Atlantic Salmon
Salmo salar
Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium
Blue Circle Foods® from Kvarøy and Selsøyvik Farms, Norway
Net Pens
August 4, 2016 (update)
Peter Bridson – Seagreen Research
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external
scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does
not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of
the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
2
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of
wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood
Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or
farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based
recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be
downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of
important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make
choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood
Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and
ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s
conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or
“Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the
Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed
journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical
publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews
of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly
with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation
organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and
aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes,
Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be
updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean
ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more
information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch®
program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by
external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific
review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its
recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible
for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation.
3
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished 1 or
farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be
considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:
Seafood Watch will:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make
information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant stakeholders.
Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the farm level
in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale
and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the
farm.
Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the
functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing historic habitat
damage.
Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use and
discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency, risk of
environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.
Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative indicators
to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of conversion of feed
ingredients to farmed seafood.
Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild fish or
shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression, hybridization,
spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated with the escape of
farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.
Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild
populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.
Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated
broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.
Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a major
impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving practices for
some criteria may lead to more energy-intensive production systems (e.g. promoting more energyintensive closed recirculation systems).
“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
4
Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation
is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall
recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch
pocket guide:
Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or
farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that
harm other marine life or the environment.
5
Final Seafood Recommendation
Criterion
C1 Data
C2 Effluent
C3 Habitat
C4 Chemicals
C5 Feed
C6 Escapes
C7 Disease
C8 Source
C9X Wildlife mortalities
C10X Introduced species escape
Total
Final score
Score (0-10)
8.33
6.00
6.08
5.00
6.77
4.00
4.00
10.00
-2.00
0.00
48.18
6.02
Rank
GREEN
YELLOW
YELLOW
YELLOW
GREEN
YELLOW
YELLOW
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
Critical?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OVERALL RANKING
Final Score
Initial rank
Red criteria
Interim rank
Critical Criteria?
6.02
YELLOW
0
YELLOW
FINAL RANK
NO
YELLOW
Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and
ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.
Summary
The final numerical score for the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik assessment is 6.02 out of 10, and as
there are no red criteria, the final recommendation is a Yellow “Good Alternative.”
6
Executive Summary
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are two family-owned salmon farms located in central Nordland in
Northern Norway. Total production is predicted to be approximately 8,500 tons in 2015 from
five sites located on the outer coast (i.e., the sites are not in enclosed fjords), and 60% of
production is exported to the U.S. under the Blue Circle® brand. The farms have some
production characteristics that are not typical of the large-scale intensive salmon producers in
Norway. For example, the farms stock approximately 60% of the legally permitted maximum
number of fish in small-sized net pens, and use lumpsucker cleaner fish (Cyclopterus lumpus) as
a chemical-free alternative to sea lice pesticides. They use a custom made feed formulated to
achieve a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) of <1.0. The farms are independently audited to the
Whole Foods standards, which place further restrictions on some management practices (for
example, chemicals such as antibiotics and sea lice pesticides―other than the environmentally
benign hydrogen peroxide―are not permitted).
This Seafood Watch assessment involves a number of different criteria covering impacts
associated with: effluent, habitats, wildlife and predator interactions, chemical use, feed
production, escapes, introduction of non-native organisms (other than the farmed species),
disease, the source stock, and general data availability2.
Due to the focused nature of this assessment on the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms and the open
relationship with the farm management, the data availability on all aspects of the production
was good. The Norwegian salmon industry, in general, has considerable amounts of data
available publically, and there is a large and continuously developing body of academic
literature covering many key aspects of production. This assessment has to acknowledge that
some data and information provided directly by the farm cannot robustly be verified; however,
while the audit reports have not been used in this assessment, further confidence in the farmlevel data and in the personal communications with the farm management is provided by the
third party auditing of the sites to the Whole Food standards. Overall, the data score for this
assessment is 8.3 out of 10.
Net pen salmon farms represent a substantial point source of nutrient pollution, however
recent studies, including some in Norway’s densest fish farming regions, indicate the risk of
substantial impacts to local and regional nutrient budgets that lead to eutrophication is low.
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are located in open coastal areas rather than more enclosed
fjords, and in the county of Nordland salmon farm effluent is reported to cause a very small
increase (1%) in phytoplankton production. This is lower than counties further south and also
low compared to more densely farmed regions where even a 15% increase in phytoplankton
production in the most densely farmed region is not associated with any indication of
eutrophication. Therefore, while acknowledging that a risk remains for localized impacts from
The full Seafood Watch aquaculture criteria are available at:
http://www.seafoodwatch.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_aboutsfw.aspx
2
7
soluble wastes in areas beyond the farm, which are not currently monitored, the available
studies robustly indicate that the risk of significant impact is low.
For particulate wastes from net pen farms, the Effluent and Habitat criteria are somewhat
connected; the Effluent Criterion looks at their impact beyond the immediate farm area while
the Habitat Criterion considers impacts within it. Monitoring of areas in close proximity to fish
farms in Norway occurs with mandatory “environmental monitoring of marine fish farm”
surveys (known as MOM surveys). The results from the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites from 2006 to
2015 show that the large majority of samples within the immediate farm area are in Condition
1, which indicates low organic loading. None are overloaded (Condition 4), and the few samples
with moderate or high loads (Condition 2 and 3) returned to Condition 1 after fallowing. These
results within the immediate area of the farm (MOM-B surveys) indicate that although potential
impacts beyond the farms are not typically monitored (assessed in MOM-C surveys which are
not typically requested), the likelihood of significant impacts in these areas beyond the
immediate farm area is also low. Impacts within the farm area are also shown to recover rapidly
with fallowing between production cycles (Norway has a mandatory 60-day fallow period, and
the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have been fallowed for three months at the end of every
production cycle since 2012) and the habitats are therefore considered to be maintaining
functionality. The regulatory measures for benthic habitat monitoring in Norway are well
developed and the published scientific evidence showing limited cumulative impacts, even in
Norway’s most densely farmed areas, gives further confidence that they are effective and wellenforced. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are therefore considered unlikely to contribute to
significant cumulative habitat impacts. Therefore, despite the substantial point source of
effluent pollution represented by the farm sites, the available data indicate a low risk of
eutrophication or benthic habitat impacts within and beyond the immediate farm area. The
final score for the Effluent Criterion is 6 out of 10, and for the Habitat Criterion is 6.08 out of 10.
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are managed with the intention to minimize and avoid chemical
use. The farms are independently audited to the Whole Foods purchasing standards which
prohibit the use of antibiotics, sea lice treatments (other than environmentally benign
hydrogen peroxide), and copper-based antifoulants. An average of 2.8 hydrogen peroxide
treatments have been used over the last seven production cycles since 2012, but with some
treatments occurring only on small numbers of fish (e.g., late in the harvest phase of
production), the company reports that many fish receive no treatments at all and, on average,
they receive fewer than one treatment per production cycle. While this is considered to be of
little direct environmental concern, the contribution to the growing development of resistance
in Norway is a concern (for example, the loss of efficacy of hydrogen peroxide is likely to drive
some producers to revert to more toxic alternatives). The avoidance of antibiotics and the use
of cleaner fish and environmentally benign chemicals on the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms is to be
commended, and chemical use is broadly considered to be low on these sites. Nevertheless, the
contribution to the development of resistance to hydrogen peroxide in Norway, although
probably small, is still a concern and is penalized in the Seafood Watch criteria; the score for
the Chemical Use Criterion is 5 out of 10.
8
Detailed feed data was provided by the Biomar feed company for the custom Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik feeds. By using byproduct ingredients (primarily fish oil), the feeds are formulated to
give a Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) ratio of <1.0, and calculations according to the Seafood Watch
criteria showed FIFO values of 0.82 and 0.22 for fishmeal and fish oil respectively (the feed
conversion ratio is 1.12). This means that from first principles, less than one ton of wild fish
would need to be caught to produce the fishmeal needed to produce one ton of farmed
salmon. The fisheries sources used by Biomar are considered moderately sustainable overall,
across the range of marine species used. With moderate use of byproduct fishmeal ingredients,
high use of edible crop ingredients and zero use of land animal ingredients, there is a net loss of
edible protein of 39%, and a calculated primary production footprint for the feed ingredients of
9.3 hectares. The final feed score is 6.77 out of 10, and reflects the company’s reduced use of
fishmeal and oil, and moderate to high use of by-product ingredients for fishmeal and oil.
Large-scale escape events continue to be reported in Norway, but are limited in number and
therefore limited to a small number of farms in any one year. Trickle losses are considered to
be more common and may often be unreported. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have had an
extended period (>10 years) without reported escapes, and their use of lumpsucker fish to
control sea lice means that small mesh nets must be used which further reduce the risk of
trickle losses. The farms also exceed the structural and maintenance requirements of the
national technical standards. While primitive net pen systems are considered to have a high risk
of escape, the more developed systems typically used in salmon farming combined with the
additional characteristics of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites result in a moderate initial Escape
Risk score of 4 out of 10. Although the sites, workboats and feed barges all have recapture nets
ready for deployment, the fate of escapees in terms of recapture and mortality is complex, and
a minor adjustment to the escape risk was made on a precautionary basis (to 4.9 out of 10).
If an escape event were to happen, academic tracking studies show that escapees may be
highly mobile depending on their size, location and time of year of escape, and may enter rivers
in areas remote to the escape site. The numbers surviving this migration are low compared to
the greater concern of larger fish escaping and moving directly into rivers in the region of
escape. While the broad concern regarding escapes in Norway continues, the number of
escaped fish among wild populations has been shown to be highly variable between rivers and
regions, and recently published (2015) research shows that while there are rivers in Nordland
that do receive escaped farmed salmon, the number is lower than previously estimated and the
risk of genetic impacts in Nordland is defined as “low” according to recent risk assessments. In
addition, recent monitoring in Nordland using more accurate counting techniques has shown
that the proportion of farmed fish among wild populations in rivers is lower than previously
estimated. This represents a lower level of concern compared to previous assessments in
Norway, and also compared to other regions in Norway that still receive higher numbers of
farm escapes. As a result, the Invasiveness score for this assessment is 4 out of 10, and the final
score for the Escapes Criterion is a moderate 4 out of 10.
Viruses and sea lice parasites are the greatest disease production problems in Norwegian
salmon farming, but viral pathogens on farms have been shown to have a low prevalence in
9
wild fish, and the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have not had any of the major viral diseases in the
last ten years. Therefore, sea lice have been the focus of this assessment as there is ongoing
concern regarding their impacts on wild salmonids in Norway in general.
Sea lice numbers in northern Norway are lower than those in mid and southern Norway, and
average levels in Nordland are low compared to more southerly counties. Norway has welldeveloped sea lice regulations, and while acknowledging that regional lice levels are highly
aggregated and therefore mask the real variability of lice counts between farm sites and
production cycles, the average lice levels in Nordland as a whole are consistently well below the
regulatory limits of 0.5 adult female lice per fish. At the local level, weekly lice counts for both
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are generally well below the limits throughout the production cycles
(including at the times of importance to wild salmonid migration), but there have been a
number of weekly samples that exceed it. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) ranked
Norwegian salmon farms according to the consistency of their regulatory compliance and
Kvarøy was listed among the best farms in the Green category, but Selsøyvik was Red due to
lice levels exceeding the limits on a number of occasions in 2014. The Kvarøy management
practices have since been applied to the Selsøyvik sites, and latest available data (to September
2015) indicates that the current production cycles would be scored Green for Selsøyvik. These
results are encouraging, but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions until the completed cycles
are assessed by the NFSA. Overall, the pesticide-free management of sea lice using cleaner fish
at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites is to be encouraged, but is not without its management
challenges.
There is regional collaboration between farmers in the area who share sea lice counts,
treatment plans, and the efficacy of treatments, but the lice from the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites
will contribute to cumulative impacts from all the farms in the area, and Norway’s National
Salmon Register shows a number of (mostly very small) populations of sea trout and salmon in
local rivers and streams within 30 km of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites. In addition to other
human impacts on these rivers, risk assessments conclude that sea lice are a decisive factor in
the “reduced” status of seven rivers, and in the “threatened” status of one river. According to
the Environment Agency, the term “reduced” refers to a relatively mild form of influence, and
sea lice numbers in Nordland have generally been substantially lower since the assessment was
made (in 2012). Overall, the sea lice management at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik is considered to be
effective, but the infringements of the sea lice limits prevent a score of 6 out of 10. There is a
high concern regarding sea lice as one of many impacts affecting the local sea trout
populations, but as the infringements at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are infrequent and have mostly
occurred at periods of low concern to wild fish, the sites are unlikely to be contributing
substantially to any population-level mortalities. A high concern is not considered to be
justified, and a “moderate concern” is therefore appropriate and a score of 4 out of 10 is the
final score for the Disease Criterion.
For the final three criteria, the salmon farmed at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, like all farmed
salmon in Norway, come from domesticated hatchery-raised broodstocks and are therefore
independent of wild sources of either juvenile or adult fish. The score for Criterion 8 is 10 out of
10
10. The farms use passive predator barriers and do not use lethal control on any species;
however occasional bird entanglements are somewhat inevitable. Although it is not possible to
verify the numbers, it is considered highly unlikely that any mortalities would affect the
population status of the affected species and the score for the Wildlife and Predator Criterion
9X is a minor deduction of -2 out of -10. Finally, there are not considered to be any
international or trans-waterbody movements of live fish or eggs during the production cycle for
the assessed fish, and therefore there is no concern regarding the potential unintended
transfer and introduction of non-native organisms. The score for the Exceptional Criterion 10X
is a deduction of 0 out of -10.
Overall, the leading practices at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are recognized by several good
scores in the Seafood Watch criteria, however, the Escapes and Disease criteria still represent
moderate scores that are not far above a Red, High Concern. Still, a certain amount of
precaution has been applied and the large amount of data available for this assessment indicate
that while these topics are highly complex, the appropriate score is currently the moderate
scores of 4 out of 10 in both cases. The final score for the assessment is 6.02 out of 10 and the
final recommendation is a Yellow, Good Alternative. Further improvements in any scores, but
particularly in an improved understanding of escapes and disease impacts would allow a Green,
Best Choice score.
11
Table of Contents
About Seafood Watch® ....................................................................................................................2
Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................3
Final Seafood Recommendation ......................................................................................................5
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................6
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................12
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation .......................................................... 12
Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................15
Scoring guide........................................................................................................................ 15
Criterion 1: Data Quality and Availability ............................................................................ 15
Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 19
Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 24
Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 28
Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 31
Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 35
Criterion 7: Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Interactions ................................................... 44
Criterion 8: Source of Stock – Independence from Wild Fisheries...................................... 55
Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ................................................................... 56
Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species.............................................. 57
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................58
Report update information ............................................................................................................58
References .....................................................................................................................................59
Appendix 1–Data points and all scoring calculations ....................................................................63
Appendix 2: Veterinarian statement .............................................................................................69
12
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
- Species
Atlantic Salmon – Salmo Salar
- Geographic Coverage
Blue Circle®: Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms – Nordland, Norway
- Production Methods
Open net pens
Species Overview
Atlantic salmon are native to the North Atlantic Ocean with high numbers of discrete genetic
sub-populations through Western Europe in the NE Atlantic and the North America landmass in
the NW Atlantic. It is an anadromous species; that is, birth and early life stages occur in
freshwater rivers and streams followed by a migration downstream and over long oceanic
distances where the bulk of feeding and growth take place. After one or more years in the
ocean, they return upriver to their original spawning ground to complete the cycle.
- Production Statistics
Production volume estimated at 8,500 mt whole weight in 2015 (5500 mt gutted). Production
comes from five sites: Olvik, Ørnes (Kvarøy), Breivika and Ørnstolen, and Strangholme
(Selsøyvik).
- Import and Export Sources and Statistics
Approximately 60% of production is exported to the U.S. through Blue Circle Foods®
Common and Market Names
Scientific Name
Common Name
United States
Spanish
French
Japanese
Product Forms
Fillet, whole, smoked
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon
Atlantic Salmon
Salmón del Atlántico
Saumon de l'Atlantique
Taiseiyō sake
13
Production System Overview
This assessment is specific to two co-managed farms Kvarøy and Selsøyvik located in the county
of Nordland in Norway. The assessment focuses on the growout stage of production which
occurs in net pens at the sites mapped in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1. Map of Norwegian counties with Nordland in yellow and approximate location of
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms indicated by black arrow.
14
Figure 2. Site map of Kvarøy and Selsøyvik locations in Nordland. Active sites in green.
There are a number of important characteristics of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites compared to
the “typical” Norwegian production system. These include:
• Smaller sized pens of 60 m circumference (some farms now use 160 m circles), and
therefore smaller numbers of fish per cage with approximately 120,000 fish per cage
compared to the permitted maximum of 200,000.
• The use of the native lumpsucker fish (Cyclopterus lumpus) as a chemical-free method to
control sea lice. This has a number of implications for this assessment, including:
o Chemical use for sea lice is greatly reduced, and limited to hydrogen peroxide which
is environmentally benign.
o Smaller mesh nets need to be used for the lumpsuckers, which reduces potential
leakage (escape) of fish when nets sizes are increased in typical salmon farms.
o The small-mesh nets also need to have multi-mesh tears to create an escape-sized
hole (unlike larger mesh nets for which a single mesh tear can lead to trickle
escapes).
• The farm also uses a proprietary feed, formulated to reach a “Fish In: Fish Out” (FIFO) ratio
of <1.0.
15
Analysis
Scoring guide
• With the exception of the Exceptional Criteria (9X and 10X), all scores result in a zero to ten
final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor
performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two
exceptional criteria result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero
indicates no negative impact.
• The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available
on the Seafood Watch website.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_Seafood
Watch_AquacultureCriteraMethodology.pdf
• The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Appendix 1.
Criterion 1: Data Quality and Availability
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the
impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood
purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts.
 Sustainability unit: the ability to make a robust sustainability assessment.
 Principle: robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is
available to relevant stakeholders.
Criterion 1 Summary
Data Category
Industry or production statistics
Effluent
Locations/habitats
Chemical use
Feed
Escapes, animal movements
Disease
Source of stock
Predators and wildlife
Other – (e.g., GHG emissions)
Total
C1 Data Final Score
Relevance (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
8.33
Data Quality
10
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
7.5
10
10
5
5
GREEN
Score (0-10)
10
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
7.5
10
10
5
n/a
75
16
Brief Summary
Due to the focused nature of this assessment on the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms and the open
relationship with the farm management, the data availability on all aspects of the production
was good. The Norwegian salmon industry, in general, has considerable amounts of data
available publically, and there is a large and continuously developing body of academic
literature covering many key aspects of production. This assessment has to acknowledge that
some data and information provided directly by the farm cannot robustly be verified; however,
while the audit reports have not been used in this assessment, further confidence in the farmlevel data and in the personal communications with the farm management is provided by the
third party auditing of the sites to the Whole Food standards. Overall, the data score for this
assessment is 8.3 out of 10.
Justification of Ranking
The Norwegian salmon farming industry has been the subject of intense scrutiny with regard to
its environmental impacts, and this has resulted in a substantial volume of government and
industry monitoring data in addition to a large body of scientific literature. This farm-level
assessment of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites means that there is a large amount of local and
site-specific information available. Some data and information provided directly by the farm
cannot robustly be verified for the purposes of this assessment; however, further confidence in
the farm-level data and in the personal communications with the farm management is provided
by the third party auditing of the sites to the Whole Food standards by the Swiss-based
company Institute for Marketecology (IMO). In addition, the industry is now the subject of a
large body of scientific literature, and while there are many instances where it can be difficult
to draw clear conclusions, recent reviews such as the recent “risk assessment of the
environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming” by Taranger et al. (2015) provide
valuable reviews and summaries of the key topics. Further, and with regard to the Seafood
Watch criteria and assessment process, Bridson (2014) recently assessed the broader
Norwegian salmon farming industry.
With regard to the Seafood Watch criteria in this assessment and the categories in the Data
Criterion, the key data sources are as follows:
Industry and Production Statistics
The farm-level nature of this assessment means that detailed information was provided by the
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik management on all aspects of production, including basic information of
production volumes, site locations, site characteristics and the various production
characteristics considered in the following sections. In addition, this is supported by
considerable national and regional data made available by the industry and government. The
data score for the Industry and Production statistics is 10 out of 10.
Effluent and Habitat
In net pen aquaculture, the Effluent and Habitat criteria are connected. While data on soluble
effluents is not collected by the farm, or required in Norway at all, key scientific studies on
17
nutrient dynamics in salmon farming areas, particularly densely farmed areas, now provide
clear conclusions (e.g., Husa et al. 2014, and also the regional review by Taranger et al. 2015).
The potential effluent impacts beyond the farm, and the dominant habitat impact of floating
net pens within the farm area are primarily on the seabed, and benthic monitoring within (and
at) the boundary of the farm sites is required in Norway (MOM-B surveys). National results are
available in addition to the farm-specific results for the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites from 2006 to
2015. Benthic monitoring is occasionally required beyond the immediate farm area (MOM-C
surveys), and while these results are reviewed by Taranger et al. (2015), there have been no
MOM-C samples required at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites. The data scores for the Effluent and
Habitat criteria are therefore 7.5 out of 10 for both aspects.
Chemical Use
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites use lumpsucker fish as a chemical-free alternative to treating sea
lice parasites, and the farms are independently audited to be compliant to the Whole Foods
standards which prohibit antibiotic and sea lice pesticides (other than hydrogen peroxide) to be
used. In addition, a letter from the company veterinarian provides further support that these
chemicals are not used. Confidence is high that the use of chemicals is well understood and the
data score for Chemical Use is 7.5 out of 10.
Feed
The feed company, Biomar, provided a complete breakdown of the feeds used at the Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik sites in addition to a large amount of information on the sources and
environmental impacts of the ingredients used and their processing. This is unusual in any form
of aquaculture and therefore the data score for Feeds is 10 out of 10.
Escapes and Animal Movements
While the numbers of reported escapes in Norway are available publically, the fact that there
have been no recent reported escapes at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites means that assessing
the data availability for this criterion is challenging. The farm-level practices regarding escape
prevention at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik were articulated in detail, as were the recapture capabilities
in the event of an escape. The fate and potential impact of farmed salmon escapes is the
subject of a large and continually evolving body of scientific research which has again been
reviewed by Taranger et al. (2015) and continues to be embellished by new studies such as
Skilbrei et al. (2015).
As there is not considered to be any international or trans-waterbody movements of eggs or
live fish for the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik production, there is not considered to be any specific data
requirements for Criterion 10X. The data score for escapes and live animal movements is 7.5
out of 10.
Disease
Regional reporting of disease outbreaks, in addition to a wide variety of fish health aspects, are
available in the Norwegian Veterinary Institute’s excellent annual report, Fish Health Report
(Borno & Lie Linaker 2015), and again, the review and risk assessment by Taranger et al. (2015)
18
provides a useful review and summary of the key concerns. Information on diseases at the
assessed sites was provided by the company, and supported by a letter from the fish vet with
regard to Norway’s regulated diseases. Sea lice is highlighted as a key subject and the Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik sites provided full weekly sea lice counts for all their sites for recent generations.
Norway’s national monitoring data is available at the regional level from www.lusedata.no and
this information is summarized at www.mysalmon.no in useful graphs that provide rich
information on national, regional and annual variations in lice loads. Regarding the potential
impacts, the Environment Agency’s (Miljo Direktoratet) Salmon Register
(http://lakseregister.fylkesmannen.no/lakseregister/public/default.aspx), provides information
on every anadramous salmonid population in Norway and provides guidance on their
population status and any key aspects contributing to any reduction. Key academic papers such
as Serra-Llinares et al. (2014) also provide important information on the geographical range of
influence of sea lice. In combination, the disease situation in Norway and at the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites has been comprehensively studied and the data score is 10 out of 10.
Source of Stock
The ubiquitous use of domesticated broodstocks means that the source of stock is well
established. The data score is 10 out of 10.
Wildlife and Predators
Although a permit is required for lethal control of problem predators such as seals, there is no
public reporting of mortality numbers in Norway. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites report that
they do not use lethal control, but do report (for this Seafood Watch assessment) unspecified
numbers for “very occasional” mortality of birds that become entangled in the nets. All data is
considered to have been made available by the farms, but it cannot be robustly verified and no
specific numbers are available, therefore the data score is 5 out of 10.
Overall, data availability for this focused assessment of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites is good,
and the final score for the Data Criterion is 8.3 out of 10.
19
Criterion 2: Effluents
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the
amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge
of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads.
 Sustainability unit: the carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving
waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect.
 Principle: aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes
at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to
control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond
the immediate vicinity of the farm.
Criterion 2 Summary
Effluent Evidence-Based Assessment
C2 Effluent Final Score
6.00
YELLOW
Brief Summary
Net pen salmon farms represent a substantial point source of nutrient pollution, however,
recent studies, including some in Norway’s densest fish farming regions, indicate the risk of
substantial impacts to local and regional nutrient budgets leading to eutrophication is low. The
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are located in open coastal areas rather than more enclosed fjords
and, in the county of Nordland, salmon farm effluent is reported to cause a very small increase
(1%) in phytoplankton production. This is lower than counties further south, and also low
compared to more-densely farmed regions where a 15% increase in the most densely farmed
region is not associated with any indication of eutrophication. Therefore, while acknowledging
that a risk remains for localized impacts from soluble wastes in areas beyond the farm and not
currently monitored, the available studies robustly indicate that the risk of significant impact is
low.
For particulate wastes, monitoring of areas in close proximity to fish farms in Norway occurs
with mandatory “environmental monitoring of marine fish farm” (MOM) surveys. The results
from the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites shows that the large majority of samples within the
immediate farm area are in Condition 1, which indicates low organic loading. None are
overloaded (Condition 4), and the sites are fallowed at the end of each production cycle. These
results within the immediate area of the farm indicate that, although potential impacts beyond
the farms are not monitored, the likelihood of significant impacts in these areas is also low.
Therefore, despite the substantial point source of effluent pollution represented by the farm
sites, the available data indicates a low risk of eutrophication or benthic impacts beyond the
immediate farm area. Taking into account the lack of specific monitoring to confirm this, the
final score for the Effluent Criterion is 6 out of 10, representing a low-moderate concern.
20
Justification of Ranking
The Seafood Watch Effluent Criterion considers impacts of farm wastes beyond the immediate
farm area or outside a regulatory allowable zone of effect, and the Habitat Criterion considers
impacts within the immediate farm area. While the two criteria cover different impact
locations, there is inevitably some overlap between them in terms of monitoring data and
scientific studies. The majority of this information will be presented in this Effluent Criterion,
with the intent of minimizing (but not entirely avoiding) replication in the Habitat Criterion.
The majority of a salmon farm’s effluents are soluble nutrients that are dispersed in the water
column; salmonids excrete 75%–90% of their ammonia and ammonium waste across gill
epithelia (Gormican 1989) or in concentrated urea, and nitrogen and phosphorus are also
dissolved from waste feed and feces during and after descent to bottom sediments (Persson
1988, Gowen et al. 1991). Both waste streams have the potential to impact areas beyond the
immediate farm area, but despite the majority of wastes being soluble, salmon farming impacts
are considered to stem primarily from the release of particulate matter (feces and uneaten
food) into the water column (Wilding 2011).
Although the total quantity of waste discharge from a farm or region can be large, research in
Norway suggests this total can be considered somewhat insignificant compared to the natural
transport of nutrients in the coastal currents (FHL 2011). The Norwegian Institute for Marine
Research (IMR) calculated a maximum 4.8% increase in phytoplankton growth in the most
heavily impacted area of Norway and concluded that this remains within the threshold for very
good water quality (Taranger et al. 2011). IMR considers the risk of regional eutrophication in
the pelagic zone of Norway to be low. Despite these large-scale regional assessments, the
potential for local or regional impacts in individual waterbodies appear significant. For example,
Strain (2005) concludes: “Given the right combination of the intensity of farming and the
carrying capacity of the receiving environment, finfish aquaculture can produce eutrophication
impacts on scales of kilometers to tens of kilometers and can change the structure and
functioning of the ecosystem in significant ways on these scales.”
Helping to reduce this uncertainty, more recent studies and reviews in Norway’s largest and
most intensive salmon farming region, the Hardangerfjord, where 70-80,000 mt of salmon are
produced annually, have shown all nutrient and chlorophyll-a values were within the thresholds
for high water quality set by the national authorities, and there were no indications of elevated
levels in the intermediate area of the fjord, which has the greatest density of farms (Husa et al.
2014b). Modelling of the distribution of nutrients in the fjord (taking into account water
exchange rates) shows that nutrient emissions from fish farms in the densest area of
production will increase the natural nitrogen concentrations and phytoplankton biomass by
15% (Husa et al. 2014). Although this is higher than the 4.8% figure quoted above (from
Taranger et al. 2011), the chlorophyll-a values measured in Hardangerfjord in this study give no
indication of any ongoing eutrophication processes (Husa et al. 2014b and references therein).
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms do not routinely monitor soluble effluent impacts beyond the
immediate farm area, and there is no routine monitoring of soluble effluent from fish farms in
21
Norway. A recent risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon
farming (Taranger et al. 2015) reported the potential for increases in phytoplankton biomass
across the nine Norwegian salmon farming counties. The results (shown in Figure 2) show that
Nordland has a low increase in phytoplankton production compared to the other counties
(approximately 1% in Nordland compared to the peak of approximately 7% in Hordaland), and
also an apparent low potential for impact when compared to the maximum of 4.8% for Norway
and 15% for the Hardangerfjord area (for which there is no indication of eutrophication). The
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are located in open areas of the coast (i.e., not enclosed fjords) and
therefore there is considered to be a low risk of direct local impacts from soluble effluents in
this assessment. There are other salmon farming sites in the area, but the low increases in
phytoplankton production for Nordland, as a region, indicate that the risk of the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites causing or contributing to cumulative soluble effluent impacts is low.
Figure 2–Estimated percentage increase in phytoplankton production due to emissions of dissolved
nitrogen from finfish farms in 2012 in each Norwegian county. Graph copied from Taranger et al. (2015).
Regarding the benthic impacts from settling particulates, feces and uneaten food settle on the
seabed in an area controlled largely by the settling speed of the particles, the water depth and
the current speed; as a result, they generate a localized gradient of organic enrichment in the
underlying and adjacent sediments (Black et al. 2008).
Keeley et al. (2013) describe the major pathways of biodeposition from a typical net pen
salmon farming system showing that of the total particulates leaving the net pen, some will
dissolve or release nutrients before reaching the seabed; of the portion settling on the seabed
in the primary area of deposition, some will be consumed directly by benthic organisms, some
will accumulate and consolidate, and some will be resuspended and transported to far-field
locations. During that transport, further nutrients will be dissolved, diluted and assimilated and
the remainder will finally settle in far-field locations.
Monitoring of areas in close proximity to fish farms in Norway occurs with mandatory
“environmental monitoring of marine fish farm” (MOM) surveys (Taranger et al. 2011). This
22
Effluent Criterion assesses the effluent impact beyond the immediate area of the salmon farms,
but considering the impacts within the immediate farm area can provide a useful indication of
the likely impacts beyond it. MOM-C surveys assess impacts in the broader areas beyond the
immediate farm site, but they can be ordered by county governors or as part of research and
are limited in numbers to approximately 10% of the total sites in Norway. Currently about 170
surveys are available, according to Taranger et al. (2015), but none specific to the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites.
For Kvarøy and Selsøyvik, the 27 seabed monitoring assessments from 2006 to 2015 show a
range of results from benthic condition 1 (low organic loading) to benthic condition 3 (high
organic loading). A large majority of samples (nearly 70%) were in Condition 1, and no sites
were “overloaded” in Condition 4. The percentage of site-monitoring results in each class are
shown in Figure 3. The mean condition was 1.41, the median was 1. There were no apparent
trends in benthic quality over time.
% of Monitoring Results
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Benthic Condition
Figure 3. Benthic monitoring results from Kvarøy and Selsøyvik
These results are consistent with recent results for Norway as a whole (to 2013) in Taranger et
al. (2015). For reference, the benthic samples in class 3 at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites (2 samples
out of 27) returned to Condition 1 during production and fallowing in both cases. Norway has a
regulatory requirement for a 60-day fallow period after each production cycle, and the Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik farms report that there has been a minimum three-month fallow over the last
three years.
The primary depositional area below salmon net pens is typically localized and limited to the
close proximity of the farm, and studies examining the spatial extent of fish farming impacts
generally report that their effects on the benthic environment rapidly dissipate and decrease
exponentially with increasing distance from their edge (Keeley et al. 2013, Chang et al. 2011,
Mayor and Solan 2011, Mayor et al. 2010, Brooks and Mahnken 2003). Therefore, considering
the dominance of monitoring results in Condition 1 and the lack of results in Condition 4
(overloaded), plus the return of Condition 3 sites to Condition 1 during fallowing, it is
23
considered likely that there are very limited benthic impacts beyond the immediate areas of the
sites.
For further reference and comparison, Taranger et al. (2015) reported that of 122 MOM-C
investigations on impacts beyond the immediate farm area, 95% had a high or very high
ecological classification while the remaining 5% were in moderate condition.
Overall, although salmon farms represent a substantial point source of effluent pollution, the
available local data for the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites and regional data for the Nordland county
indicate there is an apparently low risk of significant direct or cumulative impacts beyond the
immediate farm areas either in the water column, or on the seabed. However, there is currently
no site-level monitoring done in these local areas beyond the farm (MOM-C surveys) to
conclusively prove this, and the inference must be made from the benthic conditions within the
immediate area and from the regional data from the county of Nordland as a whole. According
to the Seafood Watch criteria, data showing there is unlikely to be local or regional impacts
would justify a score 8 out of 10, but the benthic data within the farm area indicates there is
also likely to be some occasional, temporary or minor impact beyond the immediate farm sites
(score 4 out of 10). An intermediate final score of 6 out of 10 was chosen and, despite the
substantial point source of effluent pollution, it represents an appropriate low-moderate
concern for effluent impacts beyond the immediate farm area at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites.
24
Criterion 3: Habitat
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified
habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide.
 Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the
habitat type.
 Principle: aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that
cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.
Criterion 3 Summary
Habitat parameters
F3.1 Habitat conversion and function
F3.2a Content of habitat regulations
F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations
F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score
C3 Habitat Final Score
Critical?
Value
Score
7.00
3.25
3.25
4.23
6.08
YELLOW
NO
Brief Summary
The benthic monitoring results demonstrate that the majority of samples taken at the Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik sites show low organic loading (Condition 1), and the few samples with higher
loading returned to Condition 1 during fallowing and subsequent production. No sites were
overloaded (Condition 4). Therefore, although the farm activities will result in an increase of
organic loading and associated impacts, the good benthic monitoring results for the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites are considered to indicate that the habitats are maintaining functionality with
only moderate impacts. The regulatory measures for benthic habitat monitoring in Norway are
well developed and the published evidence of limited cumulative impacts in some of Norway’s
most densely farmed areas show they are effective and well-enforced and the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites are unlikely to contribute to significant cumulative habitat impacts. Overall, the
Habitat Criterion score is 6.08 out of 10.
Justification of Ranking
As discussed in the Effluent Criterion, there is inevitably some overlap in the information used
between the Effluent and Habitat criteria because the source of the impact in both cases is the
same (i.e., uneaten feed and fish waste). While the Effluent Criterion assessed impacts beyond
the immediate farm area, the Habitat Criterion considers impacts within it.
Factor 3.1. Habitat Conversion and Function
The floating net pens used in salmon farming have relatively little direct habitat impacts, but
the operational impacts on the benthic habitats below the farm and/or within an allowable
25
zone of effect can be profound. As discussed in the Effluent Criterion, intensive net pen fish
farming activities generate a localized gradient of organic enrichment in the underlying and
adjacent sediments as a result of uneaten food and feces, and strongly influences the
abundance and diversity of infaunal communities. In the area under the net pens or within the
regulatory AZE, the impacts may be profound, but are now relatively well understood (see
Black, Hansen et al. (2008) for a review of these impacts).
Benthic monitoring results for the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites presented in the Effluent Criterion
(Figure 3) show that of 27 monitoring occasions for the five sites from 2006 to 2015, two-thirds
(66.6%) are in Condition 1, indicating low organic loading; 26% and 7% are in Condition 2
(indicating moderate organic loading) and Condition 3 (high loading) respectively. None of the
sampling periods indicated the overloading of Condition 4.
Benthic impacts of this nature are considered to be quickly reversible with cessation of
production or fallowing. For example, while the time taken for recovery of this area is highly
variable, it is frequently substantial in 2-3 years (Black et al. 2008). Of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik
sites that were either Condition 2 or 3, all returned to Condition 1 during subsequent
operations and fallowing (see Effluent Criterion above for details on fallowing protocols at the
assessed sites). This recovery time is short compared to more invasive habitat impacts,
indicating the impacts are not irreversible, and are rapidly reversible. Therefore, although the
farm activities will result in an increase of organic loading and will impact the area beneath the
farms, the good benthic monitoring results are considered to indicate that the habitats are
maintaining functionality with only moderate impacts. With the majority of the benthic
monitoring results showing low organic loading, the Habitat Conversion and Function score for
Factor 3.1 is 7 out of 10 based on the apparent maintenance of habitat functionality.
Factor 3.2. Habitat and Farm Siting Management Effectiveness (Appropriate to the Scale of
the Industry)
Husa et al. (2014b) noted the cumulative effect of numerous impacted areas around multiple
fish farms must be taken into consideration when further evaluating the total impact from fish
farming on ecosystem functioning. Factor 3.2 assesses the effectiveness of the regulatory and
farm management practices in addressing the potential cumulative impacts from multiple
farming sites. For the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, the scoring for this factor addresses not only
the effectiveness of the farm-level management, but also of the industry as a whole within
which it potentially contributes to cumulative impacts.
Each county in Norway is responsible for their own management of aquaculture, while the
Directorate of Fisheries is responsible for the control measures at each farm site. The
Aquaculture Act (2005) 3 administered by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs regulates
the management, control and development of aquaculture in Norway. The act has a strong
3
Available from the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, or
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Documents/Acts-and-regulations/Acts-and-regulations/the-norwegianaquaculture-act.html?id=430160
26
emphasis on industry profitability and growth 4, but restricts the issuance of new licenses, and
each site has a maximum allowable biomass and a maximum stocking density of fish relevant to
the carrying capacity of the site. There is a minimum distance between sites and fallowing
requirements between production cycles. These measures are intended to address the
industry’s total size and concentration, and to ensure future expansion takes place at
appropriate locations. Fallowing requirements can be considered to be a form of habitat
restoration, but their occurrence between production cycles only temporarily improves the
benthic conditions (before production begins again); however, they do ensure that long-term
local cumulative impacts are unlikely. In addition to following the regulatory requirements, the
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are managed at lower biomass levels and use smaller sized net pens,
which limit the total waste production.
Regarding enforcement of the regulations relating to habitat impacts, the relevant agencies are
easily identified, locations of farms are publically available and the published results of the
MOM benthic surveys at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites indicate effective monitoring is taking
place. Some concerns have been expressed in Norway regarding the relevance of the site-level
monitoring to the potential cumulative impacts of the multiple sites in the industry. For
example, Norway’s Auditor General states: “With respect to policy instruments, [….] there are
shortcomings in the planning of marine areas. When awarding licenses to engage in fish
farming and when regulating the aquaculture facilities, the main focus is on the individual site
and less on the total environmental load from several aquaculture facilities in a wider
area”(Kosmo 2012). However, he also notes: “Environmental considerations have been given
greater emphasis in recent years when considering whether the aquaculture industry's
production can be increased.”
At the broader industry level, the Auditor General also states: ”Breaches of the regulations are
often uncovered during inspections of aquaculture facilities, and the use of sanctions varies at
the regional and local levels in the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Food Safety
Authority.” While these breaches are inevitably a concern, the use of sanctions is a positive
indication of regulatory enforcement and, with regard to this assessment of the Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites, there are no indications of regulatory infringements (or sanctions) taking place.
Further support for the effectiveness of habitat regulations can be seen in the recent studies in
the intensively farmed Hardangerfjord area in Norway and other regional monitoring efforts
reviewed by Taranger et al. (2015). They conclude that the ecological conditions in fauna
communities and oxygen values in deep regional basins are high to very high in fjords with high
salmon farming activity. It must be noted that these studies relate primarily to deep fjordic sites
rather than the shallower open-coast areas occupied by the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, but this
assessment considers the risk of cumulative habitat impacts here to be lower due to the more
rapid flushing and dispersal of wastes.
4
The document states “the purpose of the new act is to promote the profitability and competitiveness of the
aquaculture industry within the framework of a sustainable development and contribute to the creation of value on
the coast” – see page 4 of the act for the full statement.
27
Regarding the scoring for Factor 3.2, the detailed scoring questions and answers are available in
the Appendix, but in summary, the score for Factor 3.2a on the content of the regulation and
site management is 3.25 out of 5; and Factor 3.2b, enforcement, is also 3.25 out of 5.
Combined, they result in a moderate score for Factor 3.2 of 4.23 out of 10.
Habitat Criterion Final Score.
The combined final score for the Habitat Criterion is 6.08 out of 10, and reflects the limited
direct habitat impacts at the site level and the well-developed regulatory and management
processes to limit the potential for their contribution to cumulative impacts from multiple
farms.
28
Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to
production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant
organisms.
 Sustainability unit: non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of
pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments.
 Principle: aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge
of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of
environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.
Criterion 4 Summary
Chemical Use parameters
C4 Chemical Use Score
C4 Chemical Use Final Score
Critical?
Score
5.00
5.00
YELLOW
NO
Brief Summary
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are managed with the intention to minimize and avoid chemical
use. The farms are independently audited to the Whole Foods purchasing standards which
prohibit the use of antibiotics, sea lice treatments (other than environmentally benign
hydrogen peroxide), and copper-based antifoulants. An average of 2.8 hydrogen peroxide
treatments have been used over the last seven production cycles since 2012; however, some
treatments occur only on small numbers of fish (e.g., late in the harvest phase of production)
and the company reports that many fish receive no treatments. On average, the company
reports that fish are treated less than once per production cycle. While this is considered to be
of little direct environmental concern, the contribution to the growing development of
resistance in Norway is a concern (for example the loss of efficacy of hydrogen peroxide is likely
to drive some producers to revert to more toxic alternatives). The avoidance of antibiotics and
the use of cleaner fish and environmentally benign chemicals is to be commended, and
chemical use is broadly considered to be low on these sites. Nevertheless, the contribution to
the development of resistance to hydrogen peroxide in Norway, although probably small, is still
a concern and penalized in the Seafood Watch criteria; the score for the Chemical Use Criterion
is 5 out of 10.
Justification of Ranking
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are managed to minimize chemical use and the farms are
independently audited to the Whole Foods purchasing standards that prohibit antibiotics and
sea lice treatments other than hydrogen peroxide. In addition, a letter from the company
veterinarian (Appendix 2) confirms that antibiotics are not used and (through the use of
29
lumpsucker fish as a non-chemical sea lice treatment) sea lice chemicals other than hydrogen
peroxide are also not used.
Data for seven production cycles on multiple Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites since 2012 show
hydrogen peroxide was used between one and five times per production cycle, with an average
of 2.8 treatments per cycle (each approximately 18 months long). With many of these
treatments occurring on smaller numbers of large fish late in the production cycle during the
extended harvest period (typically six months to harvest all fish), the total use will be lower
than that reflected by the average of 2.8 treatments per cycle and the companies report that
on average each Kvarøy and Selsøyvik is treated less than once per production cycle. Hydrogen
peroxide breaks down rapidly in seawater to form environmentally benign byproducts of
hydrogen and oxygen, therefore the use of hydrogen peroxide is of little direct environmental
concern. However Helgesen et al. (2015) reported initial cases of resistance against hydrogen
peroxide among sea lice populations in Norway, and more detailed data from the Norwegian
Veterinary Institute shows that the first treatment failures (five in total) were noted in 2013 5,
which increased to ten in 2014 6. The use of substantial quantities of hydrogen peroxide in
Nordland has been reported in 2012 and 20134, and there is no limit on the frequency of use
permitted in Norway. Although the hydrogen peroxide use at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites is
considered to be of little direct environmental concern (and lower than farms that do not use
cleaner fish to reduce chemical use), the development of resistance and potential loss of
efficacy of this treatment would likely lead to the increased use of more toxic sea lice
treatments by the industry as a whole, in addition to the potential increase in sea lice numbers
as a result of failed treatments. Therefore, even though Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are committed to
the use of cleaner fish and therefore reduced amounts of hydrogen peroxide (which is the sole
chemical treatment permitted under the farm’s compliance to the Whole Foods standards) the
multiple treatments inevitably contribute directly to the resistance problems and indirectly to a
larger concern for the industry as a whole regarding the availability of effective sea lice
treatments.
The assessed farms also do not use copper treated nets, which is also an audited requirement
of the Whole Foods standards.
Overall, the avoidance of antibiotics and the use of cleaner fish and environmentally benign
chemicals is to be commended. Chemical use is broadly considered to be low and arguably
deserving a score of 8 out of 10 in the Seafood Watch criteria, however, the development of
resistance to hydrogen peroxide in Norway is a higher concern, and while a score of 6 out of 10
can be allocated when there is “no evidence of resistance to key treatments,” a score of 4 out
of 10 should be allocated when there is “some evidence of concern of resistance to chemical
5
http://www.vetinst.no/eng/Publications/Surveillance-Programmes-annual-reports/2013/The-surveillanceprogramme-for-resistance-to-chemotherapeutants-in-L.-salmonis-in-Norway-2013
6
http://www.vetinst.no/eng/Publications/Surveillance-Programmes-annual-reports/2014/The-surveillanceprogramme-for-resistance-to-chemotherapeutants-in-salmon-lice-Lepeophtheirus-salmonis-in-Norway-2014
30
treatments.” An intermediate score is most appropriate in the circumstances and the final score
for the Chemical Use Criterion is 5 out of 10.
31
Criterion 5: Feed
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or losses
vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and
their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion
can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be
one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability.
 Sustainability unit: the amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed
fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional
gains or losses from the farming operation.
 Principle: aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them
efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the nonedible portion of farmed fish.
Criterion 5 Summary
Feed parameters
F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO)
F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score
F5.1: Wild Fish Use
F5.2a Protein IN
F5.2b Protein OUT
F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%)
F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares)
C5 Feed Final Score
Critical?
Value
0.82
29.48
18.00
-39.00
9.3
Score
7.95
-5.00
7.54
6
6
6.77
GREEN
NO

Brief Summary
Detailed feed data was provided by the Biomar feed company for the custom Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik feeds. By using byproduct ingredients (primarily fish oil), the feeds are formulated to
give a Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) ratio of <1.0, and calculations according to the Seafood Watch
criteria showed FIFO values of 0.82 and 0.22 for fishmeal and fish oil respectively (the feed
conversion ratio is 1.12). This means that from first principles, less than one ton of wild fish
would need to be caught to produce the fishmeal needed to produce one ton of farmed
salmon. The fisheries sources used by Biomar are considered moderately sustainable overall,
across the range of marine species used. With moderate use of byproduct fishmeal ingredients,
high use of crop ingredients and zero use of land animal ingredients, there is a net loss of edible
protein of 39%, and a calculated primary production footprint for the feed ingredients of 9.3
hectares. The final feed score is 6.77 out of 10, and reflects the company’s reduced use of
fishmeal and oil, and moderate to high use of by-product ingredients for fishmeal and oil.
Justification of Ranking
32
The Seafood Watch criteria assess three factors: Wild Fish Use (including the sustainability of
the source), net protein gain or loss, and the feed “footprint” or global area required to supply
the ingredients. For a full explanation of the calculations, see the Seafood Watch Aquaculture
Criteria document 7
Customized feeds for Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are provided by the feed company Biomar and while
detailed information on the compositions of aquaculture feeds is often difficult to obtain for
proprietary reasons, comprehensive data were made available by Biomar and aggregated for
use in this assessment. The requirements of the farms are driven in part by the compliance
needs of the Whole Foods standards which have a few specific aspects; one being a prohibition
of land animal proteins.
Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik feeds are intended to reach a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) of <1.0.
From first principles, this means less than 1 ton of wild fish would need to be caught to produce
1 ton of farmed salmon. Calculations based on the detailed feed composition provided by
Biomar show that the total fishmeal and fish oil content is 21.8% and 9.06% respectively, and of
these 19.31% and 89.02% respectively come from byproduct ingredients. The average
economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) from data provided by the farms for the five most recent
generations produced at four different sites is 1.12. A detailed list is available of the marine
species used by Biomar to supply the fishmeal and oil and the weighted yield of fishmeal and oil
used in the calculations was 24% and 5.18% for fishmeal and oil respectively (slightly higher
than the default values of 22.5% and 5% in the Seafood Watch standard).
Calculations based on the Seafood Watch criteria result in a FIFO value for fishmeal of 0.82, and
for fish oil of 0.22. All calculation values are available in the Appendix tables. The higher value
for fishmeal is used to generate a Seafood Watch score of 7.95 out of 10.
Sustainability Score
The FIFO score is adjusted by a sustainability factor determined by the fisheries that provide
marine ingredients. The default adjustment value of 0 is based on the assumption that
aquaculture should use sustainable feed ingredients, and an increasingly large negative penalty
is generated by increasingly unsustainable sources.
Table 1 below shows the sources of marine ingredients used by Biomar as a whole. This is not
specific to the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik feeds, but the reality of the changing purchasing strategies
for different batches of feeds within the long duration of the farmed salmon production cycle
means that the data here is the most relevant of the available data for the assessed feeds. The
table indicates which sources are certified to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards
and which are in assessment (I/A)
7
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_aboutsfw.aspx
33
Table 1. Fish species used by Biomar in Norway to produce the marine feed materials. Data
from Biomar (2015).
For anchoveta (the dominant species for fishmeal in Table 1 above), FishSource 8 has four
assessments for the Peruvian and Chilean source fisheries. The FishSource scores vary across
the four sources and, regarding the scoring options in the Seafood Watch criteria, the
sustainability factor would vary between -4 and -8. These South American sources are largely
certified to the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization Responsible Supply scheme
(IFFO RS 9) which equates to a score of -6 in the Seafood Watch criteria. With blue whiting10 and
krill being either MSC certified or in assessment, in addition to other MSC certified sources for
which the score would either be -2 or 0 depending on the certification conditions, the most
appropriate score with respect to fishmeal would be -5. For fish oil other than the trimmings
sources (Seafood Watch does not currently assess or score the use of fishmeal and oil made
from byproducts), FishSource does not have an assessment for sand eel or menhaden (although
they are approved by IFFO RS), and three of the next four dominant species are MSC certified or
in assessment. Overall, it appears that while Biomar has made substantial efforts to supply MSC
certified and demonstrably sustainable ingredients, the most appropriate sustainability factor
score for the range of species used is the moderate score of -5 out of -10.
The sustainability factor results in a negative adjustment to the FIFO score of -0.41, and the
final Wild Fish Use score is 7.54 out of 10.
Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss
Data provided by Biomar shows that the crude protein content of the feed varies around 35%
according to the age of the fish. A weighted average for the full production cycle results in an
average crude protein content of 35.02%.
8
www.fishsource.com
http://www.iffo.net/whole-fish-raw-material
10
For reference, the FishSource scores for NE Atlantic Blue Whiting are all >6 and 4/5 being >8. This would also
equal a score of -2 in the Seafood Watch criteria.
9
34
A detailed breakdown of the feed composition provided by Biomar shows the total protein is
supplied by a variety of marine ingredients and terrestrial crop ingredients. There are no land
animal products used. While Biomar considers some of the crop ingredients to be byproducts
(such as wheat gluten or maize gluten), Seafood Watch considers these to be coproducts of
edible ingredients and they are therefore considered to be “edible” in the calculations of
protein inputs and outputs. Using a default protein content for fishmeal of 66.5%, the total
fishmeal inclusion level of 21.8% provides 40.6% of the total protein. 7.84% of the total protein
is considered to come from the byproduct fishmeal ingredients. The remainder (59.4%) is
considered to come from edible crop ingredients (the Seafood Watch criteria calculations allow
for the increased protein quality of the harvested salmon compared to that of the crop feed
ingredients). Considering the eFCR of 1.12, the edible protein input is 29.48 kg per 100 kg of
farmed salmon production.
Regarding protein outputs, in the absence of a specific protein content for Kvarøy and Selsøyvik
fish, the default value of 18% from the Seafood Watch criteria is used. All of the byproducts
from the harvested fish are processed and utilized, therefore, the protein output is 18 kg per
100 kg of farmed salmon production.
Overall, with the relatively low use of fishmeal from byproducts and the large amount of total
protein coming from edible crop ingredients, there is a net loss of protein of 39.0%, which
equates to a Seafood Watch score of 6 out of 10 for the Protein Factor (5.2).
Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint
With the detailed data provided by Biomar, the footprint calculations according to the Seafood
Watch criteria are straightforward. A total of 30.9% of the feed ingredients comes from marine
sources (fishmeal and fish oil), and the remaining 69.1% is from crops (accepting some minor
error due to the small percentage of vitamins, minerals and processing ingredients in the feed).
The area of aquatic and terrestrial primary productivity required to produce these ingredients is
calculated (using the equations in the Seafood Watch criteria) to be 9.0 ha and 0.3 ha
respectively. The total area of 9.3 ha equates to a score of 6 out of 10 for the Feed Footprint
Factor (5.3).
Final Score for the Feed Criterion
The final score is a combination of the three factors with a double weighting for the Wild Fish
Use factor. The final score is therefore calculated to be 6.77 out of 10.
35
Criterion 6: Escapes
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage, spawning disruption, and
other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native
and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations.
 Sustainability unit: affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations.
 Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild
populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced
species.
Criterion 6 Summary
Escape parameters
F6.1 Escape Risk
F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%)
F6.1b Invasiveness
C6 Escape Final Score
Critical?
Value
Score
4.0
15
4.0
4.00
YELLOW
NO
Brief Summary
Large-scale escape events continue to be reported in Norway, but are limited in number and
therefore limited to a small number of farms in any one year. Trickle losses are considered to
be more common and may often be unreported. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have had an
extended period (>10 years) without reported escapes, and their use of lumpsucker fish to
control sea lice means that small mesh nets must be used which further reduce the risk of
trickle losses. The farms also exceed the structural and maintenance requirements of the
national technical standards, and while the fate of escapes in terms of recapture and mortality
is complex, a minor adjustment to the escape risk was made. While primitive net pen systems
are considered to have a high risk of escape, the more developed systems typically used in
salmon farming combined with the additional characteristics of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites
result in a moderate Escape Risk score (4.9 out of 10).
Regarding potential impacts, recently published (2015) research shows that while there are
rivers in Nordland that are being impacted by farmed salmon, the proportion of farmed escapes
within the farmed population is lower than previously estimated and the risk of genetic impacts
in Nordland is low. Farmed escapees may be highly mobile depending on their size, location and
time of year of escape, and therefore may enter rivers in areas remote to the escape.
Therefore, there the risk of direct ecological impacts continues, however, in the Nordland
region of primary concern, the low numbers of escaped fish entering rivers represent a lower
level of concern when compared to regions in Norway with high numbers of farm escapes. The
Invasiveness score is 4 out of 10. Overall, the final score for the Escapes Criterion is a moderate
4 out of 10.
36
Justification of Ranking
Regarding the risk assessment of the impacts of salmon farming in Norway, “one of the
challenges to the continued development of a sustainable aquaculture industry is containment,
and each year, thousands or hundreds of thousands of farmed salmon escape into the natural
environment in Norway. Furthermore, the official statistics for numbers of escapees reported to
the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries underestimate the real number of escapees” (Taranger
et al. 2015).
The impacts of farmed salmon escapes have been the subject of considerable study, and a
review by Taranger et al. (2015) reinforces the ongoing high concern of genetic introgression in
some rivers throughout Norway that receive large numbers of escaped farmed salmon. A key
aspect of these impacts is defining what “large numbers” are and key recent papers such as
Skilbrei et al. (2015), Svenning (2015), Anon (2015), the Taranger et al. (2015) review and the
core data sources within it (such as Glover et al. 2012) continue to advance this understanding.
These aspects are discussed below in terms of the two main factors in the Escapes Criterion;
firstly, the risk of escape (Factor 6.1a) and secondly the potential for the fish to have an impact
should they escape (Factor 6.1b).
Factor 6.1a. Escape Risk
Relative escape numbers in Norway (i.e., the number of escapes per ton of production) have
declined substantially over the last ten years after a peak in reported escapes in 2006 (Figure 4),
but large escapes during storms in January 2015 continue to highlight the escape risk in
Norway.
Figure 4. Salmon escapes compared to harvest production volumes from 2001 to August 2015. Graph
copied from www.mysalmon.no.
37
While these isolated catastrophic escape events are clearly limited to a very small proportion of
the salmon farms in Norway, the lesser-reported trickle losses can also be significant and likely
to not be reported (Taranger et al. 2011). Skilbrei and Wennevik (2006) note small-scale
unreported escape events may make up a large portion of the total escaped farmed fish. A
modelling analysis by Skilbrei et al. (2015) suggests that the total numbers of post-smolt and
adult escapees have been two- to four-fold as high as the numbers reported to the authorities
by fish farmers.
The escape risk for open net pen salmon farms is therefore generally considered to be high, but
the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have a number of characteristics that affect the escape risk.
Firstly, the farm’s use of lumpsucker cleaner fish to control sea lice requires the use of smaller
mesh size nets. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms report they use mostly 13 mm nets with some
15.5 mm, and while this size is typical for the early stages of the production cycle in other
salmon farms, it is much smaller than the 25 mm mesh typically used in the latter stages of
growout (Bloecher et al. 2013). This results in a lower leakage of fish, and localized damage to
single strands of smaller mesh nets do not lead to an escape-sized hole―unlike the failure of a
single strand of a larger mesh net (e.g. by seal damage). In addition, the use of lumpsuckers
and reduced chemical treatments demands reduced net handling, which (due to human error)
is a key source of escapes (FHL 2011). The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites use net pen sizes (typically
60 m) that are smaller and hold substantially fewer fish than those typically used by the
broader industry in Norway. It is interesting to note that while these characteristics represent a
lower risk of escape, they also require more movement of fish during production to divide
growing fish into a greater number of pens (an increased escape risk), yet are also easier to
manage during activities such as chemical treatments or net cleaning (a decreased risk of
escapes).
Norway’s Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs has established an Aquaculture Escape
Commission aimed at minimizing escapes, and Norway can be credited with leading the way on
the design of sea cages and in developing international standards for their construction (FHL
2011). Norway’s technical standards relating to net pen construction and maintenance (NS
9415) were introduced in 2004 and, according to Jensen et al. (2010), suggest the large drop in
total escapes after 2006 is associated with their implementation, despite the fact that the total
number of salmon held in sea cages increased substantially during this period. The Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik sites include additional measures to reduce the risk of escapes that exceed the
requirements of the technical standards; for example:
•
•
The maximum permitted number of fish per net pen is 200,000 compared to 120,000 fish
stocked at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites. After a year, the number is halved by splitting each
pen into two.
More frequent net inspection. Diver monitoring is more frequent than required (and
verified during Whole Foods audits), which reduces the risk of leakage of fish through small
holes.
38
•
•
Smaller mesh sizes, which reduce the risk of “escape-sized” holes forming from single mesh
damage.
Recapture (gill) nets are located on all sites, workboats and barges.
In the last ten years, the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms claim there have not been any reported
escape events from their sites, although it is not possible to directly verify this claim,
particularly with respect to smaller trickle losses. The open net systems remain fundamentally
vulnerable to escapes from human error and/or other causes, but it is clear that the
management of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites includes aspects that reduce the risk, and the
sites are considered to have an extended track record of low (i.e., zero reported) escapes. In
the Seafood Watch criteria, basic net pen systems are considered to have a high risk of escape
(0 out of 10 for the Escape Risk score), whereas the more advanced net pen systems typically
used in salmon farming with best management practices in place have a score of 2 out of 10.
With the improved characteristics of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, which exceed Norway’s
technical standards, in addition to the novel aspects of the lumpsucker system (small mesh, less
net handling, fewer chemical treatments) and the documented track record of low reported
escapes over ten-plus years, a higher “moderate” Escape Risk score of 4 out of 10 is justified.
Recaptures and Mortality
The Seafood Watch criteria includes a factor to improve the Escape Risk score where it can be
demonstrated that recaptures of escaped fish would lead to demonstrably reduced risk of
impacts (e.g., if 50% of escaping fish would be captured, then the Escape Risk score can be
improved accordingly).
Taranger et al. (2015, and references therein) notes that while the majority of escapees
disappear post-escape, each year significant numbers of farmed salmon are observed in rivers
inhabited by wild populations. Both topics (recaptures and mortality) have been the subject of
considerable scientific research, and have been shown to be highly complex. The literature was
reviewed by Bridson (2014) for the Seafood Watch Norway Farmed Salmon Report, but has
been superseded by important new studies such as Skilbrei et al. (2015) who analyzed what is
by far the largest dataset to date on experimental releases to the wild of farmed Atlantic
salmon, and further emphasized the highly complex and variable nature of escape behavior.
While the location and time of year of an escape is important, they also concluded, “life stage
at the time of escape has a profound influence on the survival, dispersal, and potential
recapture of the escapees on both short and long timescales.”
Recaptures
The complex variability highlighted by Skilbrei et al. (2015) makes an estimate of recaptures
challenging, however, they did not study directed recapture efforts at the immediate postescape location. Bridson (2014) summarized the following: “While academic studies (e.g.,
Skilbrei et al. (2010), Chittenden et al. (2011)) show that up to 80% of some life stages could
eventually be recaptured from enclosed fjord systems in Norway, and Skilbrei and Jorgensen
(2010) show that up to 60% of escapees may eventually be recaptured in regional fisheries,
39
actual recapture efforts and success rates by the farms themselves at the escape site itself are
poorly reported.”
According to Skilbrei and Jorgensen (2010), a fishery that targets escapees within 500 m of the
fish farm, as required by regulation, will not be effective, but in personal communications
reported in Bridson (2014) the Norwegian Seafood Federation (FHL) note that while concerted
efforts can achieve an estimated recapture rate of over a third, the registered recapture of
escapees remains well under 10%. The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites maintain an ability for
immediate deployment of recapture efforts in the immediate farm area in line with a
“concerted effort” indicated in the FHL statement above, however without the recent need for
deployment, its effectiveness is clearly difficult to estimate beyond the approximate figures
outlined above. Also, while the geographic shape of some of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites
(particularly Breivik and Ørnstolen) offer the potential for a high level of recaptures due to the
narrow entry to the bays, the sites in general are on open coastline (as opposed to highly
enclosed fjord sites), which Skilbrei et al. (2015) broadly conclude offer reduced recapture
opportunities.
Mortality
Although escaping farmed salmon in Norway are entering their native environments, their
domesticated characteristics will reduce their survival, and Skilbrei et al. (2015) note that this
will result in significant natural mortality. However, with similar variables to the recaptures,
their survival is likely to be highly variable depending on the size of the fish, the location, and
the time of year of a potential escape event. It is, therefore, very difficult to estimate with any
accuracy.
Scoring
Overall, the broad concerns regarding the presence of escaped farmed salmon in rivers in
Norway must be taken into account, but while it is clearly challenging to accurately define a
number for the Recapture and Mortality score, some adjustment is appropriate based on the
recapture infrastructure in place at the farms and the likely natural mortality of escaping fish.
Although inevitably somewhat arbitrary due to the highly variable results published in the peerreviewed literature, a precautionary rate of 15% has been used. This is based on the range of
recapture results in Skilbrei et al.’s most recent (2015) study, an inability to accurately estimate
mortalities, and an arbitrary and precautionary halving of FHL’s 33% potential recaptures during
“concerted efforts.” While it could certainly be argued that a much higher adjustment score is
justified, there is insufficient data to accurately overcome the precautionary principle, and it is
hoped that with continuing advances in the study of both recaptures and mortality, this
number could be increased beyond this initial level.
Applying this minor adjustment to the initial Escape Risk score of 4 out of 10 gives a final Escape
Risk score of 4.9 out of 10.
40
Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness
Genetic interactions
Atlantic salmon are native in Norway, but the farmed salmon population have been subject to
approximately ten or more generations of domestication that have successfully selected for fish
that outgrow their wild counterparts multiple times under farming conditions (Taranger et al.
2015). Genetic changes in non-targeted traits have also been observed, for example in predator
awareness, stress tolerance and gene transcription (references in Taranger et al. 2015). The fish
in the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites would not be considered to be different in any significant way
from these “typical” farmed strains in Norway.
Norway as a whole has over 200 rivers supporting native Atlantic salmon populations, and
many of those populations have displayed moderate to high frequencies of domesticated
farmed escapees on the spawning grounds for two decades or more (Glover et al. 2013). Glover
et al. (2013) revealed less introgression of farmed Atlantic salmon in many Norwegian
populations than may be expected based upon the reported numbers of escapees in these
populations and estimations from introgression models, but in several rivers, the recorded
number of escaped farmed salmon has been very high, even exceeding the number of wild
salmon in some years (Skaala et al. 2014c).
With respect to the current assessment, according to the National Salmon Register of the
Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljø-Direktoratet) 11, three National Salmon Fjords are within
100 km of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites:
• Beiarn (approx. 100 km north). The wild salmon populations are in poor condition*, and
farmed salmon escapes are included as a decisive component among the various impacts.
• Rana (approx. 30 km south). The wild salmon populations are listed as moderately
influenced by human activity**, and farmed salmon escapes are included as a decisive
component among the various impacts.
• Vefsna (approx. 85 km south). The wild salmon populations are listed as critical, but the role
of farmed salmon escapes among the other impacts is unclear***.
* Note: in contrast, Kanstad-Hanssen et al. (2015) provides evidence from snorkeling and
spawner numbers that the population in Beiar is good.
** Note human activity in this respect also includes the introduction, and subsequent
treatment with rotenone, of the parasite Gyrodactilus salaris.
*** Also note that this river was treated with rotenone two years ago.
In addition to the three National Salmon Fjords, the National Salmon Register reports at least
two other local rivers, Sila and Flostrand, approximately 20 km and 30 km from Kvarøy and
Selsøyvik farm sites that have moderately influenced salmon populations for which farmed
salmon escapes are included as a decisive component among the various impacts. Kanstad11
The national salmon register can be found at
http://lakseregister.fylkesmannen.no/laksekart/default.aspx?gui=1&lang=2
41
Hanssen & Bentsen (2013) note that Flostrand has a very small wild salmon population, such
that very low numbers of farmed fish in theory will result in high introgression.
The level of concern in the Taranger et al. (2015) risk assessment is based on the proportion of
farmed salmon among the wild populations which in turn are based primarily on the sampling
results of Glover et al. (2012 and 2013). However, (and importantly for this assessment), recent
research (e.g., Svenning et al. 2015, Kanstad-Hanssen and Bentsen, 2014 and 2015) highlights
regional differences in Norway and also more broadly questions the accuracy of farmed salmon
identification within some types of sampling data.
The Glover et al. (2012) study of 21 rivers throughout Norway (between 1989 and 2009) used
angler and diver surveys and reported a range of percentages of farmed fish from 2% to 89%
with an average of 15.4%. Svenning et al. (2015) surveyed 13 relatively small rivers in Nordland
using traps, videos and scale analysis and reported only 1.1% of fish were of farmed origin.
Large rivers, including Rana (listed above) which was reported by the Norwegian Environment
Agency as “moderately influenced” with escaped salmon as a decisive factor, had only 3.7%
farm escapees. Kanstad-Hanssen et al. (2015) (using dive surveys) report very low incidences of
escaped farmed salmon in rivers near the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, with the exception of
Gjerval, which has high incidences (6 farmed fish identified among 22 total salmon observed;
i.e., 21%), but this is a very short river (0.6 km long,) and has a minimal wild population. The
recent risk assessment by Taranger et al. (2015) estimated the risk of genetic introgression as
follows:
•
None or low risk of genetic change: <4% incidence of farmed salmon
•
Moderate risk of genetic change: 4%–10% incidence of farmed salmon
•
High risk of genetic change: >10% incidence of farmed salmon
It is important to note that the numbers of farmed salmon may vary according to the number of
escapes each year (and the numbers of wild fish will also vary considerably), but more recently,
Kanstad-Hanssen and Bentsen (2014 and 2015) surveyed 11 rivers in Nordland in 2013 and 9 in
2014 using fish traps and scale analysis for all fish entering the rivers. These authors (KanstadHanssen and Bentsen) consider fish traps and scale analysis to correctly identify the proportion
of farmed salmon among the wild population, and report that the numbers of farmed salmon
are lower than the figures presented in national monitoring programs sampled using angler
reports and snorkeling surveys. In their 2013 and 2014 surveys, the average proportion of
farmed salmon was 0.84% and 0.80% respectively in the Nordland rivers.
Therefore, the results of Svenning et al. (2015) and Kanstad-Hanssen and Bentsen (2014 and
2015), and Kanstad-Hamssen et al. (2015)12 in a geographically relevant context for the Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik sites indicate that a loss of genetic fitness is unlikely to be occurring in Nordland
according to the risk estimates of Taranger et al. (2015). It is important to note that multiple
12
It must be noted that Kanstad-Hansenn is a co-author of the Svenning et al. (2015) paper, and therefore there is
some potential for overlap in the results presented. Nevertheless, the outcome of this research in general is still of
relevance to this assessment.
42
studies show that escaping farmed salmon can travel large distances and enter rivers remote to
their escape location, therefore the results presented above for Nordland do not represent the
full range of potential impacts, however, with the greatest risk from escapes being the direct
entry of adult fish into local rivers in the escape area, they are of greater relevance than the
results from other regions.
In the Seafood Watch criteria, the risk of genetic impacts is based on the number of generations
of domestication as a proxy for potential impacts. As noted above, farmed salmon in Norway
have been domesticated for ten or more generations (Taranger et al. 2015), which would result
in a score of 0 out of 5 for Factor 6.1b Part A, but the indications based on the most recent
research are that the risk of genetic impacts are low and therefore worthy of a higher score for
this factor. Arguably, the apparently low risk of impacts should justify a much higher score, but
on a precautionary basis, primarily recognizing the potential for escaping fish to migrate to
areas beyond Nordland, and apparent exceptions such as Gjerdval, the score is increased only
marginally on a precautionary basis to 1 out of 5.
Direct Ecological Impacts of Escapes
The dispersal, migration, survival and resulting ecological interactions of escaping salmon have
been shown to be complex and varies considerably with the age of escaping fish, the location,
and particularly the time of year (for example Skilbrei (2010), Hansen and Youngson (2010) and
Olsen and Skilbrei (2010)). While research continues in Norway, earlier studies (e.g., Hansen
and Windsor 2006) noted escapees can have a variety of direct impacts on wild populations
including:
•
Competition for food
•
Competition for space
•
Direct displacement of wild fish
•
Competition for breeding partners
•
Predation by farmed fish of wild fish
•
Increased size at age (and life stage e.g., parr/smolt) can influence social encounters
While these impacts have been identified in multiple studies, there is little information with
which to quantify the impacts. Considering the relatively low numbers of escaped fish entering
rivers and streams in Nordland (as discussed in the previous section), the impacts are unlikely
to be severe, however it must also be noted that (as also described in the previous section) the
Environment Agency in Norway reports several rivers in the region of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik
sites that are moderately influenced by human activity of which farmed salmon are a decisive
factor. Therefore, with regard to the questions in the Seafood Watch criteria (fully elaborated in
the Appendix tables), competition for food, habitats and breeding partners are considered to
occur “to some extent,” but escapees are not considered to modify habitats to the detriment of
other species. Potential predation on other (non-salmonid) native species also generates a “to
some extent” answer relating to any remaining impacts. This results in a score of 3 out of 10 for
Factor 6.1b Part C (note Part B is not answered as it is specific to non-native species). These
scores are higher than those in the Bridson (2014) report on Norway for which impacts are
43
more likely in rivers outside Nordland that receive much higher proportions of farmed salmon
escapees (e.g., up to 89% reported by Glover et al. 2012).
Combining the scores for Factor 6.1b Part A and C results in an Invasiveness score of 4 out of
10.
Final Score for the Escapes Criterion
Combining the Escape Risk score (4.9 out of 10) and the Invasiveness score (4 out of 10) in the
Seafood Watch scoring matrix results in a moderate final score of 4 out of 10 for the Escapes
Criterion.
44
Criterion 7: Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Interactions
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their
retransmission to local wild species that share the same waterbody.
 Sustainability unit: wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and
parasites.
 Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild
populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.
Criterion 7 Summary
Pathogen and parasite parameters
C7 Biosecurity
C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score
Critical?
Score
4.00
4.00
NO
YELLOW
Brief Summary
Viruses and sea lice parasites are the greatest disease production problems in Norwegian
salmon farming, but viral pathogens on farms have been shown to have a low prevalence in
wild fish, and the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites have not had any of the major viral diseases in the
last ten years. Therefore, sea lice have been the focus of this assessment as there is ongoing
concern regarding their impacts on wild salmonids in Norway in general.
Sea lice numbers in Northern Norway are lower than those in mid- and southern Norway, and
average levels in Nordland are low compared to more southerly counties. Norway has welldeveloped sea lice regulations and, while acknowledging that regional lice levels are highly
aggregated and therefore mask the real variability of lice counts between farm sites and
production cycles, the average lice levels in Nordland as a whole are consistently well below the
regulatory limits of 0.5 adult female lice per fish. At the local level, weekly lice counts for both
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are generally well below the limits throughout the production cycles
(including at the times of importance to wild salmonid migration), but there have been a
number of weekly samples that exceed it. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) ranked
Norwegian salmon farms according to the consistency of their regulatory compliance and
Kvarøy was listed among the best farms in the Green category, but Selsøyvik was Red due to
lice levels exceeding the limits on a number of occasions in 2014. The Kvarøy management
practices have since been applied to the Selsøyvik sites, and latest available data (to September
2015) indicates that the current production cycles would be scored green for Selsøyvik. These
results are encouraging, but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions until the completed cycles
are assessed by the NFSA. Overall, the chemical-free management of sea lice using cleaner fish
at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites is to be encouraged, but is not without its management
challenges.
45
There is regional collaboration between farmers in the area who share sea lice counts,
treatment plans, and the efficacy of treatments, but the lice from the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites
will contribute to cumulative impacts from all the farms in the area, and Norway’s National
Salmon Register shows a number of (mostly very small) populations of sea trout and salmon in
local rivers and streams within 30 km of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites. In addition to other
human impacts on these rivers, sea lice are listed as a decisive factor in the “reduced” status of
seven rivers, and in the “threatened” status of one river. According to the Environment Agency,
the term “reduced” refers to a relatively mild form of influence, and sea lice numbers in
Nordland have been generally substantially lower since the assessment was made (in 2012).
Overall, the infringements of the sea lice limits prevent a score of 6 out of 10. There is a high
concern regarding sea lice as one of many impacts affecting the local sea trout populations.
However, as the infringements at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are infrequent and have mostly
occurred at periods of low concern to wild fish, the sites are unlikely to be contributing
substantially to any population-level mortalities and a high concern is not justified. A Moderate
Concern is therefore appropriate and a score of 4 out of 10 is the final score for the Disease
Criterion.
Justification of Ranking
Disease Concerns
According to Taranger et al. (2015), the primary disease concerns in Norwegian salmon farming
are viral pathogens and parasitic sea lice, and this is supported by the Norwegian Veterinary
Institute which reports that pancreas disease (PD) is the most important viral disease in
Norwegian aquaculture, and the prevalence is increasing (Borno & Lie Linaker 2015). For this
farm-specific assessment of Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites in Nordland, it is interesting to note that
while some important viral diseases such as infectious salmon anemia (ISA) do occur in
Nordland; others, such as PD, are geographically limited (as shown in Figure 5) by the minimal
detection of the virus in Northern Norway.
46
Figure 5. Detection of Pancreas Disease in Norway in 2014. Graph from the Norwegian Veterinary
Institute, Borno and Lie Linaker, (2015).
With regard to viral diseases, Taranger et al. (2015) concluded: “The high frequency of the viral
disease outbreaks for PD [pancreas disease], IPN [infectious pancreatic necrosis], heart and
skeletal muscle inflammation, and CMS [cardiomyopathy syndrome] in Norwegian salmon
farming suggests extensive release of the causal pathogens for these diseases in many areas.
Migrating wild salmon and local sea trout are likely to be exposed to these pathogens. However,
the extent of this exposure and consequences remains largely unknown. Screening of wild
salmonids has revealed low to very low prevalence of the viruses SAV [salmon alpha virus],
IPNV, PMCV [piscine myocarditis virus), and low prevalence of PRV [piscine reovirus] in salmon.
Furthermore, these viruses have never been documented to cause disease in wild Norwegian
salmonids. Thus, a general lack of data prohibits complete risk estimation for these diseases.”
While this appears positive it is clearly inconclusive, but the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites report
that they have not had any of the major viral diseases in the last ten years (this claim is
supported, at least since 2012, by a letter from the company veterinarian (Appendix 2)).
Mortality data from the sites show low mortality in recent production cycles (6.2% average
mortality in 2013 and 2014). The Seafood Watch criteria consider potential impacts from all
pathogens, particularly bacterial, viral and parasitic infections, but the low concern for bacterial
and viral diseases outlined above mean that this Disease Criterion will focus on the potential
impacts of parasitic sea lice in the following sections.
Sea lice concerns in Norway
The recent Taranger et al. (2015) study and a recent literature review by Thorstad et al. (2015)
reinforce the high level of concern regarding the impacts of sea lice on wild salmon and sea
trout in Norway at the national level. For example, Thorstad et al. (2015) concluded: “Salmon
47
lice in intensively farmed areas have negatively impacted wild sea trout populations by reducing
growth and increasing marine mortality. Quantification of these impacts remains a challenge
{…..}. Reduced growth and increased mortality will reduce the benefits of marine migration for
sea trout, and may also result in selection against anadromy in areas with high lice levels.
Salmon lice-induced effects on sea trout populations may also extend to altered genetic
composition and reduced diversity, and possibly to the local loss of sea trout, and establishment
of exclusively freshwater resident populations.” It is therefore important for this assessment of
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik to identify the local characteristics within the broader national context,
along with distinguishing farm-level practices.
Table 2 from Taranger et al. (2015) shows the times when wild salmon and sea trout in
Nordland are vulnerable to infection from salmon farm sea lice is primarily June and July
(approximately weeks 23 to 32), with small numbers of fish present in April, May, August and
September. This is supported by Thorstad et al. (2014) who concluded that sea trout in
Northern Norway migrate later than sea trout in Southern Norway, with a peak in June or July.
Table 2. Overview of the main periods where salmon and sea trout reside in coastal areas. Copied from
Taranger et al. (2015)
National and regional sea lice levels in Norway
At the national level, data from the Norwegian Veterinary Institute (Hjeltnes 2014) show that
lice levels vary from year to year, but typically peak in August, September and October (i.e.,
later than the critical period for salmon and sea trout). At the regional level, these data also
show a general trend toward lower numbers of sea lice further north in Norway. Both these
aspects (the August-October peak and the lower levels in Northern Norway) are shown in
Figure 5. Figure 6 also shows that when comparing regions, Nordland has some of the lowest
lice levels in Norway (Figure 6 shows the levels for the peak period of sea trout migration). It is
important to note that all the national and regional data presented here are heavily aggregated,
and while helpful to make broad comparisons, they do not reflect the much greater variability
in sea lice numbers that will be present between farms and between individual sites and
production cycles.
48
Figure 5. Calculated total sea lice infection pressure on all sites reporting sea lice in Northern (blue),
Mid- (green) and Southern (red) Norway. Graph copied from Hjeltnes (2014).
Figure 6. Average weekly adult female sea lice in Norway showing low levels in Nordland during the peak
period for wild fish (week 26). Graph copied from www.mysalmon.no using government lice data from
www.lusedata.no.
Sea lice levels in Nordland
At the regional level, Figure 7 shows the average sea lice levels in Nordland in 2014 and to date
in 2015 have been low, and have been well below the 0.5 regulatory limit of 0.5 adult female
lice per fish.
49
Figure 7. Average adult female lice numbers in 2014 (blue line) and to date in 2015 (red line) compared
to the historical peak highs and lows (black lines) and the 0.5 regulatory limit (yellow line). Graph copied
from www.mysalmon.no.
These graphs are encouraging and show that the cumulative infection pressure will be reduced
by generally low lice numbers at the regional level, however Taranger et al. (2015) review
shows a large variation within rivers in Nordland with some rivers showing a high risk of impact,
and some low. Unfortunately, there were no rivers in the direct Kvarøy/Selsøyvik area included
in their 2015 review, so the following sections consider the available evidence of impacts in
rivers in the local area around the assessed farms.
Local sea lice impacts
Serra-Llinares et al. (2014) evaluated sea lice levels in Norway’s Salmon Fjords and other sea
lice monitoring areas and concluded that areas with no farms within 30 km of wild salmonid
fjords had a low risk of population-reducing effects, whereas areas with one or more farms
within 30 km, showed that the abundance of sea lice on wild fish was positively correlated with
lice loads on nearby farms. Therefore, it is important to consider the local area around Kvarøy
and Selsøyvik, and the Norwegian Environment Agency’s Salmon Register 13 shows that there
are a number of small rivers that contain populations of wild sea trout and salmon as shown in
Table 3.
13
http://lakseregister.fylkesmannen.no/lakseregister/public/default.aspx
50
River
Distance
Wild species
Konsvik
Oldervikelva
(Rødøy)
Litlfjord
Værnes- og Os
Segeråga
Sila
10km
17km
Sea trout
Sea trout
Wild Species
status
Reduced
Reduced
Sea lice concern
Crucial/decisive*
Crucial/decisive
15km
12km
17km
18km (south)
Sea trout
Threatened
Crucial/decisive
Sea trout
Reduced
Crucial/decisive
Sea trout
Reduced
Crucial/decisive
Sea
Reduced
Crucial/decisive
trout/salmon
Flostrand
30km (south) Sea
Reduced
Crucial/decisive
trout/salmon
Rana
30km (south) Sea
Reduced
Crucial/decisive
trout/salmon
Table 3. Local rivers with distances from their nearest Kvarøy or Selsøyvik site and level of
concern regarding sea lice impacts to wild salmon and sea trout. From Norwegian Environment
Agency, Salmon Register.
*Many anthropomorphic impacts affect these river habitats and the fish populations within
them, and it is important to note that the level of concern of “crucial/decisive” is based on a
translation from the Norwegian word Avgjørende, and rather than the impact being “crucial” to
wild fish survival, it means that the sea lice is one of possibly several aspects defining the status
of the wild population (e.g., “reduced”). It is “decisive” because even if the other impacts were
reduced, the status would still not improve above “reduced” until the sea lice impact was also
reduced.
In turn, the “wild species status” of “reduced” in Table 3 is based on estimated impacts rather
than direct surveys, and is defined by the Environment Agency (translated from Norwegian by
Google Translate) as: “a relatively mild form of influence on fish stocks. Stocks that are
considered to be in this category are not regarded as threatened. This category is described by:
Waterways with significantly reduced juvenile production and/or grow fish populations due to
anthropogenic influences” (Atle Kambestad, Environment Agency, in a clarifying email to Kvarøy
2015). There are many anthropogenic factors that affect these rivers and populations (such as
pollution or habitat damage), and the local river information provided by the farms
demonstrates this, but the fact remains that sea lice are listed as crucial/decisive on the
Environment Registry because this anthropogenic sea lice influence must be decreased if the
wild species status is to be improved. The email from the Environment Agency also clearly
articulates the concern for potential cumulative impacts even if individual farms are meeting
lice limits. It is also important to note that one of the sea trout populations (Litlfjord) is listed by
the Environment Agency as “threatened,” but also important to note that the migratory sea
trout component of the larger brown trout population is small, and the brown trout population
itself is not threatened. In addition to sea lice, the Environment Agency Salmon Register also
51
lists “other matters” and a “defective fish ladder” as specific problems in addition to broader
pollution and other habitat impacts in the rivers.
Exploring this evidence further, the “sea lice concern” status of “crucial/decisive” in Table 3 for
the current Environment Agency Salmon Register is derived primarily from a 2013 risk
assessment using 2012 data (according to Atle Kambestad, Environment Agency, in an email to
Kvarøy 2015). Sea lice levels vary considerably on an annual basis as shown in Figure 8 below.
On average, 2012 was a moderate lice year, and reduced lice loads in more recent years
(particularly 2013 and 2015) indicate that this level of concern may currently be lower than the
levels that led to the crucial/decisive concern category. Of course these national average sea
lice levels may increase in the future.
Figure 8. Average annual sea lice numbers in Norway showing high variability between years.
Sea lice levels at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites
The averaged sea lice levels presented in the graphs above are highly aggregated and do not
reflect the practical farm-level reality of much greater variations in sea lice levels through the
production cycle and from year to year. For Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, detailed weekly sea lice
data for 2013 to spring 2015 provided by the company show that while lice levels were mostly
well below the legal limits of 0.5 adult female lice during their recent production cycles, there
were some weekly counts where they exceeded it.
Figures 9 and10 show numbers of adult female sea lice for two example production cycles―one
for a Kvarøy site (Figure 9–Olvik) and one for a Selsøyvik site (Figure 10 – Ørnstolen). Weekly
sea lice monitoring at the sites includes mobile and attached lice stages in addition to adult
52
females, but only adult females have been shown in the chart for the purpose of clarity with
respect to the regulatory limits. These graphs show examples of how the sea lice management
has been generally highly effective at Kvarøy (although there are occasional lice numbers above
the regulatory limits) while there were more weekly samples at the Selsøyvik sites that
exceeded the limits (over this time period).
Figure 9. Weekly sea lice counts of adult female sea lice for a production cycle at a Kvarøy site (Olvik).
The green line shows the regulatory limit of 0.5 female lice per fish.
Figure 10. Weekly sea lice counts of adult female sea lice for a production cycle at a Selsøyvik site
(Ørnstolen). The green line shows the regulatory limit of 0.5 female lice per fish.
While the full data was made available by the farm and the levels are independently audited as
part of the Whole Foods compliance, it is difficult to robustly quantify the level of concern that
these levels represent; however, an independent analysis was conducted by the Norwegian
53
Food Safety Authority (NFSA) which ranked all Norwegian salmon farming companies according
to the number of weekly lice reports over the legal limit of 0.5 adult lice per fish in 2014. While
Kvarøy was on their “green” list with only 1% of samples, Selsøyvik was in the “red” list with
20% of weekly lice samples higher than the legal limit.
The 2014 NFSA assessment scored each site based on the percentage of weekly adult female
lice that breach the limit of 0.5 lice per fish (i.e., one lice per two fish) in the current production
cycle. Green is from 0% to 4.9%, yellow from 5% to 9.9% and red >10%. The most recent raw
data for current Kvarøy and Selsøyvik production cycles up to early September 2015 shows that
Kvarøy has 6.2% of weekly samples exceeding the limit. This represents four weekly sea lice
counts >0.5 in the last 65 weeks (due to the late arrival of a delivery of lumpsucker cleaner-fish
and poor net cleaning by an external contractor) and did not occur at a period of high concern
for wild fish migration. Selsøyvik has 0% and 3.8% for two active sites. Therefore, Kvarøy would
currently get a yellow ranking form the NFSA, and Selsøyvik would be ranked green. As these
are active production cycles, these percentages and ranks will change constantly (up or down)
with each new weekly lice count, therefore, while the results at Selsøyvik are encouraging, it is
difficult to draw firm conclusions compared to the completed cycles assessed by the NFSA.
The earlier higher lice levels at the Selsøyvik sites were due to either large pre-harvest fish
concentrated in one site, challenges with timing for using hydrogen peroxide treatments, or
“weak fish” that were vulnerable to sea lice (permission was granted to exceed the legal limits).
Since that time, sea lice management practices that have been effective at Kvarøy (i.e.,
recognized in the green assessment by the NFSA) have been adopted at Selsøyvik, and the data
provided for Selsøyvik sites from September 2015 is proving effective. Thorstad et al. (2015)
concluded: “To sustain and enhance sea trout populations, and to ensure a harvestable surplus
for fisheries, salmon lice levels need to be reduced in many farm-intensive areas compared to
present levels.” Clearly the current increase in lice levels at Kvarøy due to a late delivery of
lumpsucker fish show that the chemical-free control of sea lice is not without difficulties, but
overall, the small number of weekly samples that exceed the limit is encouraging, and there is
no reason to believe that the Kvarøy methods will not work on the Selsøyvik sites. Longer time
series of data will be needed to prove it officially with an updated NFSA ranking, however it can
be argued that the lice levels at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites are broadly consistent with
conclusion of Thorstad et al. stated above.
Scoring
Regarding the scoring in the Seafood Watch criteria, the presence of a number of rivers within
30 km of the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites with (albeit small) populations of sea trout that are
estimated by the Environment Agency to be impacted by sea lice at the population level is a
high level of concern for a Seafood Watch assessment (score of 0 out of 10 in the SFW criteria).
Kvarøy and Selsøyvik report that there is regional collaboration between farmers in the area,
sharing sea lice counts, treatment plans, and the efficacy of treatments, but as two of many
farms in the area, the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites will contribute lice to the overall infection
pressure. However, it could also be argued that the generally low lice levels at Kvarøy means
that these sites would not be contributing substantially to any population-level mortalities
54
(score of 4 out of 10 in the SFW criteria). The fact that the lice levels at Kvarøy are generally
well below the Norwegian limits and only exceed it in a small percentage of weekly lice counts,
could further be argued to be justification for a score of 6 out of 10 in the SFW criteria (defined
as “Independently audited, scientifically robust limits are in place and data shows pathogen or
parasite levels are consistently below limits over multiple production cycles”). However, when
also considering Selsøyvik, the current red NFSA rating is a higher concern and indicates that
the score of 6 out of 10 is not appropriate over multiple production cycles. The fact that the low
lice levels are obtained by novel nonchemical use of cleaner fish is to be encouraged, but
although the management practices at Kvarøy have now been extended to Selsøyvik and the
recent lice numbers are low, there is a limited timeframe of data to show that these methods
are currently effective until an updated NFSA rating is available.
Overall, the infringements of the sea lice limits prevent a score of 6 out of 10. There is a high
concern regarding sea lice as one of many impacts affecting the local sea trout populations but
as the infringements at Kvarøy and Selsøyvik are infrequent and have mostly occurred at
periods of low concern to wild fish, the sites are unlikely to be contributing substantially to any
population-level mortalities. A Moderate Concern is therefore appropriate and a score of 4 out
of 10 is the final score for the Disease Criterion.
55
Criterion 8: Source of Stock – Independence from Wild
Fisheries
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle
 Impact: the removal of fish from wild populations for ongrowing to harvest size in farms
 Sustainability unit: wild fish populations
 Principle: aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farmraised broodstocks, use minimal numbers, or source them from demonstrably sustainable
fisheries.
Criterion 8 Summary
Source of stock parameters
C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement
C8 Source of stock Final Score
Score
100
10.00
GREEN
Justification of Ranking
The salmon farmed at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik sites, like all farmed salmon in Norway, come
from domesticated hatchery-raised broodstocks and are therefore independent of wild sources
of either juvenile or adult fish. The score for Criterion 8 is 10 out of 10.
56
Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities
A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected
species of predators or other wildlife.
This is an Exceptional criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a
negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no
impact.
Criterion 9X Summary
Wildlife and predator mortality parameters
C9X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score
Critical?
Score
-2.00
GREEN
NO
Brief Summary
The farms use passive predator barriers and do not use lethal control on any species; however,
occasional bird entanglements are inevitable. Although it is not possible to verify the numbers,
it is considered highly unlikely that any mortalities would affect the population status of the
affected species and the score for the Wildlife and Predator (an Exceptional Criterion) is a minor
deduction of -2 out of -10.
Justification of Ranking
After communications with FHL, Bridson (2014) noted that the most common wildlife and
predator interaction with salmon farms in Norway are cormorants, herons, otters and mink,
and occasionally seals. Farms must apply for permission for lethal control of seals (public data
on the numbers is not available), and the primary risk for the other species is entanglement.
The Kvarøy and Selsøyvik farms report they do not use lethal control for any wildlife, but the
use of passive bird net barriers results in occasional entanglement and mortality. While this
information is impossible to verify for this assessment, it is considered to be highly unlikely that
there is any mortality that would lead to population-level impacts on the affected species.
In the Seafood Watch criteria, effective management and prevention measures that limit
mortalities to exceptional cases results in a minor deduction of -2 out of -10, and this is the final
score for Criterion 9X.
57
Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species
A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle
farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments.
This is an Exceptional criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a
negative score that is deducted from the overall final score.
Criterion 10X Summary
Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters
F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%)
C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score
Score
10.00
0.00
GREEN
Brief Summary
There are not considered to be any international or trans-waterbody movements of live fish or
eggs during the production cycle for the assessed fish, and therefore there is no concern
regarding the potential unintended transfer and introduction of non-native organisms. The
score for the Exceptional Criterion is a deduction of 0 out of -10.
Justification of Ranking
This criterion considers the amount of production that is based on international or transwaterbody movements of live fish or eggs and the potential for those movements to introduce
an unintended species into the receiving environment.
Factor 10Xa International or Trans-waterbody Live Animal Shipments
The Norwegian hatcheries that supply the salmon smolts grown at the Kvarøy and Selsøyvik
sites are not considered to be in an ecologically separate waterbody, therefore there is not
considered to be any reliance on the international or trans-waterbody movements of live fish or
eggs. The score for Factor 10Xa is 10 out of 10 which means that Factor 10Xb does not need to
be assessed and there is no level of concern in this criterion. The final score for Criterion 10X is
a deduction of 0 out of -10.
58
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its
seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely
responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® would like to thank Ole Kristian Kjellbakk of Polar Quality AS, Even Søfteland of
CapMare AS, Alf-Gøran Knutsen of Kvarøy Fiskeoppdrett AS, and one anonymous reviewer for
graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.
Report update information
Original report date – January 14 2016
Updated August 4 2016 to include recent feed data from completed production cycles. Some
provisional data from incomplete production cycles had been used (with appropriate
precaution) in the original report.
59
References
Anon. 2015. Rømt oppdrettslaks i vassdrag. Rapport fra det nasjonale overvåkingsprogrammet
2014. Fisken og havet, særnummer 2b-2015, 1-38.
Black, K., P. K. Hansen, et al. (2008). Working Group Report on Benthic Impacts and Farm Siting,
Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue, WWF.
Bloecher, N., Olsen, Y., Guenther, J. 2013. Variability of biofouling communities on fish cage
nets: A 1-year field study at a Norwegian salmon farm. Aquaculture 416-417p302-309.
Bornø G & Lie Linaker M (Eds) Fiskehelserapporten 2014, Harstad: Veterinærinstituttet 2015
Bridson, P., 2014. Seafood Watch Norway Farmed Salmon Report.
http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/detail/520/salmon-atlantic-net-pennorway-salmo-salar?q=Salmon
Brooks, K. and C. Mahnken (2003). "Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest
environment III Accumulation of zinc and copper." Fisheries Res 62: 295-305.
Chang, B. D., F. H. Page, et al. (2011). "Characterization of the spatial pattern of benthic sulfide
concentrations at six salmon farms in southwestern New Brunswick, Bay of Fundy " Can. Tech.
Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2915.
Chittenden, C., A. H. Rikardsen, et al. (2011). "An effective method for the recapture of escaped
farmed salmon." Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1(3): 215-224
FHL (2011). "Environmental Report 2010." Norwegian Seafood Federation.
Gjovik, J., A. 2011. 2011. Er villaks truet av lakseoppdrett? Rømt oppdrettslaks og lakselus.
Rapport til Fiskeri- og havbruksnæringens forskningsfond
Glover KA, Quintela M, Wennevik V, Besnier F, Sørvik AGE, et al. (2012) Three Decades of
Farmed Escapees in the Wild: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Atlantic Salmon Population Genetic
Structure throughout Norway. PLoS ONE 7(8): e43129.
Glover, K., C. Pertoldi, et al. (2013). "Atlantic salmon populations invaded by farmed escapees:
quantifying genetic introgression with a Bayesian approach and SNPs." BMC Genetics 14: 74.
Hansen, L. P. and M. L. Windsor (2006). "Interactions between Aquaculture and Wild Stocks of
Atlantic Salmon and other Diadromous Fish Species: Science and Management, Challenges and
Solutions: An introduction by the Conveners." ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63(7): 1159-1161.
60
Hansen, L. P. and A. F. Youngson (2010). "Dispersal of large farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar,
from simulated escapes at fish farms in Norway and Scotland." Fisheries Management and
Ecology 17(1): 28-32.
Hjeltnes B (ed). 2014. Fish Health Report 2013. Oslo. Norwegian Veterinary Institute.
Helgesen, K.,Romstad, H., Aaen, S., Horsberg, T. 2015. First report of reduced sensitivity
towards hydrogen peroxide found in the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis in Norway.
Aquaculture Reports, online 7 February 2015.
Husa, V., H. Steen, et al. (2014a). "Historical changes in macroalgal communities in
Hardangerfjord (Norway)." Marine Biology Research 10(3): 226-240.
Husa, V., T. Kutti, et al. (2014b). "Regional impact from fin-fish farming in an intensive
production area (Hardangerfjord, Norway)." Marine Biology Research 10(3): 241-252.
Jensen, A., S. Karlsson, et al. (2013). "Escaped farmed Atlantic salmon grow, migrate and
disperse throughout the Arctic Ocean like wild salmon." Aquaculture Environment Interactions
3(3): 223-229.
Kanstad-Hanssen, O., and Bentsen, V. 2013. Oppvandring av anadrom laksefisk i 11 vassdrag i
Nordland i 2013- en vurdering av innslag av rømt oppdrettslaks. Ferskvannbiologen, Rapport Nr
2014-01. ISBN 978-82-8312-048-6.
Kanstad-Hanssen, O., and Bentsen, V. 2014. Oppvandring av anadrom laksefisk i ni vassdrag i
Nordland i 2014 - en vurdering av innslag av rømt oppdrettslaks. Ferskvannbiologen, Rapport Nr
2015-09. ISBN 978-82-8312-066-0.
Kanstad-Hanssen et al. 2015. In Norwegian: Gytefiskregistrering I Beiarelva I 2014. SNA-rapport
06/2015, 1-30
Kosmo, J. (2012). Significant environmental challenges in the aquaculture industry. The Office of
the Auditor General. Document 3:9 (2011-2012).
Kristoffersen et al 2014. Large scale modelling of salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis)
infection pressure based on lice monitoring data from Norwegiansalmonid farms. Epidemics 9
(2014) 31–39
Mayor, D. J. and M. Solan (2011). "Complex interactions mediate the effects of fish farming on
benthic chemistry within a region of Scotland." Environmental research 111(5): 635-642.
Mayor, D. J., A. F. Zuur, et al. (2010). "Factors Affecting Benthic Impacts at Scottish Fish Farms."
Environmental science & technology 44(6): 2079-2084.
61
Olsen, A. and O. Skilbrei (2010). "Feeding preference of recaptured Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
following simulated escape from fish pens during autumn." Aquaculture Environment
Interactions 1: 167-174.
Serra-Llinares et al (2014). Salmon lice infection on wild salmonids in marine protected areas:
an evaluation of the Norwegian ‘National Salmon Fjords’. Aquaculture Environment
Interactions. Vol. 5: 1–16, 2014.
Skaala, O., Kevin A. Glover, et al. (2012). "Performance of farmed, hybrid, and wild Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) families in a natural river environment." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 69(12): 1994-2006.
Skaala, O., K. Sjotun, et al. (2014a). "Interactions between salmon farming and the ecosystem:
Lessons from the Hardangerfjord, western Norway." Marine Biology Research 10(3): 199-202.
Skaala, O., S. Kalas, et al. (2014b). "Evidence of salmon lice-induced mortality of anadromous
brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the Hardangerfjord, Norway." Marine Biology Research 10(3):
279-288.
Skaala, O., G. H. Johnsen, et al. (2014c). "A conservation plan for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
and anadromous brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a region with intensive industrial use of aquatic
habitats, the Hardangerfjord, western Norway." Marine Biology Research 10(3): 308-322.
Skilbrei, O., J. Holst, et al. (2010). "Horizontal movements of simulated escaped farmed Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) in a western Norwegian fjord." ICES J Marine Sci 67: 1206-1215.
Skilbrei, O. and T. Jorgensen (2010). "Reacpture of cultured salmon following a large scale
escape event." Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1: 107-115.
Skilbrei, O. and V. Wennevik (2006). "The use of catch statistics to monitor the abundance of
escaped farmed Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout in the sea." ICES Journal of Marine Science
63: 1190-1200.
Skilbrei, O.,Heino, M.,Svasand, T. 2015. Using simulated escape events to assess the annual
numbers and destinies of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon of different life stages from farm
sites in Norway. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015), 72(2), 670–685.
Svenning, M-A., Kanstad-Hanssen, Ø., Lamberg, A., Strand, R., Dempson, J.B. & Fauchald, P.
2015. Incidence and timing of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norwegian
rivers; inferred from video surveillance, fish trap monitoring and snorkeling – NINA report 1104.
53 pp.
Taranga, G., K. Boxaspen, et al. (2011). "Risk Assessment - environmental impacts of Norwegian
aquaculture." Institue for Marine Research, Norway.
62
Taranger, G. L., Karlsen, Ø., Bannister, R. J., Glover, K. A., Husa,V., Karlsbakk, E., Kvamme, B. O.,
Boxaspen, K. K., Bjørn, P. A., Finstad, B., Madhun, A. S., Morton, H. C., and Sva˚sand, T. Risk
assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming. – ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 72: 997–1021.
Thorstad, E.B., Todd, C.D., Bjørn, P.A., Gargan, P.G., Vollset, K.W., Halttunen, E., Kålås, S.,
Uglem, I., Berg, M. & Finstad, B. 2014. Effects of salmon lice on sea trout - a literature review.
NINA Report 1044, 1-162.
Thorstad, E.B., Todd, Uglem, I., C.D., Bjørn, P.A., Gargan, P.G., Vollset, K.W., Halttunen, E., Kålås,
S., Berg, M. & Finstad, B. 2015. Effects of salmon lice on sea trout - a literature review.
Aquaculture Environment Interactions. Vol. 7: 91–113, 2015.
Wilding, T. A. (2011). "A characterization and sensitivity analysis of the benthic biotopes around
Scottish salmon farms with a focus on the sea pen Pennatula phosphorea L." Aquaculture
Research 42: 35-40.
63
Appendix 1–Data points and all scoring calculations
This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points
and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation
of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.
Criterion 1: Data quality and availability
Data Category
Industry or production statistics
Effluent
Locations/habitats
Chemical use
Feed
Escapes, animal movements
Disease
Source of stock
Predators and wildlife
Other – (e.g., GHG emissions)
Total
Relevance (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
C1 Data Final Score
8.33
Data Quality Score (0-10)
10
10
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
10
7.5
7.5
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
n/a
75
GREEN
Criterion 2: Effluents
Effluent Evidence-Based Assessment
C2 Effluent Final Score
6.00
YELLOW
Criterion 3: Habitat
3.1. Habitat conversion and function
F3.1 Score
7
3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of
the industry)
Factor 3.2a–Regulatory or management effectiveness
Question
1–Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological
principles, including an EIA’s requirement for new sites?
Scoring
Score
Mostly
0.75
64
2–Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative
impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function?
3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations,
and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services?
4–Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e.,
avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning,
or compliance with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)
5–Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of
important or critical habitats or ecosystem services?
Moderately
0.5
Mostly
0.75
Mostly
0.75
Moderately
0.5
3.25
Factor 3.2b–Siting regulatory or management enforcement
Question
1–Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and
contactable, and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry?
2–Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the
zoning or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the
control measures?
3–Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms
and their cumulative impacts?
4–Is the enforcement process transparent–e.g., public availability of farm
locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc.?
5–Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control
measures are being achieved?
Scoring
Score
Mostly
0.75
Mostly
0.75
Moderately
0.5
Mostly
0.75
Moderately
0.5
3.25
F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5)
C3 Habitat Final Score
4.23
6.08
Critical?
YELLOW
NO
Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use
Chemical Use parameters
C4 Chemical Use Score
C4 Chemical Use Final Score
Critical?
Score
5.00
5.00
NO
YELLOW
65
Criterion 5: Feed
5.1. Wild Fish Use
Factor 5.1a–Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)
Fishmeal inclusion level (%)
Fishmeal from byproducts (%)
% FM
Fish oil inclusion level (%)
Fish oil from byproducts (%)
% FO
Fishmeal yield (%)
Fish oil yield (%)
eFCR
FIFO fishmeal
FIFO fish oil
Greater of the 2 FIFO scores
21.8
19.31
17.59
9.06
89.02
0.99
24.0
5.18
1.12
0.82
0.22
0.82
FIFO Score
7.95
Factor 5.1b–Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)
SSWF
SSWF Factor
-5
-0.41
F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score
7.54
5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss
Protein INPUTS
Protein content of feed
eFCR
Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%)
Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%)
Protein OUTPUTS
Protein content of whole harvested fish (%)
Edible yield of harvested fish (%)
Non-edible byproducts from harvested fish used for other food production
36.05
1.12
Protein IN
Protein OUT
Net protein gain or loss (%)
29.48
7.84
59.4
18
50
100
18
-39.95
Critical?
NO
66
F5.2 Net protein Score
6.00
5.3. Feed Footprint
5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed
seafood
Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%)
eFCR
Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish)
Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha)
Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish)
30.86
1.12
69.7
2.68
8.99
5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production
Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%)
Inclusion level of land animal products (%)
Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products
eFCR
Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha)
Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish)
69.14
0
2.88
1.12
2.64
0.29
Value (Ocean + Land Area)
9.30
F5.3 Feed Footprint Score
6.00
C5 Feed Final Score
6.77
Critical?
GREEN
NO
Criterion 6: Escapes
6.1a. Escape Risk
Escape Risk
Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)
Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the
escape site
Recapture & Mortality Score
Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score
6.1b. Invasiveness
4
15
0.15
4.9
67
Part A – Native species
Score
1
Part B – Non-Native species
Score
0
Part C – Native and Non-native species
Question
Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat?
Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations?
Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb
breeding behavior of the same or other species?
Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g., by feeding,
foraging, settlement or other)?
Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats?
F 6.1b Score
Score
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
No
To some
extent
3
4
Final C6 Score
4.00
Critical?
YELLOW
NO
Criterion 7: Diseases
Pathogen and parasite parameters
C7 Biosecurity
C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score
Critical?
Score
4.00
4.00
NO
YELLOW
Criterion 8: Source of Stock
Source of stock parameters
C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or
natural (passive) settlement
C8 Source of stock Final Score
Score
100
10
GREEN
Exceptional Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities
68
Wildlife and predator mortality parameters
C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score
Critical?
Score
-2.00
NO
GREEN
Exceptional Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally
introduced species
Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters
F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%)
F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination
C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score
Score
10.00
0.00
0.00
GREEN
69
Appendix 2: Veterinarian statement
Letter from veterinarian – relevant to Chemical and Disease Criteria