Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to impact PET species.
• This fishery is unlikely to have significant impacts on bycatch species.
• Dredges will directly impact on the sea bed, but the fishery is considered highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

General Notes

References

SCS Global Services, October 2018, MSC Public Certification Report for US Atlantic Sea Scallop

Environmental Notes

• There are concerns about the cumulative impacts of the fishery upon the endangered species, golden redfish.
• There is bycatch for this fishery but non-target species are retained. Management measures are in place to reduce impacts on retained species.
• Bottom trawls will directly impact on the sea bed.

General Notes

• No additional notes.

Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to impact PET species.
• There is bycatch for this fishery but non-target species are retained. Management measures are in place to reduce impacts on retained species.
• Bottom trawls will directly impact on the sea bed. MSC conditions and recommendations are in place to strengthen understanding of fishery interactions with sensitive habitat.

General Notes

• No additional notes.

Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to impact PET species.
• There is bycatch for this fishery but bycatch is considered low and the fishery is unlikely to pose a serious risk to bycatch species.
• Longline gear is unlikely to have a significant impact on the sea bed.

General Notes

References

Acoura Marine, August 2018, MSC Public Certification Report for FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas Cod and Haddock Fishery

Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to impact PET species, however the degree of certainty regarding impacts is affected by limited publicly available scientific observer data and limited recording of PET species vulnerable to longline fishing.
• This fishery is unlikely to have significant impacts on bycatch species.
• Longline gear is unlikely to have a significant impact on the sea bed.

General Notes

References

DNV GL, 2018, MSC Public Certification Report for Oceanprom Barents Sea cod and haddock fishery

Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to have direct impacts on PET species.
• There is bycatch for this fishery but non-target species are retained. Management measures are in place to reduce impacts on retained species.
• Longline gear is unlikely to have a significant impact on the sea bed.

General Notes

• No additional notes.

Environmental Notes

• Salmon rely on wild capture fisheries for feed. But the use of fishmeal and fish oil in salmon farming in Atlantic North America is reported to be lower than that in other salmon-farming regions. Marine ingredients include herring, menhaden, anchovy sourced from fisheries in Atlantic Canada, Atlantic US and Gulf of Mexico, and Peru.
• There are concerns about the impact of farmed salmon escapes and disease outbreaks on wild salmonids. Management systems for containment are in place to reduce the risk of escapes and have greatly improved fish containment by farms in Maine (as evidenced by the very low numbers of escapees identified in Maine rivers). The primary concerns for disease are sea lice and Infectious Salmon Anaemia, however the risk of transmission to wild salmon appears to be low.
• Impacts on water quality are localized, but there is potential for cumulative impacts in densely farmed areas. Chemical inputs of antibiotics and of pesticides used to control sea lice are of particular concern for salmon farmed in Atlantic North America.

General Notes

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

References

Seafood Watch report for farmed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic North America

Environmental Notes

• All fishmeal and fish oil is sourced from by-products.
• Although the possibility for escape is considered high, the invasiveness factor is considered low given the prior establishment of the species. There is no current data or evidence indicating that tilapia cultured by Regal Springs, Honduras at their floating cage culture sites in Lake Yojoa and Lake Cajon are causing population declines in wild fish through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. There is evidence that tilapia cage culture operations in Lake Yojoa and Lake Cajon attract or interact with predators or other wildlife, but the concern for wildlife and predator mortalities due to these operations is low.
• There are moderate impacts from effluents beyond the farm boundaries. The government management system addresses the effluent water quality; however, there have been records of eutrophication and harmful phytoplankton blooms, which indicate that monitoring measures are not effective.

General Notes

Area-based approaches to aquaculture are included in the national and provincial legislation, but it is unclear whether zonal approaches to siting and production are used.

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

References

Seafood Watch report for Nile tilapia, Honduras

Good Fish Guide, Tilapia (Farmed), ASC

Environmental Notes

• Tilapia require relatively low inputs of fishmeal and fishoil from marine feed sources in their diet.
• Tilapia has been introduced into Indonesian waterbodies, resulting in the establishment of resident populations. However, farm escapees may place additional pressure on native wild populations. The use of open net pens means that the risk of disease transfer to wild fish populations is relatively high.
• Pollution from nutrients and organic matter, as well as chemical inputs, may affect local water quality. There is limited information regarding on-farm chemical use and the impact of effluent released by tilapia farms in Indonesia. Cumulative impacts may occur.

General Notes

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

Although there is extensive legislation referencing area and zonal approaches to aquaculture planning and management, the tilapia farming industry still appears focused on farm-based approaches.

References:

Seafood Watch report for farmed Nile tilapia, Indonesia

Environmental Notes

• Tilapia require relatively low inputs of fishmeal and fishoil from marine feed sources in their diet.
• Impacts from escapes, disease outbreaks, and interactions with predators and other wildlife are considered low.
• Chemical inputs are minimal and impacts from effluents beyond the farm boundaries are thought to be moderate.

General Notes

Area-based approaches to aquaculture are included in the national and provincial legislation, but it is unclear whether zonal approaches to siting and production are used.

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

References

Seafood Watch report for farmed tilapia, Mexico

Good Fish Guide, Tilapia (Farmed), ASC

Environmental Notes

• Trout have a high requirement for fish in their diet.
• Rainbow trout are not native to Norway. There are concerns about the impact of farmed salmonid escapes and disease outbreaks on wild fish populations. On average, 44,000 rainbow trout were registered escaped from Norwegian fish farms per year from 2010 to 2018. The most common cause of escapes are holes in the net. Fish farmers in Norway are legally obliged to report escapes.
• Impacts on water quality depend on the farming method used. Production using open net cages and ponds results in the discharge of waste and nutrients directly into the surrounding water.

General Notes

• The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

References

FishSource - salmon, Norway

Føre, H.M. and Thorvaldsen, T., 2021, Causal analysis of escape of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout from Norwegian fish farms during 2010–2018 - Aquaculture, Vol. 532, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736002

Seafood Watch, Recommended Eco-Certifications for Rainbow trout, Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) Certified

Environmental Notes

• Fishmeal and fish oil from marine feed sources are used. At least 50% of the marine feed used in certified production is required to be responsibly or sustainably sourced.
• Disease transfer between farmed and wild prawns is a concern but infrequent water exchange on whiteleg shrimp farms moderates the risk. Whiteleg shrimp are not native to Thailand and there is potential for ecological impacts from escapes.
• Pollution from nutrients and organic matter, as well as chemical inputs, may affect local water quality. Impacts on water quality vary depending on the frequency of waste discharge from ponds.

General Notes

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

Public information on zonal approaches to planning and production of shrimp farming in Thailand is limited.

References:

Good Fish Guide - Prawn, King (whiteleg), prawns, Global, GAA BAP 2 and 3*

Seafood Watch Recommended Eco-Certifications for Whiteleg shrimp, Farmed

FishSource - Shrimp, Thailand

Environmental Notes

• This fishery is unlikely to impact PET species.
• Bycatch is considered low in this fishery.
• This fishery is unlikely to have a significant impact on the sea bed.

General Notes

• No additional notes.

Environmental Notes

• Feed from marine fish sources are used. Farmed Seriola is a net consumer of fish protein rather than a net producer.
• There are concerns about disease outbreaks but these appear to present little risk to wild fish populations. Escapes from open net pens are a risk.
• Production using open net pens results in the discharge of waste and nutrients directly into the surrounding water.

General Notes

The environmental impacts described are addressed to some degree by certification.

References

Good Fish Guide - Kingfish, yellowtail, Farmed (open net pen), Australia, ASC Certification