Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch (SFW)

What is it?

Each report contains an assessment of whether both targeted and incidentally caught species are maintained at levels that allow the species to fulfill their ecological roles, habitat, and ecosystems are maintained, and a management system is in place to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem.

The assessment criteria are:

1. Impacts on the stock – evaluates the fishery’s impacts on the stock that is being assessed and incorporates the current abundance of the stock and the fishing mortality i.e., whether overfishing is occurring;
2. Impacts on other species – evaluates the same factors as impacts on stock, but applies them to bycatch and other species that are caught by the fishery. This includes an assessment of discards and bait use;
3. Management effectiveness – assesses the harvest strategy to control fishing pressure, including bycatch management, enforcement, and stakeholder engagement; and,
4. Impacts on habitats and ecosystems – assesses the fishery’s impact on the seafloor and how it is being reduced as well as other indirect ecosystem and trophic impacts.

How to use it?

Although the species generally focus on those available for retail, they include fisheries used as a source of trimmings and some reduction fisheries such as krill. As a result, they can be used as a risk indicator for these sources when used in aquaculture feed.

The fishery assessments classify the above four criteria subscores out of ten with an associated green, yellow, red, and critical rating. These four criteria sub-scores are then translated into a final score and an associated Seafood Watch rating of Best Choice, Good Alternative, or Avoid. 

What is it?

Each report contains an assessment of a specific aquaculture system’s impacts. These focus on the environmental aspects of aquaculture, including those associated with its use of feed (Criterion 5). They provide a tool to assess and highlight the ecological impacts and costs, thereby helping to inform and understand the ecological sustainability of different aquaculture systems.

The assessment criteria are:

1. Data – assesses the availability and quality of data on aquaculture’s ecological impacts;
2. Effluent – assesses the ecological impacts of waste beyond the farm boundary; 
3. Habitat – assesses the impacts on habitat within the farm and or an allowable zone of effect and the effectiveness of farm siting regulations and management;
4. Chemical use – assesses the impacts of chemicals used on the surrounding ecosystem;
5. Feed – assesses three core aspects of feed uses (the use of wild fish, the net protein gain or loss, and the global footprint of feed production) – which includes the following subsections:  
   1. Factor 5.1 – Wild fish use
   2. Factor 5.2 – Net protein gain or loss
   3. Factor 5.3 – Feed footprint
6. Escapes – assesses the risk of escapes and risks to the ecosystem that escaped farmed fish pose;
7. Disease, pathogen, and parasite interaction – assesses the ecological impact of disease transmission or amplification of disease and parasite transmission from farmed fish to wild fish;
8. Source of stock – assesses the source of stock and its level of independence from wild-caught fish for on-growing or broodstock;
9. Predator and wildlife mortalities – assesses the likelihood of population-level impacts on predators or other wildlife that interact with aquaculture operations; and,
10. Escape of secondary species – assesses the potential for ecological impacts from escaping secondary species such as pathogens, parasites, and other unintentionally transferred species. 

How to use it?

These assessments can be used in two ways: 

• As a risk and/or progress indicator of the overall use of feed within an industry in a specific geography (Criterion 5 – Feed).

Under this, each report includes: 

Factor 5.1- Wild Fish Use – Information and a score on the amount of wild fish used in feed combined with the sustainability of the source fishery;

Factor 5.2 – Net Protein Gain or Loss –  Information and a score on the efficiency of converting feed into aquaculture product; and,

Factor 5.3 – Feed Footprint – Information, a score, and a metric on the global warming potential of the feed used to produce one kilogram of seafood protein (kg CO2-eq kg-1 farmed seafood protein). This considers multiple feed ingredients as well as land use changes and uses data from life cycle assessments from the GLFI database.

• Aquaculture trimmings used in compound aquaculture feed present an opportunity to reduce waste and contribute toward the circular economy. However, they pose their own set of potential impacts. 

Therefore, the SFW aquaculture assessments can be used to identify the risks and/or progress involved in using this circular ingredient against the ten SFW criteria outlined above. Each report provides subscores out of ten with an associated green, yellow, red, and critical rating. 

These sub-scores are then translated into a final score and an associated Seafood Watch rating of Best Choice, Good Alternative, or Avoid.