keep records s howing phos phorus content as determined by
chemical analys is or bas ed on feed s upplier declaration (Appendix II-A).
c. U s ing equation #1 from Appendix II-A and res ults from 3.3.8a and b, calculate the total amount of
phos phorus added as feed during the las t 12 months of production.
d. Maintain records for s tocking, harves t and mortality which are s ufficient to calculate the amount of
biomas s produced (equation #2 in Appendix II-A) during the pas t 12 months . Value taken from 3.2.1.d
Page 9 of 23
e. Calculate the amount of phos phorus in fis h biomas s produced (res ult from 3.3.8d) us ing equation #3 in
Appendix II-A.
f. If applicable, maintain records s howing the total amount of P removed as s ludge (equation #4 in Appendix IIA) during the pas t 12 months . This compliance criteria valid for flow-through s ys tems but does not apply for
cage s ys tems .
g. U s ing the formula in Appendix II-A and res ults from 3.3.8a-f (above), calculate total phos phorus releas ed
per ton of fis h produced.
E. Confirm that P-content/ biomas s produced calculations are done according to Appendix II-A.
management, and ris k as s es s ment
b. Ens ure that the FH P is reviewed and updated at leas t annually with s ignatures by farm management
indicating approval.
c. Ens ure that the farm's des ignated veterinarian reviews and approves the FH P annually and after each
update of the FH P, by s ignature.
1
cage s ys tems .
G . Review calculations to confirm that the farm does not exceed requirements for total amount of phos phorus releas ed.
a. Prepare a Farm H ealth Plan (FH P) that is s ite-s pecific and addres s es bios ecurity, veterinary health, cris is
1
F. As applicable, verify records s howing how the farm determined the amount of phos phorus removed from the s ys tem as s ludge. This compliance criteria valid for flow-through s ys tems but does not apply for
1
A. Review the farm health plan to confirm that it adequately addres s es each of the relevant requirements .
1
B. Verify that farm management approves review and update of the FH P at leas t annually.
1
C. Confirm that the farm has paperwork s howing s ignature and date of review by des ignated vetrinarian.
1
a. Des ign a s et of health s tatus metrics that can be evaluated at all relevant phas es of the life his tory. H ave
A. Verify that the farm has des igned health s tatus metrics which are reas onable and can be evaluated acros s the life his tory. Confirm that the metrics were approved by the farm's des ignated health care
the metrics reviewed and approved by the farm's des ignated health care profes s ional.
profes s ional.
A farm health plan, is es tablis hed covering the relevant
requirements , dated 15.10.2014, s igned by veterinarian
The farm health plan will be updated yearly
H ealth plan s igned by veterinarian 15.10.2015
Agricultural Minis try has a defined area for health s tatus for
1
fis h farms , health s tatus of farm is in s ame area as
s uppliers
Fis h are not moved from lower to higher s tatus of health,
b. Ens ure that the farm's des ignated health care profes s ional s amples fis h on-s ite during an annual
ins pection and maintains records of conditions us ing metrics defined by 4.1.2a.
B. Examine the farm's record of conditions from annual ins pection by the farm's des ignated health care profes s ional.
1
C. Ens ure records of evaluations are taken from all main cohorts in production at the time of the veterinary health care profes s ional's ins pection.
1
health s tatus checked from deliveries . H ealth s tatus is
checked by veterinarian every s econd month, records
verified
c. Ens ure that the s amples of health condition (from 4.1.2b) are taken from all of the main cohorts in
production during each health s tatus ins pection .
Evaluations are updated from all s tages at farm
Page 10 of 23
d. Prior to accepting a trans fer of fis h, ens ure that the s upplier has evaluated fis h us ing the farm's health
s tatus metrics in 4.1.2a. Farm's may als o us e evidence from s tatutory evaluations (e.g. health certificates ) as
a bas is for accepting trans fers provided that the evaluations are appropriately documented.
e. Ens ure that res pons ible farm s taff are trained in evaluating condition us ing health s tatus metrics .
D. Verify that the farm has evidence of s uppliers evaluating fis h us ing the farm's health s tatus metrics prior to accepting trans fer. Or, if applicable, verify that the farm reviews evidence from s tatutory
evaluations before accepting trans fers .
E. Verify that res pons ible s taff unders tand how to evaluate condition us ing health s tatus metrics .
Fis h are not moved from lower to higher s tatus of health,
1
health s tatus checked from deliveries .
1
Staff are fully aware of health s tatus metrics
Veterinarian and s taff are calibrated at every vis it, as farm
f. The farm s hows evidence that ins pections by the veterinary health profes s ional include co-s coring of fis h
condition with farm s taff, with comparis on for cons is tency after s coring.
F. Verify that the farm has s ome form of evidence s howing that co-s coring has been calibrated between the veterinary health profes s ional and farm s taff.
s taff have evaluated eventually s icknes s at reques t of
1
veterinarian. At weekly vis it from veterinarian health s tatus
are calibrated
g. Ens ure that farm s taff evaluate a s ubs ample of individuals in all s hipments . Thos e not conforming are
returned to the s upplier with health s tatus metrics recorded.
G . Verify that the farm has evidence of s taff evaluating a s ubs ample of individuals for all s hipment and that s hipments are or are not releas ed as appropriate.
1
A. Verify the farm has evidence that receivers have conveyed condition s cores to the farm prior to accepting trans fer.
1
B. Verify that appropriately trained s taff (as per 4.1.2e) have evaluated health condition and have recorded res ults prior to out-s hipments .
1
C. Verify that the farm has a protocol that as s ures that evaluations s how health s tatus in receiving location is equal to or les s than that in the s hipping location.
1
A. Verify that the required protocols exis t.
1
Fis h from all s hipments are evaluated from s taff before
received, s ign by farm manager as s een from
a. Ens ure that receivers evaluate fis h health condition us ing metrics defined by the farm's des ignated
veterinary health s pecialis t (4.1.2a) at the receiving location prior to trans fer, and to convey this information
Condition s cores are known by s taff and verified by
veterinarian and regis ter
prior to trans fer.
b. Ens ure that trained farm s taff (4.1.2e) evaluate the health condition of a s ubs ample of individuals prior to
moving fis h off s ite.
c. Ens ure that fis h are only moved off s ite if there are records demons trating that fis h health in the receiving
location is equal to or les s than that in the s hipping location.
Trained s taff evaluate health condition of fis h, farm
manager s ign delivery note at dis patch
Condition s cores are known by s taff and verified by
veterinarian and regis ter
In farm health plan there is des cription of hygiene and
a. Prepare written protocols for s ite acces s , dis infection and hygiene (thes e protocols may be incorporated
into the Farm H ealth Plan in 4.1.1a).
dis infection. Operators change to work wear before
entrance to farm through foot bath. Vis itors are given coats ,
hair nets and boots or s hoe covers before entering the farm
area
b. In the above protocols (4.1.4a) make direct reference to national regulations related to s ite acces s ,
B. Verify that relevant national legis lation has been appropriately accounted for in protocols .
1
c. Ens ure that farm protocols for s ite acces s , dis infection and hygiene are implemented.
C. Verify that the farm has on-s ite acces s to all materials needed for implementation of dis tinfection and hygiene protocols .
1
-
D. Confirm that relevant s taff are aware of nature and intent of protocols through interview.
1
dis infection and hygiene.
Legis lation are accounted for in Fis h health plan
There is s ign at farm to prevent acces s to hatchery, feed
s torage and s ite
Staff follow the practice at farm, and are aware of intention
Dead fis h are depos ited in whole in underground, treated
a. Maintain records for all dis pos al of fis h tis s ue including mortalities and fis h trimmings .
A. Verify that the farm maintains records of all dis pos al of fis h tis s ue.
1
with chalk and covered with earth when filled up, the
B. Verify that the farm's protocol provides an adequate rationale to ens ure bios ecure dis pos al of mortalities and fis h trimmings .
1
C. Verify that relevant national legis lation has been appropriately accounted for in the protocol.
1
Legis lation are accounted for in Fis h health plan
D. Confirm that relevant s taff are aware of nature and intent of protocols through interviews .
1
Staff are fully aware of the protocol
procedure is in accordance with authoriity permis s ion
b. Create a protocol for bios ecure dis pos al of biological tis s ue and fis h trimmings with a rationale explaining
how bios ecurity is achieved.
c. In the above protocol (4.1.5b), make explicit reference to any national regulations related to dis pos al of
biological was te.
-
In Fis h H ealth Plan are des cription of treatment and
dis pos al of dead fis h
N ote: On-s ite inves tigation of mortality events (4.1.6c) is not required when farms have all mortality events inves tigated immediately off-s ite (4.1.6d).
a. Maintain records of all mortalities and identify caus e where known, or actions taken if unknown.
Dead fis h are collected every day, there are regis tration of
A. Verify that the farm maintains relevant records of mortality events including timing of res pons e and inves tigation of caus e.
1
B. Review a s ample of records and s upporting evidence to confirm that the farm inves tigated each unexplained mortality event within 24 hours of detection.
1
C. Verify evidence of records and methods us ed on s ite to inves tigate mortality events .
1
s ee. 4.1.6.B
D. Verify that farm has a record of opinion from fis h health expert for off s ite inves tigations of mortality events .
1
s ee. 4.1.6.B
a. Maintain log s howing the date of vis it, title and affiliation of des ignated veterinarian.
A. Verify that an ins pection log is maintained.
1
b. Obtain s ignature from des ignated veterinarian confirming ins pection and date.
B. Verify that ins pections frequency is compliant with requirements .
1
c. Maintain on s ite, a current (within 3 years ) CV of the farm's des ignated veterinarian.
C. Verify that the credentials of the des ignated veterinarian conform to the definition in Footnote 26.
1
-
D. U s e feed records to ens ure that ins pections occurred during production.
1
b. Ens ure that the mortality records in 4.1.6a include objective evidence (e.g. time-s tamped photographs or
s imilar) s howing the farm inves tigated each unexplained mortality event within 24 hours of detection.
c. For inves tigation of mortality events that are coducted on s ite, maintain a record of the tes ts us ed and the
res ults obtained.
d. For any mortality events in 4.1.6c where the res ults were unexplained or unattributed, have a relevant fis h
health profes s ional perform an off s ite inves tigation and keep a record of their opinion as to caus e.
number or amount of dead fis h from every pond
For mortality of fis h, veterinarian are contacted to vis it
farm. There has not been an exceeded mortality of fis h the
las t year
There is an Ins pection report from every veterinarian vis it,
There is a yearly ins pection by veterinarian, 26.3.2014, in
addition to vis its during the year
There is a CV, dated of the des igned veterinarian, cand.
Med. Vet.
Ins pections occurred during production, according to feed
records
[26] A des ignated veterinarian is the profes s ional res pons ible for health management on the farm who has the legal authority to diagnos e dis eas e and pres cribe medication. H e/ s he is expected to have a degree in veterinary medicine and a s trong background in fis h dis eas e control.
a. Include rationale for maximum s tock dens ity in the farm health plan (s ee 4.1.1) that refers to peer reviewed A. Verify that a s ection is included in the farm health plan that rationaliz es s tocking dens ity and contains relevant references . Cros s -check a s ample of the peer-reviewed citations to confirm legitimacy and
reference material.
quality.
b. Obtain s ignatures from the des ignated veterinarian during annual ins pection confirming agreed maximum
s tocking dens ity.
Stocking dens ity are planned together with des igned
1
veterinarian at yearly ins pection and updated in Fis h
H ealth Plan 15.10.2014
Approved maximum s tocking dens ity kg/ m3 in bas ins and
B. Verify that the des ignated veterinarian approved the maximum s tocking dens ity at each annual ins pection.
1
in ponds according to s iz e of fis h, at ins pection
15.10.2014, s igned by veterinarian
c. Prepare a letter s igned by the farm s enior manager s tating that maximum s tock dens ity was determined
jointly by the des ignated veterinarian and s ite management.
-
There is not a letter from s enior manager s tating that
C. Verify that the farm has a s igned letter from the s enior manager s tating that maximum s tock dens ity was determined by the des ignated veterinarian and s ite management.
1
maximum s tock dens ity was determined by the
des ignated veterinarian and s ite management
D. Verify through interviews with s ite manager that he/ s he was cons ulted in the decis ion to determine maximum s tock dens ity.
1
Maximum s tock dens ity are planned in coordination with
farm management and veterinarian
Page 11 of 23
a. Create requis ite protocols which include at a mimimum: name of the veterinary health profes s ional
pres cribing treatment; product name and chemical name (for all therapeutants and antimicrobials ); treatment
plan and reas on for us e (s pecific dis eas e); date(s ) of treatment; amount (g) of product us ed; dos age; quantity
There is a treatment plan, vis it rapport from veterinarian
A. Verify that farm has a treatment plan and records of all treatments , health events and veterinary pres criptions .
1
b. Keep required records and receipts outlined in 4.2.1a and as s emble them for the las t full production cycle. B. Verify that the farm has receipts that match treatments over a s ubs ample of time and cros s -check pres criptions and treatment records agains t the FH P.
a. Maintain a lis t of therapeutants (including antibiotics ) banned by the EU and update the lis t no les s than
A. Cros s -check receipts for treatments / therapeutants and confirm that none are items banned under EU law. If ASC has agreed to maintain a lis t of relevant therapeutants , farms can demons trate that they have
annually.
this lis t.
b. Ens ure that s taff res pons ible for purchas ing and adminis tering therapeutants (including antibiotics ) are
aware of banned therapeutants lis ted in 4.2.2a.
c. Maintain records of voluntary and/ or mandatory chemical res idue tes ting conducted or commis s ioned by
the farm from the prior and current production cycles .
d. Prior to each s urveillance audit, provide the auditor with a lis t of all production lots . The auditor may us e
the lis t to s elect random s amples for chemical res idue tes ting.
and records of all treatments in farm handbook, this
include antibiotic and vaccinations .
of fis h treated (mt); W H O clas s ifcation of any antibiotics ; and s upplier of chemicals or therapeutants .
1
1
B. Verify through interviews with s taff that they are aware that the us e of therapeutants banned under EU law is not permitted.
1
C. As applicable, review res ults from any voluntary or mandatory chemical res idue tes ting to verify that no EU banned s ubs tances were detected.
1
D. If there is credible reas on to s us pect that fis h have been treated with chemicals banned in the EU , collect tis s ue s amples from at leas t 3 fis h for chemical analys is at an ISO 17025 certified laboratory.
1
Every treatment are pres cript by veterinarian and recorded
N o treatment or therapeutants banned under EU law
There is a clear unders tanding of banned therapeutants ,
only approved therapeutants are us ed
Res idue tes ting are performed by authorities
This is an initial audit, there is no reas on for s us pect that
fis h has been treated with chemicals banned by EU
Page 12 of 23
Ins tructions to Clients for Indicator 4.2.3 - Us e of Prebiotic and Probiotic Treatments
a. Inform the CAB if the farm us ed any prebiotic or probiotic treatments for the las t full production cycle and, if
applicable, provide chemical names .
b. Maintain records of all chemical antimicrobial treatments for the las t full production cycle as per 4.2.1a and
4.2.1b.
c. Provide records to s how that all chemical anitmicrobial treatments identified in 4.2.3b were pres cribed by
the farm's veterinary health care profes s ional before application.
a. Maintain records of all antimicrobial treatments for the las t full production cycle as per 4.2.1b.
A. Determine if the farm's us e of prebiotics or probiotics qualifies for an exclus ion (s ee Ins tructions ), verify that the chemical compounds are not banned in the EU , and provide a rationale in the audit report.
1
B. Verify records of treatments and cros s -check agains t purchas es and inventories of chemical antimicrobial compounds .
1
C. Review records of antimicrobial treatments and cros s -check agains t pres criptions to verify there is no evidence for prophylactice treatments .
1
A. Review farm records (4.2.1b) to identify all antimicrobial treatments us ed for the las t full production cycle.
1
There has been no us e of prophylactic treatment
The antimicrobial components us ed, are pres cribed by
veterinarian
The antimicrobial components us ed, are pres cribed by
veterinarian
There is farm records of all antimicrobial treatment for the
las t production cycle
b. Make public dis clos ure of all antimicrobial treatments (4.2.4a) over the las t full production cycle (e.g. by
publis hing information on the farm's webs ite). Optional: farms may choos e to dis clos e information about
antimicrobial treatments by completing Appendix VI from the ASC Salmon Standard and then s ubmitting the
B. Verify that the farm has dis clos ed information about antimicrobial treatments and that the information is readily acces s ible by the public.
There has not been publis hed Information about
1
antimicrobial treatments
form to ASC for publication on the ASC webs ite.
a. Reques t that the veterinary health profes s ional creates a record lis ting dis eas es that pres ent a ris k in the
region and the relevant, available vaccine (or abs ence of a s uitable vaccine).
b. Maintain a record of all vaccinations adminis tered.
c. W here the veterinary health profes s ional has lis ted a dis eas e that does not have a commercially viable
vaccine, or a when an exis ting vaccination has not been adminis tered (for whatever reas on), reques t that the
veterinary health profes s ional s upplies a written rationale for avoiding vaccination in the vaccination record.
There is a requirement in environmental approval to
A. Verify that the farm holds a lis t of the regional dis eas es that als o gives the relevant, available vaccine or s tates the abs ence of a s uitable vaccine.
1
B. Verify that the farm maintains a vaccination record.
1
vaccinated agains t ERM (red mouth dis eas e) Vaccination
of fis h with ERM vaccine
C. If a vaccine exis ts for a regional dis eas e but was not adminis tered, ens ure that the farm's health profes s ional provided a rationale. Cons ult outs ide expert for a s econd opinion if the rationale is unus ual or
weak.
All vaccinations is regis tered in farm log book, s igned by
veteriarian
1
There is one exis ting vaccine xx
PRIN CIPLE 5: U SE RESOU RCES IN AN EN VIRON MEN TALLY EFFICIEN T AN D RESPON SIBLE MAN N ER
Ins truction to Clients and CABs for Auditing Indicators 5.1.1 through 5.4.4 - Sourcing of Res pons ibly Produced Trout Feeds
a. From each feed producer obtain a lis t of all ingredients repres enting more than 1% by weight of the feed as
s pecified in Indicator 5.1.2 (below).
A. Confirm that the farm obtains relevant ingredient lis ts for all feeds us ed (als o s ee 5.1.2a).
There is a lis t of feed ingredients , for feed ingredients from
1
feed producer G umus doga Fis h Feed Plant
b. For all feed ingredients identified in 5.1.1.a, provide copies of third-party documentation s howing certified
traceability of the production s ite and (for fis h products ), fis hing area, landing s ite, s pecies and harves t
There has not been s howed a certified traceability for all
B. Verify that farm has a copies of certificates from the feed manufacturer demons trating chain of cus tody capable of tracing back to fis hing area, landing s ite, s pecies and harves t method
1
feed ingredients for production s ite and for fis h products ,
method.
fis hing area, landing s ite, s pecies and harves t method.
c. For three ingredients of marine origin (fewer if fewer are us ed), collate three examples of traceback
procedures conducted by a third-party auditor for the s elected feed ingredients to the point of landing and
C. Review examples of tracebacks for completenes s and confirm compliance.
There has not been s hown examples of traceback to the
1
point of landing and ves s el, in the s ource fis hery.
ves s el, in the s ource fis hery.
d. For producers wis hing to s ource from a feed manufacturer us ing a mas s balance approach, provide a report
from an ons ite third-party audit of the feed manufacturer to as s ure traceability as in 5.1.1.b.
D. Verify that audit reports contain evidence of appropriate mas s -balance records and procedures at the feed manufacturer (if applicable).
The farm has not a defined pos ition if they will us e the
1
mas s balance approach
[28] Traceability s hould be at a level of detail that permits the feed producer to demons trate compliance with the requirements in this document (i.e., marine raw ingredients mus t be traced back to the fis hery, s oy to the region grown, etc.). Feed manufacturers will need to s upply the farm with third-party documentation of the major ingredients covered under this requirement (e.g., marine
a. Obtain a s tatement from each feed s upplier (on company letterhead) identifying all feed ingredients that
make up more than 1% of the feed by weight. Market names mus t be accompanied by s cientific latin names
A. Confirm that the producer has lis ts of ingredients for all feeds us ing appropriate nomenclature and cros s -check a s ubs ample of ingredient lis ts agains t feed bags during on-s ite ins pection.
1
B. During the on-s ite ins pection, cros s -check a s ubs ample of ingredient lis ts agains t feed bags .
1
There is a lis t of feed ingredients
for natural ingredients and formal chemical nomencalture for s ynthetic products .
-
The lis t of feed ingredients from feed bag of products xxx
is included in feed ingredient lis t
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.2.1 - Feeds Containing Products that are Certified under an ISEAL-Accredited Scheme
a. Prepare a policy s tating the company's s upport of efforts to s hift feed manufacturers purchas es of fis hmeal
and fis h oil to fis heries certified under a s cheme that is an ISEAL member and has guidelines that s pecifically
promote res pons ible environmental management of s mall pelagic fis heries . Include s upporting text from the
A. Verify that the client's policy s upports res pons ible feed s ourcing (e.g. programs at http:/ / www.is ealalliance.org/ portrait/ full%20member).
1
B. Verify that the client has prepared a letter of intent and has notified feed all its s uppliers accordingly.
1
There is a not policy for s upporting res pons ible feed
s ourcing, s igned by owner
relevant portion of the certification s cheme s howing management unique to s mall pelagics .
There is not a letter to feed producer G umudos a Fis h Feed
b. Prepare a letter s tating the farm's intent to preferentially s ource feed containing fis hmeal and fis h oil
originating from fis heries certified under the type of certification s cheme in 5.2.1a and inform all feed
Plant for preferentially s ource feed containing fis hmeal and
fis h oil originating from fis heries certified under the type of
s uppliers .
c. U s e feed inventory and feed s upplier declarations in 5.1.2a to develop a lis t of the origin of all fis h
products us ed as feed ingredients .
certification s cheme in 5.2.1a
The farm has not s uffient evidence for the origin of all fis h
C. Confirm that the farm has s ufficient evidence for the origin of all fis h products in feed to demons trate compliance with indicator 5.2.1.
1
D. Confirm that the farm identifies which ingredients are certified as des cribed in 5.2.1d.
1
products in feed to demons trate compliance with indicator
5.2.1.
d. U s e the lis t from 5.2.1c to identify which fis hmeal and fis h oil feed ingredients come from fis heries
certified under a s cheme that is ISEAL-accredited and has guidelines that s pecifically promote res pons ible
The farm do not identify which ingredients are certified as
des cribed in 5.2.1d.
environmental management of s mall pelagic fis heries .
e. Starting 7 February 2016, provide evidence that the volume of certified ingredients (res ult from 5.2.1d) is ≥
10% of the total volume of fis hmeal and fis h oil ingredients (res ult from 5.2.1c).
f. Starting 7 February 2018, provide evidence that 100% of fis hmeal and fis h oil us ed in feed come from
certified fis heries as per 5.2.1d.
E. As of 7 February 2016, review evidence and confirm compliance. Prior to 7 February 2016, 5.2.1e does not apply.
1
Is applicable 3 year after publication of Standard
F. As of 7 February 2018, review evidence and confirm compliance. Prior to 7 February 2018, 5.2.1E applies .
1
Is applicable 3 year after publication of Standard
[29] This s tandard applies to fis hmeal and oil from forage fis heries and not to by-products or trimmings us ed in feed.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.2.2 - Fis hSource Score of Products Us ed in Feed
a. Provide a FS s core for each fis h s pecies identified as a feed ingredient (s ee 5.1.2a) for all feeds us ed by
the farm during the las t 12 months . For firs t audits , farm records mus t cover ≥ 6 months .
A. Verify that the farm obtains FS s cores for all fis h s pecies lis ted as feed ingredients .
1
The farm do not obtain FS s cores for fis h s pecies
Page 13 of 23
The fis h s pecie as is us ed according to farm, is s ardins
-
B. For a s ubs ample of fis h s pecies lis ted in 5.2.2a, us e the Fis hSource online databas e to check the validity of the farm's FS s cores for the time period within two months of the ons ite audit.
1
from Morocco, the res ult from Fis h Source s core is not
compliant to requirement
[30] Fis hs ource s cores and their methodology are available here: http:/ / www.fis hs ource.org/ s ite. W hile the s core mus t be counted us ing Fis hs core methodology, Fis hs ource its elf does not need to calculate the s core.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.2.3 - Third-Party Verification of Traceability
Feed s upplier documentary evidence do not s how that the
a. Obtain from the feed s upplier documentary evidence that the origin of all fis hmeal and fis h oil us ed in the
feed is traceable via a third-party verified chain of cus tody or traceability program.
origin of all fis hmeal and fis h oil us ed in the feed is
A. Review evidence and confirm that a third party verified chain of cus tody or traceability program was us ed for the fis hmeal and fis h oil.
1
traceable via a third-party verified chain of cus tody or
traceability program, ISEAL-accredited or ISO 65-compliant
certification s cheme
b. Ens ure that all s pecies within the s cope of the chain of cus tody or traceability program align with fis h meal
and fis h oil ingredients us ed in the farm's feeds (cons is tent with 5.2.2.a and 5.3.1.a).
B. Verify that the s cope of the chain of cus tody audit matches ingredient lis ts for feeds .
1
See 5.2.3a
N ote: Ins tructions for s earching the IU CN databas e are given under Indicator 2.1.3.
a. Compile and maintain a lis t (as per 5.3.1a below) of the fis hery of origin for all fis hmeal and fis h oil
originating from by-products and trimmings .
A. Review lis t and for cons is tency with 5.3.1a.
1
N o by-products us ed in feed
Page 14 of 23
b. For each by-product s pecies (5.2.4a) that is an ingredient of any feed us ed during the las t 12 months ,
s earch the IU CN databas e to determine if it is categoriz ed as vulnerable, endangered, or criticatlly
B. Confirm that the farm has identified all byproducts and cros s -check a s ubs ample of s pecies to verify their IU CN Red Lis t categoriz ation.
1
N o by-products us ed in feed
endangered. For firs t audits , farm records mus t cover ≥ 6 months .
[31] An exception is made for s ub-populations of “vulnerable” s pecies that can demons trate healthy populations through a fis hery certified by the Marine Stewards hip Council, or approved by the technical committee of the IFFO Res pons ible Sourcing s tandard.
[32] The IU CN reference can be found at http:/ / www.iucnredlis t.org/
[1] The Forage Fis h Depending Ratio requirement in Principle 5 is calculated for fis h s iz es of 30 grams or higher.
[33] The FFDR requirements are calculated for fis h weighing 30 grams and more.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.3.1 - Calculation of Fis h M eal FFD R
a. Maintain a detailed inventory of the feed us ed including:
- Quantities us ed of each formulation (kg);
- Percentage of fis h oil in each formulation us ed;
- Source (fis hery) of fis h oil/ EPA/ DH A in each formulation us ed;
Records of kilo feed us ed and percentage of fis h meal
A. Verify completenes s of records and that values are s tated in a declaration from the feed manufacturer.
1
us ed for calculation of FFDRm verified from declaration
from feed manufacturer
- Percentage of oil in each formulation derived from trimmings ; and
- Supporting documentation and s igned declaration from feed s upplier.
b. Calculate FFDRm us ing formulas in Appendix III. Exclude fis h meal derived from rendering of s eafood byproducts (e.g. the "trimmings " from a human cons umption fis hery).
B. Verify that relevant calculations were done correctly, byproducts were excluded in calculations and confirm the value complies with the s tandard. Include in public audit report.
1
The res ult from calculation of FFDRm is 1,61, no us e of fis h
by-products
N ote: Farms are allowed s elect one of two options (Option A or Option B) to demons trate compliance with the requirements of Indicator 5.3.2.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.3.2 Option A - Calculation of Fis h Oil FFD R
a. Inform the CAB whether the farm chos es Option A or Option B to s how compliance. If Option A is s elected,
proceed directly to 5.3.2b below. Otherwis e, s kip to Option B in the next s ection.
A. Record which option the client chos e and proceed to evaluate compliance with the applicable s et of compliance criteria.
1
B. Verify completenes s of records as done for 5.3.1A.
1
Option A is chos en
Records of kilo feed us ed and percentage of fis h meal
b. Maintain a detailed inventory of the feed us ed as s pecified under 5.3.1a.
us ed for calculation of FFDRm verified from declaration
from feed manufacturer
Page 15 of 23
c. Calculate FFDRo us ing formulas for eFCR value as given in Appendix III .
C. Verify that relevant calculations were done correctly, by-products were excluded in calculations and confirm the value complies with the requirement. Include in public audit report
1
The res ult from calculation of FFDRo is 2,73
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.3.2 Option B - Calculation of EPA and D H A in Feed
a. Inform the CAB whether the farm chos es Option A or Option B to s how compliance. If Option B is s elected,
A. Record which option the client chos e and proceed to evaluate compliance with the applicable s et of compliance criteria.
1
b. Maintain a detailed inventory of the feed us ed as s pecified under 5.3.1a.
B. Verify completenes s of records as done for 5.3.1A.
1
c. Calculate EPA/ DH A percentage us ing formula in Section 2 of Appendix III.
C. Verify that relevant calculations were done correctly, by-products were excluded in calculations and confirm the value complies with the requirement. Include in public audit report
1
proceed directly to 5.3.2b below. Otherwis e, return to Option A in the previous s ection.
N ote: In determining whether the policies of a feed manufacturer fulfill the requirements of Indicator 5.4.1, the CAB may als o cons ider evidence s uch as certificates is s ued by independent third-parties agains t relevant requirements covering internationally recogniz ed moratoriums and laws .
a. Compile and maintain a lis t of all feed s uppliers with contact information (s ee als o 5.1.1a).
b. Obtain from each feed manufacturer a copy of the manufacturer's res pons ible s ourcing policy for feed
ingredients s howing how the company complies with recogniz ed crop moratoriums and local laws [34].
c. Obtain copies of third-party audits of feed s uppliers (5.1.1) and confirm that thes e s how evidence that
s upplier's res pons ible s ourcing policies are implemented.
There is one feed s upplier, from own fis h feed producer
A. Review feed s upplier lis t and cros s -check agains t feed purchas es (s ee als o 5.1.1a).
1
B. Review policies from each feed s upplier to confirm required s ourcing policy is in place.
1
Searching policy is des cribed in quality s tatement
C. Verify that the s cope of third-party audits of feed s uppliers includes review of policies and evidence of implementation.
1
Fis h feed factory has a valid G lobalG AP certification
G ümüş doğa Feed located in Milas / Muğla
[34] Specifically, the policy s hall include that vegetable ingredients , or products derived from vegetable ingredients , mus t not come from the Amaz on Biome as geographically defined by the Braz ilian Soya Moratorium.
a. Prepare a letter s tating the farm's intent to s ource 100% of its feed containing s oya certified under the
Roundtable for Res pons ible Soy (RTRS) or equivalent by 7 February 2013.
There is not a letter s tating the farm's intent to s ource
A. Obtain a copy of the client's letter of intent.
1
100% of its feed containing s oya certified under the
Roundtable for Res pons ible Soy (RTRS) or equivalent
There is not a letter to feed producer G ümüş doğa Feed for
b. N otify feed s uppliers of the farm's intent (5.4.2a) and keep record of confirmation (letter of recognition) from
s upplier that they have received the farm's letter of intent.
B. Verify letter of recognition from s upplier.
the farm's intent to s ource 100% of its feed containing
1
s oya certified under the Roundtable for Res pons ible Soy
(RTRS) or equivalent within five years from 7 February 2013
c. Obtain and maintain declarations from all feed s uppliers detailing the origin of s oya in the feeds .
d. Starting 7 February 2013, provide evidence that s oya us ed in feed is certified by the RTRS or equivalent
[77].
C. Confirm that the farm has s ufficient evidence for the origin of s oya products in feeds to demons trate compliance with indicator 5.4.2 after 7 February 2013.
1
D. As of 7 February 2013 review evidence and confirm compliance. Prior to 7 February 2013, 5.4.2d does not apply.
1
W ill be completed within 5 years after publication of
s tandard
W ill be completed within 5 years after publication of
s tandard
[35] The technical governance s tructure of the ASC mus t approve any other certification s cheme as equivalent.
Ins truction to Clients and Auditors for Indicator 5.4.3 - D is clos ure of Feed Ingredients Containing Trans genic Plant M aterial
a. Obtain from feed s uppliers a dis clos ure detailing all plant material us ed as feed ingredients (i.e. s oya and
others plants ) and s pecify which of thes e ingredients contains >0.9% trans genic plant material by weight.
A. Review feed s upplier declarations to confirm that all s uppliers have made a dis clos ure identifying any ingredient containing 0.9% trans genic plant material.
1
There is no us e of trans genic plant material, this is verified
by analys es of incoming s oy and finis hed feed
[36] Trans genic: Containing genes altered by ins ertion of DN A from an unrelated s pecies ; this involves taking genes from one s pecies and ins erting them into another s pecies to get that trait expres s ed in the offs pring.
Page 16 of 23
N ote: for the purpos es of Indicator 5.4.4, the direct purchas er or 'buyer' is cons idered to be the pers on or entity who makes payment to the producer in exchange for pos s es s ion of harves ted fis h.
a. For feeds with ingredients containing > 0.9% trans genic plant material (i.e. thos e feeds s pecified in 5.4.3a),
ens ure that the farm can identify any harves ted fis h that were fed s uch products . If no s uch feeds were
A. If applicable bas ed on res ults of 5.4.3a, verify that the farm has a robus t method for identifying harves ted fis h that were reared us ing s aid feeds .
1
N o us e of G M material in feed
B. Review the farm's lis t of buyers and cros s -check with s ales records and invoices (as applicable).
1
1
identified in 5.4.3a, then Indicator 5.4.4 is not applicable.
b.If applicable, prepare and maintain a current lis t of all buyers who purchas e fis h directly from the farm. The
lis t mus t include contact details of buyers .
c. If applicable to harves ted fis h (s ee 5.4.4a), dis clos e to buyers (5.4.4b) any feeds us ed with ingredients
containing >0.9% trans genic plant material. Maintain documentary evidence of dis clos ures . For firs t audits ,
farm records of dis clos ures mus t cover > 6 months .
C. Verify evidence that the farm dis clos ures to all buyers information about trans genic feeds . Cros s -check the plant material lis t from feed s upplier (5.4.3.a) to s ee that all trans genic plant ingredients were
dis clos ed.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 5.5.1 - Energy Us e As s es s ment
a. Maintain records for all energy cons umption on the farm by s ource (fuel, electricity) throughout the year.
b. U s e res ults from 5.5.1a and relevant convers ion factors to calculate the farm's total energy cons umption in
kilojoules (kj) during the las t 12 months .
c. Calculate the total weight of fis h produced (in metric tons , mt) during the las t 12 months .
d. U s e the res ults of 5.5.1b divided by the res ults of 5.5.1c to calculate energy cons umption on the farm in
kilojuoule/ mt fis h/ year.
e. Provide the CAB with evidence that the farm has had an energy us e as s es s ment (s ee Ins tructions above)
within the las t 12 months .
A. Verify that the farm maintains records for energy cons umption.
1
There is maintained records for energy cons umption
There is not a calculation of Energy G H G s cheme, for total
B. Review the farm's calculations for total energy us e and cros s -check agains t farm records for energy cons umption.
1
energy us ing calculation from electricity and dies el fuel,
res ulting in KJ per produced tons of fis h.
C. Cros s -check the farm's reported annual production agains t other farm data s ets (e.g. harves t counts , es capes , and mortalities ) to confirm accuracy (s ee 2.5.4 and 4.1.5 ).
1
D. Review the farm's energy us e calculations to confirm accuracy and completenes s .
E. Verify that the farm has had an energy us e as s es s ment.
Total weight of fis h verified
1
Calculation of energy as kJ/ ton/ year is not done
1
Farm has an energy us e as s es s ment continuous ly
Storage of combus tibles dies el oil, in tank
a. Maintain a written lis t of all combus tibles on the farm.
A. Verify that the farm has a complete lis t of combus tibles on the premis es .
1
b. Ens ure that all combus tibles are s tored in waterproof bunds .
B. Verify the s torage locations of combus tibles with res pons ible s taff and confirm that combus tibles are s tored in waterproof bunds during the on-s ite ins pection.
1
a. Maintain a detailed lis t of all chemicals or therapeutants on the farm.
A. Verify that the farm has a complete lis t of chemicals and therapeutants on the premis es .
1
b. Ens ure that all chemcials or therapeutants are s tored in impermeable containers or buildings .
B. Verify the s torage locations of chemicals with res pons ible s taff and confirm during the on-s ite ins pection that all chemicals or therapeutants are s tored in impermeable containers or buildings .
1
Storage of dies el oil is in waterproof tank
The lis t of chemicals for in Fis h H ealth Plan is updated
with actual chemicals
Chemicals and therapeutants are s tored in impermeable
containers or buildings
a. Prepare a written policy explaining how us ed lubricants are recycled or turned over to a was te
management company. If no was te management company exis ts , obtain a s igned letter from the government A. Verify policy with res pons ible s taff and obs erve was te containers in us e during the on-s ite ins pection. Or, examine letter of confirmation if relevant.
1
There is a "W as te and recycling" policy
agency in charge of was te dis pos al at the provincial/ s tate level as confirmation.
b. W here was te is collected by a was te management company, maintain receipts of payment for s ervices .
Payment to municipality for was te/ renovation, delivery
B. Verify that the farm has records of payment to was te management company.
1
A. Verify policy with res pons ible s taff and obs erve was te containers in us e during the on-s ite ins pection. Or, examine letter of confirmation if relevant.
1
B. Verify container tally bas ed on record of chemical purchas es vers us containers in us e/ re-cycled.
1
C. Verify that the farm has records of dis pos al or payment to was te dis pos al company.
1
W as te payment verified
A. Verify farm policy with res pons ible s taff and examine handling of non-haz ardous , non-recyclable was tes during the on-s ite ins pection. Or, examine letter of confirmation if relevant.
1
There is a "W as te and recycling" policy,
one time per week
a. Prepare a written policy explaining how the chemical containers are reus ed or turned over to a was te
management company. If no was te management company exis ts , obtain a s igned letter from the government
agency in charge of was te dis pos al at the local level as confirmation that neither public nor private was te
W as te policy is implemented
dis pos al s ervices are available.
b. W here containers are re-us ed, maintain records of chemical purchas es and demons trate tallied alignment
agains t the number of containers in re-us e/ re-cycled.
-
Chemical containers are reus ed, there is a program for total
us e and s torage of chemicals
a. Prepare a written farm policy explaining how and which non-haz ardous , non-recyclable was tes are turned
over to a was te management company or buried on-s ite. If no was te management company exis ts , obtain a
s igned letter from the government agency in charge of was te dis pos al at the local level as confirmation that
neither public nor private was te dis pos al s ervices are available.
Page 17 of 23
b. For on-s ite burial of was te, s how that an outs ide expert (hired groundwater or geology cons ultant with
minimum of five years experience and univers ity degree, or academic groundwater geologis t) has s igned a
letter affirming that was te burial pos es no ris k of contamination to s urface and underground waters . Maintain
The was te from dead fis h are buried at s ite, approved by
B. Verify that farm has letter affirming lack of impacts to fres hwater due to buried was te protocols by an expert with the s tated credentials .
1
c. Include a s tatement in the farm was te dis pos al policy (5.6.5a) which prohibits the burning of nonhaz ardous , non-recyclable was tes .
authority, this approval is not documented by outs ide
expert
CV of outs ide expert on file for pos s ible ins pection.
C. Verify that burning is covered in the farm policy. During the audit, ins pect the farm to verify there is no evidence of burning was te materials (not allowed).
1
There is a "W as te and recycling" policy
W as te payment verified from las t delivery verified, was te
d. W here was te is collected by a was te management company, maintain receipts of payment for s ervices .
D. Verify that the farm has records of payment to was te dis pos al company.
1
e. W here was te collection is a public s ervice, s how s chedule of collections .
E. Verify was te collection s chedule.
1
is s orted in plas t, glas and card board in addtion to res t
W as te collection every week
A. Contact the local was te management agency to determine acces s ibility of the three clos es t recycling facilities that were identified by the farm.
1
W as te recycling at local authority facilities are known,
B. Review the farm's s tatement of commitment to us e thos e recycling facilities that are acces s ible to the farm.
1
See 5.6.6 A
C. During the on-s ite vis it, interview relevant s taff and make direct obs ervations to confirm that farm recycling procedures are implemented.
1
Staff are fully aware of recycling procedures
D. Review infractions and corrective actions , if any.
1
was te
[37] In cas e of abs ence of a managed landfill in the area, farms are allowed to bury non-haz ardous s olid was tes on s ite, provided all precautions have been taken to prevent the contamination of s urrounding s urface and underground waters . W as tes that are not biodegradable mus t not be burned on s ite becaus e of the pos s ible emis s ions of toxic gas es .
a. Provide a lis t of the three clos es t recycling facilities for relevant farm products (regardles s of how far away
thes e may be). Provide the auditor with contact informationl for the local was te management agency.
b. Prepare a written s tatement articulating the farm's commitment to recycle was te from production.
c. Provide a des cription of the types of production was te materials and how thes e are either dis pos ed of, or
recycled.
d. Inform CAB of any infractions or fines for improper was te dis pos al received during the previous 12 months
and corrective actions taken.
**********
Social requirements of this Standard shall be audited by an individual who is a lead auditor in conformity with SAAS Procedure 200 section 3.1.
Compliance Criteria
N ote: In mos t countries , the law s tates that minimum age for employment is 15 years . There are two pos s ible exceptions :
a. Minimum age of permanent workers is 15 or older (except in countries as noted above).
1
b. Employer maintains age records for employees that are s ufficient to demons trate compliance.
1
The younges t worker is XXX who is over 18 years old.
(birthday:XXXX)
A copy of ID cards are maintained at facility on the other
hand pers onnel files including emplloyee contract
orientation records etc are kept in H O which is at Milas .
[38] Child: Any pers on under 15 years of age. A higher age would apply if the minimum age law of an area s tipulates a higher age for work or mandatory s chooling.
[39] Child labor: Any work by a child younger than the age s pecified in the definition of a child.
[40] Young worker: Any worker between the maximum age of a child, as defined above, and under the age of 18.
[41] H az ard: The inherent potential to caus e injury or damage to a pers on’s health (e.g., being unequipped to handle heavy machinery s afely and unprotected expos ure to harmful chemicals ). H az ardous work: W ork that, by its nature or circums tances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, s afety or morals of workers .
Compliance Criteria
Awaewnes s of employee can be increas ed although
contract terms are explained to workers with meeting.On
a. Contracts are clearly s tated and unders tood by employees . Contracts do not lead to workers being indebted (i.e. no ‘pay to work’ s chemes through labor contractors or training credit programs ).
1
the other hand contarct terms s hould be reviewed to
remove mandatory overtime wording (in the
realimplemantation empleyee is freely choos e the
overtime)
b. Employees are free to leave workplace and manage their own time.
1
Confirmed duirng the interview.
c. Employer does not withhold employee’s original identity documents .
1
d. Employer does not withhold any part of workers ’ s alaries , benefits , property or documents in order to oblige them to continue working for employer.
1
e. Employees are not to be obligated to s tay in job to repay debt.
1
Payrolls are prepared and s hared with employee monthly.
f. Maintain payroll records and be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm the above.C387
1
XXXX and XXXX s ampled) All items above are confirned
during worker interviews .
[42] Forced (Compuls ory) Labor: All work or s ervice that is extracted from any pers on under the menace of any penalty for which a pers on has not offered hims elf/ hers elf voluntarily or for which s uch work or s ervice is demanded as a repayment of debt. “Penalty” can imply monetary s anctions , phys ical punis hment or the los s of rights and privileges or res triction of movement (e.g.,
[43] Bonded labor: W hen a pers on is forced by the employer or creditor to work to repay a financial debt to the crediting agency.
Compliance Criteria
[44] Dis crimination: Any dis tinction, exclus ion or preference that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment. N ot all dis tinction, exclus ion or preference cons titutes dis crimination. For ins tance, a merit- or performance-bas ed pay increas e or bonus is not, by its elf, dis criminatory. Pos itive dis crimination in favor of people from certain underrepres ented groups
Although company prepared a written anti-dis crimination
policy on the ASC manual ; s tatement needs to be
a. Employer has written anti-dis crimination policy in place, s tating [45] the company does not engage in or s upport dis crimination in hiring, remuneration, acces s to training, promotion, termination or retirement bas ed on race, cas te, national origin, religion, dis ability, gender, s exual orientation, union members hip,
political affiliation, age or any other condition that may give ris e to dis crimination.
1
reviewed to be in line with ASC policy requirement
(mentioning the antidis crimination is s ues during hiring
training etc...)
b. Employer has clear and trans parent company procedures that outline how to rais e, file, and res pond to dis crimination complaints .
1
c. Employer res pects the principle of equal pay for equal work and equal acces s to job opportunities , promotions and rais es .
1
T 72.01 Complaint procedure .
Company has a plan to eqaliz e the s alaray for equal job
(s alary adjuctment s tudy output is checked and found ok)
Complaints methodology is explained during G lobal G AP
d. All managers and s upervis ors receive training on divers ity and non-dis crimination. All pers onnel receive non-dis crimination training. Internal or external training is acceptable if proven effective.
1
training. Las t one is performed 18.3.2014 and s cheduled
for 18.3.2015.
[45] Employers s hall have written antidis crimination policies s tating the company does not engage in or s upport dis crimination in hiring, remuneration, acces s to training, promotion, termination or retirement bas ed on race, cas te, national origin, religion, dis ability, gender, s exual orientation, union members hip, political affiliation, age or any other condition that may give ris e to
a. Employer maintains a record of all dis crimination complaints . Thes e records do not s how evidence for dis crimination.
b. Be advis ed that worker tes timonies will be us ed to confirm that the company does not interfere with the rights of pers onnel to obs erve tenets or practices , or to meet needs related to race, cas te, national origin, religion, dis ability, gender, s exual orientation, union members hip, political affiliation or any other condition
that may give ris e to dis crimination.
1
1
N o complaint recieved from employees on this is s ue.
Confirmed during interview that no dis crimination is s ue
exis t within the plant.
Page 18 of 23
Compliance Criteria
a. Employer has documented practices , procedures (including emergency res pons e procedures ) and policies to protect employees from workplace haz ards and to minimiz e ris k of accident or injury. The information s hall be available to employees .
1
Emergency Plan dated 23.1.2013
Page 19 of 23
b. Practices , policies and procedures are regularly revis ed to addres s workplace haz ards that were identified in ris k as s es s ments (s ee Indicator 6.4.5, ris k as s es s ents revis ed at leas t annually).
1
c. Employees know and unders tand emergency res pons e procedures .
1
(All is under review)
Confirmed during interview
20.2.2014 and 20.2.2015 Safety Trainings (annual s afety
trainings ) , Emergency team recived relavant trainigs (eg
d. Employer conducts health and s afety training for all employees on a regular bas is (once a year and immediately for all new employees ), including training on potential haz ards and ris k minimiz ation, Occupational Safety and H ealth (OSH ) and effective us e of PPE.
1
a. Employer records all health- and s afety-related accidents .
1
no accident occured in the plant.
b. Employer maintains complete documentation for all occupational health and s afety violations .
1
N o incident happened.
c. Employer implements corrective action plans in res pons e to any accidents that occur. Plans are documented and they include an analys is of root caus e, actions to addres s root caus e, actions to remediate, and actions to prevent future accidents of s imilar nature.
1
no accident occured in the plant.
d. Employees working in departments where accidents have occurred can explain what analys is has been done and what s teps were taken or improvements made.
1
firs t aider XXX i valid until 31.5.2017)XXXX l Fire Training
dated 2.4.2014.)
a. Employer maintains documentation to confirm that all pers onnel are provided s ufficient ins urance to cover cos ts related to occupational accidents or injuries (if not covered under national law). Equal ins urance coverage mus t include temporary, migrant or foreign workers . W ritten contract of employer res pons ibility to
Legal Social Ins urance (called SG K) covers occupational
1
cover accident cos ts is acceptable evidence in place of ins urance.
a. Employer maintains a lis t of all health and s afety haz ards (e.g. chemicals ).
1
b. Employer provides workers with PPE that is appropriate to known health and s afety haz ards .
1
c. Employees receive annual training in the proper us e of PPE (s ee 6.4.1d).
1
d. Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm the above.
1
a. Employer makes regular as s es s ments of haz ards and ris ks in the workplace. Ris k as s es s ments are reviewed and updated at leas t annually (s ee als o Indicator 6.4.1).
accidents or injuries .
20.1.2013 dated ris k analys is included the ris k analys is
for chemicals
Safety Training dated 20.2.2015 and PPE delivery records
checked.
10.2.2014 and 20.2.2015 Safety Trainings
Las t ris k analys is report is dated 20.1.2013. (exis ting ris k
1
b. Employees are trained in how to identify and prevent known haz ards and ris ks (s ee als o 6.4.1d).
1
c. H ealth and s afety procedures are adapted bas ed on res ults from ris k as s es s ments (above) and changes are implemented to help prevent accidents .
1
analys is is under review not is s ued yet)
Safety Training dated 20.2.2015
Company prepared s afe working ins tructions (eg. PPE U s e
working ins truction, Electriacal Device working Ins truction,
etc)
Compliance Criteria
Legal minimum wage is (for the 1.1.2015-30.6.2015 :
1201,5 brut net 949,07 TL including the minimum
a. Employer keeps documents to s how the legal minimum wage in the country of operation. If there is no legal minimum wage in the country, the employer keeps documents to s how the indus try-s tandard minimum wage.
1
b. Employer's records (e.g. payroll) confirm that worker's wages for a s tandard work week (≤ 48 hours ) always meet or exceed the legal minimum wage. If there is no legal minimum wage, the employer's records mus t s how how the current wage meets or exceeds indus try s tandard. If wages are bas ed on piece-rate or
1
c. Employer maintains documentary evidence to s how compliance (e.g. payroll, times heets , punch cards , production records , and/ or utility records ). Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm the above.
1
government s upport) Minimum wage paid is XXXX (Mr
XXX )net including the government s upport which is above
the minimum wage defined by the government)
d. Proof of employer engagement with workers and their repres entative organiz ations , and the us e of cos t of living as s es s ments from credible s ources to as s es s bas ic needs wages . Includes review of any national bas ic needs wage recommendations from credible s ources s uch as national univers ities or government.
Confirmed with pays lips
Confirmed during payroll check and interview
1
e. Employer has calculated the bas ic needs wage for farm workers and has compared it to the bas ic (i.e. current) wage for their farm workers .
1
f. Employer demons trates how they ens ure paying a bas ic needs wage to their workers .
1
There is no objective evidence that company performed
bas ic need wage calculation
[46] Bas ic needs wage: Enables workers to s upport the average-s iz ed family above the poverty line, bas ed on local prices near the workplace. Bas ic needs include es s ential expens es (e.g., food, clean water, clothes , s helter, trans portation and education), a dis cretionary income, as well as legally mandated s ocial benefits (e.g., health care, medical ins urance, unemployment
a. W ages and benefits are clearly articulated to workers and documented in contracts .
1
b. The method for s etting wages is clearly s tated and unders tood by workers .
1
W ages are written in the contract.
Although wages s etting method is defined underts nding of
employee needs improvement.
c. Employer renders wages and benefits in a way that is convenient for the worker (e.g. cas h, check, or electronic payment methods ). W orkers do not have to travel to collect benefits nor do they receive promis s ory notes , coupons or merchandis e in lieu of payment.
1
Bank trans fer
d. Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm the above.
1
Confirmed during interview.
a. W orkers have the freedom to join any trade union, free of any form of interference from employers or competing organiz ations s et up or backed by the employer.
1
N o trade union in Turkey exis t in this s ector
b. U nion repres entatives are chos en by workers without managerial interference. ILO s pecifically prohibits “acts which are des ignated to promote the es tablis hment of worker organiz ations or to s upport worker organiz ations under the control or employers or employers ’ organiz ations ."
1
N/A
c. Trade union repres entatives have acces s to their members in the workplace at reas onable times on the premis es .
1
d. Employment contract explicitly s tates the worker's right of freedom of as s ociation.
1
[47] A legal minimum wage will be cons idered a bas ic needs wage if it is s et in a manner cons is tent with the intent of ens uring bas ic needs are met. In ins tances where there is no legal minimum wage, or a legal minimum that is not s et in the s pirit of a bas ic needs wage, the auditor mus t determine an appropriate proxy for bas ic needs .
Criterion 6.6 Acces s to freedom of as s ociation and the right to collective bargaining [48]
Compliance Criteria
[48] Bargain collectively: A voluntary negotiation between employers and organiz ations of workers to es tablis h the terms and conditions of employment by means of collective (written) agreements .
e. Employer has explicitly communicated a commitment to ens ure the collective bargaining rights of all workers .
1
f. Local trade union, or where none exis ts a reputable civil-s ociety organiz ation, confirms no outs tanding cas es agains t the farm s ite management for violations of employees ’ freedom of as s ociation and collective bargaining rights .
1
g. There is documentary evidence that workers are free and able to bargain collectively (e.g. collective bargaining agreements , meeting minutes , or complaint res olutions ).
1
h. Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm the above.
1
N/A
worker's right of freedom of as s ociaiton needs to be more
clearly defined in the labor contract
N/A
N/A
W orkers s elected the worker repres entative. (G ürs oy
Söğüt)
All above is s ues are confirmed during interview.
Compliance Criteria
Page 20 of 23
a. Employer does not us e threatening, humiliating or punis hing dis ciplinary practices that negatively impact a worker’s phys ical and mental health or dignity.
1
b. Allegations of corporeal punis hment, mental abus e [50], phys ical coercion, or verbal abus e will be inves tigated by auditors .
1
c. Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm there is no evidence for exces s ive or abus ive dis ciplinary actions .
1
Rules are defined in H ijyen Dis iplini Talimatı (T 63.23)
confirmed during interviews
confirmed during interviews
Rules are defined in H ijyen Dis iplini Talimatı (T 63.23)
a. Employer has written policy for dis ciplinary action which explicitly s tates that its aim is to improve the worker [49].
1
b. Maintain documentary evidence (e.g. worker evaluation reports ) and be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm that the dis ciplinary action policy is fair and effective.
1
needs to be reviewed to more clearly ephas iz e the
imrpovement for worker.
N o dis ciplinary action is taken s o far.
[49] If dis ciplinary action is required, progres s ive verbal and written warnings s hall be engaged. The aim s hould always be to improve the worker before letting him/ her go. (Indicated by policy s tatements as well as evidence from worker tes timony.)
[50] Mental abus e: Characteriz ed by the intentional us e of power, including verbal abus e, is olation, s exual or racial haras s ment, intimidation or threat of phys ical force.
Compliance Criteria
a. Employer has documentation s howing the legal requirements for working hours and overtime in the region where the farm operates . If local legis lation allows workers to exceed internationally accepted recommendations (48 regular hours , 12 hours overtime) then requirements of the international s tandards apply.
1
b. Records (e.g. time s heets and payroll) s how that farm workers do not exceed the number of working hours allowed under the law.
1
Company is monitoring the complience with s tandard and
labor law requirements .
Confirmed with follow up table and pay s lip and
times heets s )
Overtime is paid at premium rate. G ood iimplementation:
c. Payment records (e.g. pays lips ) s how that workers are paid a premium rate [53] for overtime hours .
W here an employee works on official holidays theye are
1
paid over preimium rate ( it s hould be % 100 ; the company
pays more which is 150%)
W orking hours are 45 hour according to law and labor
d. Overtime is limited and occurs in exceptional circums tances as evidenced by farm records (e.g. production records , time s heets , and other records of working hours ).
1
e. If an employer requires employees to work s hifts at the farm (e.g. 10 days on and s ix days off), the employer compens ates workers with an equivalent time off in the calendar month and there is evidence that employees have agreed to this s chedule (e.g. in the hiring contract).
1
f. Be advis ed that workers will be interviewed to confirm there is no abus e of working hours and overtime laws .
1
N o abus e of working hours .
a. Provide evidence to s how whether or not the farm fits the definition of a 'new farm' as us ed here. If yes , proceed to 6.9.1b. If not, then Indicator 6.9.1 does not apply to the farm.
1
N / A (Farm is s tarted to operation on 10.01.2005)
b. Provide res ults of a participatory Social Impact As s es s ment (p-SIA) or equivalent methodology as evidence of the farm's engagement and cons ultation with s urrounding communities about potential s ocial impacts from the farm. Mandatory for all farm s ites with greater than ten (10) s taff/ employees .
1
N/A
c. Evidence provided in 6.9.1b s hould include minutes from community meetings and a log of communications with s takeholders . Cons ultations s hould addres s economic impacts , natural res ource acces s and us e, human health and s afety is s ues , and changes to phys ical infras tructure and cultural is s ues , with a
1
N/A
contract. W orker awarenes s on the is s ue needs for
improvement. (exect working hours and breaks )
N/A
[51] W orking hours (a.k.a. normal work week) can be defined by law but s hall not exceed 48 hours on a regular bas is (i.e., cons tantly or the majority of the time). Variations bas ed on s eas onality may apply but pers onnel s hall be provided with at leas t one day off in every s even-day period.
[52] All overtime s hall be paid at a premium and s hould not exceed 12 hours per week. In the cas e of exceptional or emergency events , additional overtime hours are permitted. In s uch exceptional cas es , which mus t pos e an acute and long-term threat to the farm, workers will receive a premium wage and an equal amount of time off in addition to normal time off. Overtime work s hall
be voluntary, except in cas es where it is legal and in which there is a collective bargaining agreement in place that permits compuls ory overtime in order to meet s hort-term bus ines s demands .
[53] Premium rate: A rate of pay higher than the regular work week rate. Mus t comply with national laws / regulations and/ or indus try s tandards .
Compliance Criteria
N ote: A 'new farm' is defined as an aquaculture operation where cons truction was completed after the publication date of the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard 7 February 2013 or a farm that underwent a s ignificant expans ion after s aid publication date.
[54] Evidence could include minutes from community meetings and a log of communications with s takeholders . Social impacts to be dis cus s ed would likely include economic impacts , natural res ource acces s and us e, human health and s afety is s ues , and changes to phys ical infras tructure and cultural is s ues , with a particular focus on impacts to indigenous people, where
Stakeholders (local comminities ) are not identified and no
evidence could be s een that cons ultation with local
a. The farm engages in cons ultations with the local community at leas t twice every year (bi-annually).
1
community (villagers , neighbor companies or other
impacted parties ) are cons ulted. at leas t twice every year
(bi-annually).
N o objective evidence is s een that meaningful
cons ultations are performed as required by ASC s tandard
b. Cons ultations are meaningful. OPTION AL: the farm may choos e to us e participatory Social Impact As s es s ment (pSIA) or an equivalent method for cons ultations . Mandatory for all farm s ites with greater than ten (10) s taff/ employees .
1
(OPTION AL: the farm may choos e to us e participatory
Social Impact As s es s ment (pSIA) or an equivalent
method for cons ultations . Mandatory for all farm s ites
with greater than ten (10) s taff/ employees .)
N o objective evidence could be s een that Cons ultations
c. Cons ultations include participation by elected repres entatives from the local community who were as ked to contribute to the agenda.
1
include participation by elected repres entatives from the
local community who were as ked to contribute to the
agenda.
N o objective evidence for maintaining records and
d. Maintain records and documentary evidence (e.g. meeting agenda, minutes , report) to demons trate that cons ultations comply with the above.
1
documentary evidence (e.g. meeting agenda, minutes ,
report) to demons trate that cons ultations comply with the
above.
e. Be advis ed that repres entatives from the local community and organiz ations may be interviewed to confirm the above.
1
not audited
N o Farm policy coud be s een to provide a mechanis m
a. Farm policy provides a mechanis m for pres entation, treatment and res olution of grievances (i.e. complaints ) lodged by s takeholders , community members , and organiz ations .
1
for pres entation, treatment and res olution of grievances
(i.e. complaints ) lodged by s takeholders , community
members , and organiz ations .
N o policy exis t that The farm follows its policy for
handling s takeholder grievances as evidenced by farm
b. The farm follows its policy for handling s takeholder grievances as evidenced by farm documentation (e.g. follow-up communications with s takeholders , reports to s takeholder des cribing corrective actions ).
1
documentation (e.g. follow-up communications with
s takeholders , reports to s takeholder des cribing
corrective actions ).
N o policy and implementation exis t that The farm's
mechanis m for handling grievances is effective bas ed
c. The farm's mechanis m for handling grievances is effective bas ed on res olution of s takeholder complaints and community concerns (e.g. follow-up corres pondence from s takeholders ).
1
on res olution of s takeholder complaints and community
concerns (e.g. follow-up corres pondence from
s takeholders ).
d. Be advis ed that repres entatives from the local community, including complainants where applicable, may be interviewed to confirm the above.
N/A
not audited
**********
A farm seeking certification must have documentation from all of its fingerling and egg suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the following requirements.
Compliance Criteria
Page 21 of 23
a. Obtain copies of s upplier's bus ines s permit and land title deed.
farm is a egg producer farm for trouts , and this is the only
A. Verify that farm obtains copies of bus ines s permits and land title deed from each s upplier (if applicable).
1
b. Obtain records from s uppliers s howing dis charge permit requirements as required.
B. Verify that farm obtains records from s uppliers to s how compliance with dis charge permit requirements .
1
Dis charge permit requirements are obtained from farm
c. Obtain records from s uppliers s howing treatments us ed on fingerlings and eggs .
C. Verify that the farm obtains treatment records from its s uppliers .
1
Treatment records are obtained from s upplier farms
D. Verify that farm obtains records from s uppliers to s how compliance with water extraction permit requirements , if applicable.
1
Supplier farms obtain records of laws
d. Maintain on-s ite copies of laws governing water us e, land us e, effluent regulations and chemical
treatments for animals .
s upplier of eggs for Yaniklar farm
Page 22 of 23
a. Obtain written evidence s howing whether or not the fingerling and egg s uppliers us e clos ed production
s ys tems [55]. If yes , then Indicator 7.2 does not apply.
b. Obtain written evidence s howing whether or not the fingerling and egg s uppliers produce a non-native
s pecies . If not, then Indicator 7.2 does not apply.
c. If the s upplier produces an exotic s pecies , obtain written evidence that the s pecies was widely
commercially produced in the area before publication of the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard.
The s upplier farms us e clos ed production s ys tem, with
A. Verify that the farm has evidence that their s uppliers us e only clos ed production s ys tems [55]. Otherwis e, proceed to 7.2B.
1
B. Verify that the farm has evidence that their s uppliers do not produce a non-native s pecies . Otherwis e, proceed to 7.2C.
1
micro filters , bio filters , s ludge bas in and plant lagoon to
prevent es cape from farm
The trout produced is Oncorhynchus mykis s
The trout produced is Oncorhynchus mykis s , the s pecies
C. Verify that the farm has evidence s howing that the exotic s pecies in 7.2c was widely commercially produced in the area before publication of the ASC Fres hwater Trout Standard.
1
has been introduced to Turkey fres hwater farms in the late
1960
[55] A clos ed production s ys tem is defined as a facility with recirculating water that is s eparated from the wild aquatic medium by effective phys ical barriers that are in place and well maintained to ens ure no es capes of reared s pecimens or biological material that might s urvive and s ubs equently reproduce.
Ins truction to Clients for Indicator 7.3 - Exceptions to Requirements that Suppliers (fry/fingerlings ) are not Sited in National Protected Areas
a. Obtain from s uppliers of fingerlings and eggs a map s howing the location of the operation relative to
nearby protected areas as defined federally/ at the N ational level.
A. Review map and cros s -check agains t s upplier location.
Allowance from s uppliers environmental approval to
1
produce at fres hwater farm.
[56] A protected area is “A clearly defined geographical s pace, recogniz ed, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means , to achieve the long-term cons ervation of nature with as s ociated ecos ys tem s ervices and cultural values .” Source: Dudley, N . (Editor) (2008), G uidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories , G land, Switz erland: IU CN . x + 86pp.
[57] An exception is made for protected areas that are clas s ified by IU CN , or the International U nion for Cons ervation of N ature, as Category V or VI. Thes e are areas pres erved primarily for their lands capes , or areas that include s us tainable res ource management. Details can be found here: http:/ / www.iucn.org/ about/ work/ programmes / pa/ pa_products / wcpa_categories / .
[58] An exception is als o made for farms located in protected areas that are des ignated as s uch after the farm already exis ts in that location. In thes e s ituations , the farm mus t demons trate that its operation is compatible with the objectives of the newly protected area, and that it is in compliance with any relevant conditions placed on the farm as a res ult of the des ignation.
There is not a letter informing egg and fingerling s uppliers
a. Prepare a letter informing egg and fingerling s uppliers that the s upplier mus t compile a lis t of IU CN Red
Lis ted s pecies in the relevant categories that may occur on their property following the ins tructions in
A. Verify that the farm s ent a letter to egg and fingerling s upplier(s ) informing them of requirements to compile the lis t outlined in 7.4a.
1
Indicator 2.1.3.
as s es s ment s hould be performed by an independent academic res earcher or a nationally accredited EIA
There is not a copy of the ris k as s es s ment produced on
B. Verify that the farm has a copy of the ris k as s es s ment produced on behalf of the egg and fingerling s uppliers and that this as s es s ment covers the s pecies lis ted in 7.4a.
1
bas ed on the findings of the ris k as s es s ment.
a. Obtain a written s tatement from egg and fingerling producers detailing the applicable national and local
dis eas e regulations and guidance on dis eas e management which the s upplier follows .
b. Prepare a letter informing egg and fingerling producers that they mus t evaluate eggs and fry us ing health
s tatus metrics developed by the farm's veterinary health profes s ional (s ee 4.1.2a).
c. Maintains records of the farm's evaluations of the condition of eggs and fingerlings upon delivery.
behalf of the egg and fingerling s uppliers and that this
as s es s ment covers the s pecies lis ted in 7.4a.
expert.
c. Obtain from egg and fingerling s uppliers a copy of the s upplier's ETP s pecies res pons e plan and protocols
s pecies in the relevant categories that may occur on their
property following the ins tructions in Indicator 2.1.3.
b. Obtain from egg and fingerling s uppliers a "ris k as s es s ment" (s earch and mitigation plan) that evaluates
how the s upplier's operation impacts on any IU CN Red Lis ted s pecies identified in 7.4a. The ris k
that the s upplier mus t compile a lis t of IU CN Red Lis ted
C. Verify that the farm has a copy of the egg and fry s upplier(s ) res pons e plan and protocols .
1
A. Verify that the farm has a written s tatement from the egg and fingerling producer detailing how the s upplier conforms to applicable national and local regulations and guidance on dis eas e management.
1
B. Verify that the farm has a copy of the letter informing its s uppliers of health s tatus metrics developed by the farm's veterinary health profes s ional.
1
C. Verify that the farm keeps records of evaluating the condition of eggs and fingerlings for each delivery.
1
A. Verify that the farm has informed its s uppliers that they mus t dis clos e information on chemical and antibiotic treatments together with the rationale for their us e.
1
B. Auditor includes in the audit report whether the farm has chos en to conducted chemical and antibiotic tes t on a s ubs et of s amples for each major s tocking event.
1
A. Verify that the farm has a record of the s tatement s ent to egg and fry s uppliers .
1
Egg and fry s uppliers have been informed
B. Include a s tatement in the audit report des cribing a) whether the farm undertook optional tes ting of their s upplier's fry/ fingerlings and b) findings agains t the EU banned lis t, if any
1
Egg and fry s uppliers do not us e banned chemicals
A. Verify that the farm obtains a FH MP from each s upplier of egg and fry.
1
Fis h health plan from s uppliers in place
B. Verify that the farm has record that s upplier management approves review and update of the FH MP at leas t annually.
1
FH MP will be updated yearly
C. Confirm that the farm has s upplier documentation s howing s ignature and date of review by des ignated veterinarian.
1
FH MP are s igned by veterinarian
The s uppliers follow the national and local regulations and
guidance on dis eas e management.
The health s tatus metrics is informed to s uppliers ,
developed by the farm's veterinary health profes s ional.
The farm has records of every delivery of egg and
fingerlings .
The farm has informed its s uppliers that they mus t
a. Prepare a letter informing egg and fry s uppliers that they mus t dis clos e all chemical and antibiotic
treatments on eggs and fry, along with s tated rationale and the quantity us ed.
dis clos e information on chemical and antibiotic treatments
together with the rationale for their us e. This can be s een
from reporting.
b.Optional: Farm may conduct voluntary s et tes ts on a s ubs ample of eggs and fry for each s tocking event,
to tes t for chemical and antibiotic us e cons is tent with the s upplier's declaration.
a. Inform egg and fry s uppliers in writing that the farm will not purchas e from s uppliers us ing any
therapeutants or antibiotics that are banned under EU law.
b. Compare any res ults from 7.6b to the farm's EU banned lis t (s ee 4.2.2a) to s how that the egg and fry
s uppliers do not us e banned chemicals .
a. For every s upplier of fry and egg to the farm, obtain a copy of the s upplier's Fis h H ealth Management Plan
(FH MP).
b. Ens ure that the egg and fry s upplier's FH MP is reviewed and updated at leas t annually with s ignatures by
management indicating approval.
c. Ens ure that the egg and fry s upplier's des ignated veterinarian reviews and approves the FH MP annually
and after each update of the FH MP, by s ignature.
b. For s uppliers identified in 7.9a, obtain a copy of the s upplier's company-level policies and procedures
relating to key ILO labor is s ues .
There is no plan for chemical and antibiotic tes ts
There is not a copy of s upplier policies and procedures to
B. Verify that farm obtains copies of relevant company-level policies and procedures froms uppliers .
1
verify the s upplier's commitment to addres s each of the 8
key ILO labor is s ues .
There is not a copy of s upplier policies and procedures to
-
C. Review s upplier policies and procedures (copy provided by the farm) to verify the s upplier's commitment to addres s each of the 8 key ILO labor is s ues .
1
verify the s upplier's commitment to addres s each of the 8
key ILO labor is s ues .
N ote: s ee compliance criteria for Indicator 6.9.2.
a. Ens ure that the farm obtains documentary evidence from egg and fry s uppliers of regular communciations
with s urrounding community as des cribed under 6.9.2a, 6.9.2b, 6.9.2c and 6.9.2d
Suppliers communication with community cons ultations
A. Examine copies of records and documentary evidence (e.g. meeting agenda, minutes , report) to verify that the farm's s uppliers performed community cons ultations in complance with requirements .
1
are in compliance with requirements , there are not s een
copies of records and documentation
Page 23 of 23
Stakeholders Submissions
Including Written of other documented information and Bureau Veritas Certification responses to each submission.
If no submission, precise " no submissions received"
Public Consultation period
Audit announcement ( 30 days prior to audit)
Stakeholder submission
No submissions received
BV Response
Draft public report ( 10 days from publication)
ASC-F-E05-5-12
Stakeholders Submissions
Including Written of other documented information and Bureau Veritas Certification responses to each submission.
If no submission, precise " no submissions received"
Public Consultation period
Audit announcement ( 30 days prior to audit)
Stakeholder submission
No submissions received
BV Response
Draft public report ( 10 days from publication)
ASC-F-E05-5-12

Final report - Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

2008 Farm Tour Brochure - James City County Master Gardeners

modeling wind farms in power system simulation studies

Bambi blaze peppermint fatty

INTERNATIONAL SKI FEDERATION Freestyle Skiing