Advancement of Aquaculture Standards and Certification Programming Under the Canadian Aquaculture Standards Forum (CASF):

1. Open Audit Gap Analysis Project for Salmonid Operations
2. National Industry-Level Development of Sustainability Reporting Framework

Table of contents

• Project Overview
• Project Results
• 1. Open Audit Gap Analysis Project for Arctic Char (Salmonid) Operations: Standards and Certification Development & Capacity Building
• 2. National Industry-Level Development of Sustainability Reporting Framework
• Project Results

AIMAP 2009-MA08

Project Overview:

The purpose of this Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access Program (AIMAP) project was to build upon the groundwork effectively laid by the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) regarding industry standards and certification programming between 2008 and March 2009. In 2008, with financial assistance from AIMAP, CAIA developed the Canadian Aquaculture Standards Forum (CASF) as a mechanism to provide the Canadian aquaculture industry a better understanding of the range of options and global developments related to standards and certification, as well as to increasing market and social requirements for the objective demonstration of industry sustainability.

From November 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, and more recently from April 1, 2009 to March 31,
2010, the CASF has delivered the following projects:

• CASF Project Management
• Initial Meetings and Timelines (plus Appendices)
• BCSFA Open Audit Gap Analysis Project
• CASF Workshop, Toronto (February 2009)
• Standards and Certification Global Market Report & Glossary
• Mussel Industry Benchmarking (March 31, 2010)
• Arctic Char Benchmarking (March 31, 2010)
• National Industry-Level Sustainability Reporting/GRI Framework (March 31, 2010).

Specifically, this project report covers the latter two subjects. First, CASF expanded upon the benchmark audit (gap analysis) model - previously provided for the BC salmon farming industry and proposed for the mussel industry – by providing the analysis to the Arctic Char aquaculture industry. Second, CASF advanced development of understandings about a national industry-level approach toward auditable sustainability reporting using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework.

The project was developed and overseen by CAIA, which is a national industry association, that represents the Canadian aquaculture operators, feed companies and suppliers, as well as provincial finfish and shellfish aquaculture associations. It is a collective which provides focus for important national initiatives and serves to identify industry issues for effective government planning and services to meet the needs of members. The association’s contract  administration  partner  for  the  project  was  Global  Trust  Certification  Ltd. (Global Trust). Global Trust is an accredited Seafood Certification and Inspection and Standards Services Provider.

The project was supported by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) under the AIMAP.

Project Results:

1. Open Audit Gap Analysis Project for Arctic Char (Salmonid) Operations: Standards and Certification Development & Capacity Building

This project involved benchmark audit assessment of an Arctic Char facility based in Whitehorse, Yukon. During 2008, Global Trust conducted routine pre-audit consultations with company officials in preparation for the audit. In January 2010, an experienced Global Trust auditor travelled to Whitehorse and conducted the on-site benchmark audit. Not including travel time, this was a 1.5 day audit during which the complete operation was assessed.

The benchmark audit processes and protocols were based on known and usual standard requirements for salmonids, specifically, Arctic Char. The intention was to provide an informative ‘audit experience’ typical of standards assessment for certification purposes. The broader intention of the audit, and associated company consultations, was to measure the performance of this Canadian company with respect to criteria deemed important to industry,   markets and stakeholders. Generally, Global Trust gathered valuable information regarding key environmental, economic and social performance indicators.

More specifically, Global Trust developed and tracked performance indicator markers focused in the following key areas:

• Regulatory Systems and Compliance
• Environmental Management
• Quality/Food Safety
• Operational Management

Under each of these key performance categories a series of specific indicators were audited. Company performance under each category was then estimated using Global Trust’s proprietary Aquaculture Standards Audit Scorecard (ASA Scorecard). Generally, the scoring system measures performance from “0” (under-achieving) to “3” (world- class). The ASA Scorecard results are visually reflected in radar plotted graphs. The company is able to utilize this visual feedback to compare their current relative performance to world class standards. The analysis is not meant to be definitive, but it does offer rapid and broad categorizations and understandings. The scoring feedback is intended to be intuitive, self-explanatory and instructive.

Note: Even though a company may score only “fair” or “poor” this does not necessarily mean they are performing badly in this subject area. These are audit findings only. For example, at the time of audit there may be no evidence (such as a paper trail) to support and verify the activities.

The company in question scored very highly across all categories. The management and staff operate  a  well  run  integrated  Char  facility  in  one  of  the  harshest  climates  for  aquaculture facilities. To better prepare the company to meet emerging global aquaculture standards and certification requirements, a series of recommendations were made by Global Trust. The areas that were highlighted for improvement related to implementation of site-specific documentation, e.g., written procedures, policies, training records, and managerial/contractual statements. The results were shared with the company by way of a written overview of findings and through general discussions. Once the recommended improvements are implemented, this company will be very well positioned to attain certification under available global standards such as Global Gap.

2. National Industry-Level Development of Sustainability Reporting Framework.

This project supported national development of an auditable sustainability reporting framework for the salmon aquaculture industry.¹ Specifically, the project introduced and developed the concept of industry-wide sustainability reporting using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) platform.

That platform was chosen because it is a leading and internationally accepted sustainability reporting communication tool which provides a generic framework for environmental, social and economic evaluation for all business types. It was expected that GRI could play a supportive communication role enabling the industry to cite key indicators for objective measurement and reporting on its economic, environmental, and social performance.

This project was also intended to continue the partnering approach between CAIA/CASF and DFO in their collective efforts to expand standard and certification, and related reporting initiatives, across the industry. The GRI, like standards and certification programs at the company and market level, can play an important support role for broad-scale communication efforts aimed at improving social understanding and acceptance of the aquaculture industry. It was recognized that CAIA members, like DFO itself, clearly wish to demonstrate and communicate ongoing commitment and success in achieving high industry standards. Through this project, it is hoped CAIA will supplement and contribute to DFO’s efforts to highlight sustainable industry performance through the development of industry-level performance indicators.

Project Results:

Following preliminary review and discussions CAIA hired LEAD Canada to deliver introductory training related to GRI, for the west and east coast salmon industry. LEAD Canada is a certified GRI Training Partner and, as planned, they delivered the course “Sustainability Reporting with the Global Reporting Initiative”.

This is an introductory course designed to provide demonstrable knowledge in GRI context, issue ‘drivers’ and best practices relate to GRI sustainability reporting. In particular, the course covered the key steps involved in GRI’s reporting process, the use of GRI’s materials and reporting principles, and the important role, prioritization and engagement of stakeholders.

As a result, the valuable introductory training sessions were conducted in Campbell River (September 2009) and Saint John (November 2009). Industry and Government (DFO) attendees learned that the GRI program is complex and requires significant ongoing commitment, including intensive stakeholder consultations. Furthermore, even though identification of performance indicators was cited as an integral part of the GRI process, the training sessions provided limited insight and no details regarding how to select industry-specific salmon aquaculture performance indicators; instead the training focused on building understanding of the GRI process itself. In the case of the BC industry, their understanding of sustainability reporting processes was already high  and  they  were  ready  to  consider  indicator  assessment  more  rapidly  than  originally envisioned.

In both BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) and the New Brunswick Shellfish Growers Association (NBSGA) training sessions, it became apparent that the GRI process was much more complex than originally understood. As an example, industry members were not previously aware of the need to develop and conduct extensive stakeholder consultations as part of the GRI process. Clearly, developing an effective stakeholder strategy will require significant additional time and focus – activities not planned for in the original AIMAP proposal.

However, CAIA members unanimously agreed the provided training was necessary and highly informative. In fact, in follow up to their training, members of the BCSFA investigated the potential to carry out the recommended GRI stakeholder consultation strategy. Their strategy involved the following proposed steps:

1. develop stakeholder questionnaire (this was developed and is available upon request)
   
2. develop agreed upon stakeholder list (this was developed and is available upon request)
   
3. pilot questionnaire (this was developed and is available upon request)
   
4. conduct survey (not conducted and not an anticipated deliverable)
   
5. compile results
   
6. disseminate and review
   
7. proceed with indicator development based on stakeholder and other input.

With the benefit of the GRI training and having learned from the BCSFA experience, NBSGA industry representatives unanimously agreed that adherence to the GRI process is complicated and demanding. Therefore, the post-training NBSGA industry efforts focused less on the GRI process and more on whether it may be possible to agree upon and develop a few reasonable sustainability performance indicators on an industry basis, e.g., east coast or national. It was generally agreed that it may be possible to achieve some agreement on these matters, but that further discussion regarding the nature, reporting requirements and implications of possible performance indicators must be more fully assessed and understood by industry leaders.

Following the NBSGA training course (November  2009), CAIA recommended  a change of project direction to AIMAP. By that time it was clear to CAIA that the expected benefits of pursuing the GRI methodology may be outweighed by implementation challenges. It was agreed, however, that the direction was critically important and that it remained possible and important for the project to refocus on realistic and positive future goals. Therefore, CAIA recommended that the remainder of this project should be focused on the continued exploration of a stakeholder consultation process in BC (as reported on above), and on further examination of the identification, nature and requirements of possible performance indicators.

As a result, CAIA adjusted the project focus to develop a further understanding of performance indicators. On February 1, 2010, CAIA conducted a well-attended industry workshop in Saint John, NB, in which east coast industry representatives discussed the matter of performance indicators. (PowerPoint presentation is available upon request.)

Possible performance indicators are numerous covering environmental, social and economic impacts. The difficulty with GRI was the total lack of direction regarding possible aquaculture performance indicators. In general discussions with both NBSGA and BCSFA members regarding performance indicator requirements, the industry agreed that:

1. Performance indicators must be measurable;
   
2. Companies must agree on common metrics;
   
3. Agree on common standards for measuring and recording;
   
4. Performance indicators must be sensitive enough to be credible / meaningful;
   
5. Measurements must be achievable without being a cost burden;
   
6. Should be outcome based, e.g., as performance varies there are measurable outcomes.

The performance indicator workshop fulfilled several purposes:

First, it was important to clarify exactly what constitutes a performance indicator.

Second,  there  were  extensive  discussions  to  illustrate  the  organizational  and  industry-wide implications of selecting and reporting on performance indicators.

Third,  the  possible  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  sustainability  reporting  through  chosen performance indicators were assessed.

Possible Advantages (industry perspective only)

• Publicly demonstrate / communicate ongoing commitment and success in achieving high industry standards.
  
• “Change the channel” away from negative press / Counter the slanted propaganda of detractors.
  
• “May” only be a case of reporting on what you are already doing (Practical Performance Indicators). Use of “core” indicators generally applicable for all (most) companies.
  
• Allows comparative analysis and performance benchmarking across industry.
  
• Minimize ‘regulatory creep’.

Possible Disadvantages (industry perspective only)

• New Costs / Work demands, especially for smaller companies, even large companies not currently tracking relevant data.
  
• Method of tracking, i.e., metrics, may vary between companies.  Plus, possible reporting inconsistencies could cause unfair reports.
  
• Even where core PIs agreed upon, may be difficult to compare among peers or on a regional basis. And, differences may be explainable.
  
• May not “Change the channel” away from negative press, but merely feed committed detractors with new sources of materials to attack.
  
• If national or regional reporting established, may be difficult to change established reporting practices (companies get locked in)

Fourth - and perhaps the most compelling reason for the workshop - was to acknowledge that performance indicators and the matter of sustainability reporting ranks very highly in DFO’s short and long term plans. DFO has clearly indicated they will expand the nature of their annual sustainability reporting to include as much industry-level information as may be possible in coming years so that progress towards stated goals can be measured.

Therefore, the workshop was important for gathering industry input and consensus on whether or not it may be possible and reasonable to consider development of sustainability performance indicators through 2010 and 2011. Key questions considered were:

1. Is it possible to identify common national or regional industry-level performance indicators that might support national sustainability reporting?
2. Is it desirable to identify common national or regional industry-level Performance Indicators that might support national sustainability reporting?
3. Is industry willing to dialogue with DFO regarding the possibility of choosing realistic performance indicators through 2010 and 2011?

Industry members agreed that demonstrating and communicating its ongoing commitment and success in achieving high industry standards is a positive direction. [N.B. – The results of the February 1 workshop were shared directly with the BCSFA for their review and input. Their opinions are reflected in the industry consensus as expressed below.]

In terms of fundamental reaction, industry members believe that it will take more time before it will be possible to advance common performance indicators across many key issues, especially environmentally related, e.g., feed, benthic biodiversity, energy usage, etc. Even where indicators may be reasonably established, in most cases agreement will only be achieved after considerable discussion and, in any case, the associated gathering and reporting processes will represent new work and cost demands on companies. These factors are more complicated when it is recognized there may be a disparity of reporting practices across industry: some companies have already invested in reporting processes (and new demands would require costs/change), while other companies do not have established reporting processes, nor do some of them have the additional capacity for more advanced reporting (and new demands may be too costly).

Industry members do not categorically say “no” to movement in the direction of sustainability reporting on an industry basis, or to cooperating with DFO on the matter. Any movement in that direction, however, must be very carefully planned, fully discussed, and begin at less complicated or well established reporting levels.

It was pointed out, for example, that the industry has many positive attributes and past achievements that should be highlighted as part of its sustainability profile. It is believed that initial efforts should focus on the identification of key performance indicators that denote established industry progress and benefits that may be taken either taken for granted, not highlighted enough, or overlooked as legitimate reportable sustainable practices.

In general terms, industry has stated they believe that established, existing indicators should be examined  first  –  before  advanced  more  complex  and,  perhaps  challenging,  indicators  are assessed. For example, industry members feel it is important for sustainability reporting to consider their consistent, significant advances on the sustainability front over many years. Therefore, it is very important to establish reporting baselines that include historic advances, e.g., product quality/consistency, antibiotic usage reductions, fish meal/oil reductions, nutritional advantages, code of containment improvements/escape reductions, etc. Additionally, progressive performance indicators should be considered related to verifying consistent nutritional profile of farmed salmon, e.g., annual independent testing and verification of Omega 3 or vitamin levels. Industry believes that ongoing consultation and cooperation between industry and DFO is beneficial and that progressive long term sustainability reporting will be enabled through careful and deliberate initial focus upon these fundamental indicators which demonstrate continuous industry progress and long-standing commitment to sustainability.

¹ This project focused on salmon aquaculture performance indicators only. Future efforts will be necessary to chart performance indicators for all other species.