Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

Nova Austral S.A., Chile Net Pens

October 2, 2017 Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

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.

Final Seafood Recommendation

Criterion Score Rank Critical? C1 Data 8.64 GREEN C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 6.27 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals 9.00 GREEN NO C5 Feed 5.03 YELLOW NO C6 Escapes 5.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 6.00 YELLOW NO

C8X Source 0.00 GREEN NO C9X Wildlife mortalities -3.00 GREEN NO C10X Introduced species escape -5.00 YELLOW Total 37.93 Final score (0-10) 5.42

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 5.42 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 0

Interim rank YELLOW FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? NO YELLOW

Scoring note – scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates very poor performance and 10 indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact. Criteria 8X, 9X, and 10X are exceptional criteria, where 0 indicates no impact and a deduction of -10 reflects a very significant impact. Two or more Red criteria result in a Red final result.

Summary The final numerical score for this company-level assessment of Atlantic salmon farmed in net pens by Nova Austral in Chile is 5.42 out of 10, and with no Red-ranked criteria, the final ranking is Yellow and a recommendation of Good Alternative.

Executive Summary

Nova Austral operates exclusively in Chile’s southernmost Region of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica (Region XII), producing Atlantic salmon in net pens. The company harvested 24,791 metric tons (MT) of salmon in 2016, increasing substantially from approximately 5,000 MT in 2011, with approximately 30% of production exported to the United States. The company has nineteen primary sites in the Aracena and Cockburn area-management designations, of which thirteen were actively in production at some point in 2016. Six sites are currently certified (with three additional sites in assessment) to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)’s salmon standard.

This Seafood Watch assessment includes criteria covering impacts associated with effluent, habitats, wildlife and predator interactions, chemical use, feed production, escapes, introduction of non-native organisms, disease, the source stock, and general data availability.1

Due to the focused nature of this Nova Austral assessment, the data availability on all aspects of production was good. The company was fully transparent when information requests were made for this assessment. Independent third-party documentation was also available in some categories due to the certification of six sites (three currently in assessment) with the ASC; this included additional monitoring, data in audit reports, and biodiversity impact assessments. The Chilean salmon industry in general also has considerable amounts of data publicly available, particularly through the national fisheries service (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura, known as Sernapesca), and while still lagging other salmon farming regions, there is also a developing body of academic literature covering some aspects of production. Scientific research in Region XII is limited compared to the more-densely farmed Regions X and XI further north, and this assessment must acknowledge that some data and information provided directly by the farm cannot be robustly verified. Overall, the data availability and quality is high, and the score for Criterion 1 – Data is 8.6 out of 10.

The Chilean fjord region is classified among those with the highest global conservation priority worldwide due to its threats and high degree of endemism. Nova Austral operates exclusively in Region XII in southern Patagonia, and the active production sites are currently located in a national park (Parque Nacional Alberto de Agostini). These locations must be considered a high value habitat, and therefore assessed with greater caution, but detailed data provided by the company, in addition to broader research in the region, allow a robust assessment to be made for effluent and habitat impacts. Monitoring of soluble effluent in the water column is not a regulatory requirement in Chile, but Nova Austral provided detailed weekly monitoring data for six chemical parameters from six sites that show no clear patterns in nutrient levels with increasing distance from the net pens relative to reference sites at 500 m. Benthic (seabed) monitoring is required at peak biomass and Nova Austral has a substantial number of sites with

1 The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard is available at: http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood- recommendations/our-standards

low oxygen levels (classified as “anaerobic” by Sernapesca, though not truly devoid of oxygen) at peak production (42% of sites), indicating an apparently high level of waste deposition. Region XII in general has higher levels of “anaeroic” monitoring results than Regions XI and X further north, and while this may be partly due to specific environmental conditions in the far south, these impacts are typically considered to be relatively rapidly reversible. Regardless of the cause, all anaerobic sites must be shown to have returned to aerobic conditions before restocking. Nova Austral greatly exceeds the minimum regulatory fallow periods (3 months) with an average of 16.6 months over the last 7 years.

In addition, detailed independent site-specific environmental impact studies for six Nova Austral sites, though limited in temporal duration, do not identify significant impacts to any key species or biotopes in the farm areas associated with the salmon production. Region XII has a very low number of sites compared to Regions X and XI, and Nova Austral is the sole operator in the management areas (ACS) it occupies; therefore, cumulative impacts have the potential to be managed effectively. Overall, the data show effluent wastes are unlikely to cause or contribute to cumulative impacts at the waterbody scale, despite the substantial waste discharge, and the habitat results show no irreversible impacts at the site level; nevertheless, the locations in the National Park demand a greater level of precaution until the proposed relocation has been achieved. The final score for Criterion 2 – Effluent is 6 out of 10, and for Criterion 3 – Habitat is 6.27 out of 10.

In contrast to the very high average use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farming, Nova Austral has infrequent use. At the time of writing, the company has not used antibiotics at any sites for more than two years. According to Sernapesca’s annual report on antibiotic use, Nova Austral has the lowest relative antibiotic use (i.e., grams of antibiotic per ton of salmon production) of any company in Chile. The bacterial disease salmon rickettsial syndrome or SRS, which is by far the largest cause of antibiotic use in Chile, is not currently present in Region XII. The last antibiotic use at a Nova Austral site in early 2015 was to treat bacterial kidney disease (BKD). The parasitic sea louse, Caligus rogercresseyi, that leads to the high use of pesticides in Regions X and XI in Chile is not present in Region XII and Nova Austral reports that precautionary monthly monitoring has never detected the parasite at the company’s sites. As a result, there have not been any sea lice pesticide treatments at the company’s sites. It is possible that chemical use could increase at any time due to a disease outbreak, but the company’s management and the characteristics of Region XII mean that chemical use is currently very infrequent and the score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 9 out of 10.

Detailed feed data were provided by Nova Austral’s feed company (EWOS – Cargill). With substantial use of crop ingredients and partial use of land animal ingredients, the Forage Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) is 1.95. This means that from first principles, the fish oil from 1.95 tons of wild fish is used to produce one ton of farmed salmon. The primary fisheries sourced for fishmeal and fish oil are shown to be moderately sustainable (according to FishSource scores), and the score for Factor 5.1, Wild Fish Use is 3.56 out of 10. With relatively high use of “edible” terrestrial crop ingredients, there is a 31.6% net loss of edible protein and a score of 6 out of 10 for Factor 5.2. A calculated primary production footprint for the feed ingredients is 6.9 hectares

per ton of salmon production, and results in a score of 7 out of 10 for Factor 5.3. The three factors combine to result in a final score of 5.03 out of 10 for Criterion 5 – Feed.

The loss of 8,301 salmon (6,493 after recaptures) from a Nova Austral site in July 2016 was the first reported escape in Chile’s Region XII and highlights the vulnerability of the production system. The Atlantic salmon is a non-native species in Chile, introduced primarily for sport fishing alongside many other salmonid species over more than a century. Unlike other introduced species like brown trout, rainbow trout, and Chinook salmon (which each have established breeding populations in Chile), the available evidence indicates Atlantic salmon has been a poor colonizer beyond its native range and the species is unlikely to be an effective competitor or predator of wild fish, or to become established. Nevertheless, Nova Austral’s loss in 2016 was the first escape in Region XII, and if this conclusion regarding the likelihood of establishment is incorrect, the potential impact to native fish could be severe. Taking this uncertainty into account, the final score for the Escapes Criterion is 5 out of 10 and reflects the ongoing concern.

Nova Austral has not had any significant disease events (i.e., those that require treatment) in the last two years. Diseases that cause major production problems further north in Regions X and XI, such as salmon rickettsial syndrome and the parasitic sea lice Caligus rogercresseyi, are not currently present in Region XII. Mortality rates resulting from disease at Nova Austral are low, and the total biomass of farmed salmon in Region XII is also very low compared to Regions X and XI. The low use of antibiotics at Nova Austral (i.e., lower than the Region XII average, and the lowest in Chile) in addition to the lack of sea lice pesticides, provide further evidence of the low prevalence of disease at the company. Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was the last disease requiring treatment (two years ago), and as the pathogen is prevalent among wild fish, there is a limited risk of impact. Overall, there appears to be little likelihood of significant impacts to wild fish from pathogens and parasites at Nova Austral sites. Nevertheless, there are no apparent data with which to confirm this and it is acknowledged that the apparent lack of impacts cannot be assured. As such, the score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 6 out of 10.

As is common throughout the global salmon aquaculture industry, Nova Austral sources all fish for growout from hatcheries that utilize domesticated, hatchery-raised broodstock. Therefore, they are considered to be independent of wild salmon fisheries for eggs or juveniles. The final deductive score for Criterion 8X – Source of Stock is 0 out of –10.

The presence of salmon in net pens at high densities is attractive to opportunistic coastal marine mammals, seabirds, and fish. In addition, the broader farm operations can disturb sensitive wildlife. In Chile as a whole, the primary direct interactions are considered to be with the South American sea lion (“Lobo de Mar”; Otaria flavescens) and various species of birds. The biodiversity assessments conducted at six Nova Austral sites (as part of their ASC certification) confirm the presence of sea lions, and list between 10 and 16 common species of birds around the farms. Regulatory prohibitions on lethal control of marine mammals in addition to the company’s use of predator nets above and below the waterline are considered to reduce mortality to exceptional cases, and the company reports no interactions resulting in

mortality. Though not observed during the biodiversity assessments, several species of whale and dolphin are of conservation concern in Chile. There is some potential for disturbance due to farming operations, but the information from Sernapesca does not associate any negative impacts to salmon farming in general in Chile. The score for Criterion 9X – Wildlife and Predator Mortalities is a deduction of –3 out of –10.

Movements of smolts from freshwater hatcheries to seawater growout sites are an integral part of the salmon production system. Due to the logistical challenges of operating in the far south of Chile, Nova Austral has only recently established plans to build a hatchery in Region XII, and currently ships all smolts considerable distances by well-boat from hatcheries in Regions IX and XIV. This represents a clear concern about the potential introduction of pathogens or other organisms into Region XII from the more-densely farmed Regions X and XI. The sources of the movements are land based hatcheries that are considered to have a high level of biosecurity regarding unintended organisms (e.g., pathogens) entering shipments at the source. The destination (open net pens) has inherently low biosecurity. Until recently, Nova Austral was transporting the fish with “open valves”, such that water in the holding tanks was exchanged with the seawater outside the boat, but the company lost 149,000 fish to mortality in two well boats in February 2017 due to passing through an algae bloom during transport. Since then, the company has operated with closed valves or used a water sterilization process (UV) when exchange is necessary; however, it cannot be assured that this is effective for all pathogens or other organisms passing into and out of the system during the long transport through salmon farming regions. Overall, the complete reliance on trans-waterbody live fish movements, in addition to practical limitations regarding the effectiveness of water treatment during transport, means there is a concern about the potential movement and introduction of secondary species; thus, the deduction is –5 out of –10 for Criterion 10X – Escape of Secondary Species.

Overall, the final numerical score for Atlantic salmon farmed in net pens by Nova Austral is 5.42 out of 10, and with no red criterion scores, the final recommendation is a yellow “Good Alternative.” All data points are available in Appendix 1, and all scoring tables and calculations are available in the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard.

Table of Contents

Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 8 Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ...... 8 Analysis ...... 13 Scoring guide ...... 13 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ...... 14 Criterion 2: Effluent ...... 18 Criterion 3: Habitat ...... 26 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ...... 33 Criterion 5: Feed ...... 37 Criterion 6: Escapes ...... 41 Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ...... 47 Criterion 8X: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ...... 52 Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ...... 53 Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ...... 56 Overall Recommendation ...... 58 Acknowledgements ...... 59 References ...... 60 About Seafood Watch® ...... 70 Guiding Principles ...... 71 Appendix 1 - Data points and all scoring calculations ...... 73

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

Species Atlantic Salmon – Salmo salar

Geographic coverage Nova Austral S.A. farms – Chile

Production Methods Marine 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 Northeast Atlantic, and the North America landmass in the Northwest Atlantic. It is an anadromous species; hatching and early life stages occur in freshwater rivers and streams, followed by a migration downstream to the marine environment 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 natal spawning ground to complete the cycle.

Atlantic salmon are non-native in Chile; deliberate introductions of many salmonid species have been attempted over extended periods since the 19th century (Niklitschek et al. 2013).

Production Overview

Production system This assessment is specific to the company Nova Austral S.A. The company’s salmon smolts are produced from domesticated broodstock in land-based hatcheries, and are then on-grown in floating net pens in marine sites. This Seafood Watch assessment focuses on the net pen growout stage of production.

Chile’s aquaculture sites (termed “concessions”) are grouped into management areas called Agrupación de Concesiones de Salmónidos (ACS), and Nova Austral has 28 licensed sites. Nine sites located in the Porvenir area are not used (they are considered too shallow with not enough water exchange), and all production occurs within the Aracena and Cockburn ACS locations in Chile’s most southerly Region XII (Región de Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena). See Figure 1 for a map of the far south of Chile, with Nova Austral’s sites contained within the highlighted box that is expanded in Figure 2 with the site locations. Site operating information

from Sernapesca2 in Figure 3 shows thirteen of these sites were in operation at some time in 2016.

Nova Austral currently has six sites certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council3 (ASC), and three in assessment. In 2016, 54% of total production was certified to the ASC (13,385 metric tons (MT) certified), and 75% of ongoing production to be harvested in 2017 is expected to be ASC certified.

Figure 1: Map of southern Chile (copied from Google Maps). The highlighted box is expanded in Figure 2 below.

2 http://www.sernapesca.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1419&Itemid=1041 3 http://www.asc-aqua.org/index.cfm?lng=1

Figure 2: Map of active (2017) Nova Austral sites in Chile’s Region XII. Map provided by Nova Austral.

Figure 3: Site information and monthly operation profiles for Chile’s Region XII in 2016. Image copied from Sernapesca.

Production statistics Nova Austral harvested 24,791 MT of salmon in 2016. Figure 4 shows the increasing annual production from 2003 to 2016.

Figure 4: Annual Atlantic salmon production figures for Nova Austral. Data supplied by Nova Austral.

For reference, the Chilean industry’s trade body, SalmonChile, reports total production of Atlantic salmon in Chile in 2015 was 606,453 MT (SalmonChile 2016a). Production in 2016 of 490,000 MT is estimated (from Multiexport/AquaBench4). This is a significant reduction compared to previous years, partly due to substantial mortalities (39,000 MT of farmed fish projected to be 106,000 MT at harvest) in Chile during an algal bloom in 2016. Global production of farmed Atlantic salmon was approximately 1.9 million MT in 2016 (Marine Harvest 2017).

Import and export sources and statistics Nova Austral supplies a variety of markets, the largest of which is Europe and Russia (60% of production), with the U.S. receiving 30%. The remaining 10% is exported to markets in Asia.

Common and Market Names Scientific Name Salmo salar Common Name Atlantic salmon United States Atlantic Salmon Spanish Salmón del Atlántico French Saumon de l'Atlantique Japanese Taiseiyō sake

Product forms Product forms for Nova Austral salmon include whole fish (gutted), fillets, and portions.

Traceability Nova Austral has a traceability system covering all stages of the production and supply chain. A lot number traces the history of the product from ova to the packaging of the final product. The system is supported by various programs including Fishtalk Software, M3, Innovex, and Xtek.

4 Chilean Salmon Industry – Outlook. Multiexport presentation, Seafood Expo Global, 2016.

Analysis

Scoring guide  With the exception of the exceptional criteria (8X, 9X and 10X), all scores result in a zero to ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rating. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the three 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 Standard that the following scores relate to are available on the Seafood Watch website. http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood- recommendations/our-standards

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: having robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts publicly available.

Criterion 1 Summary Data Category Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics 10 10 Management 10 10 Effluent 7.5 7.5 Habitat 7.5 7.5 Chemical use 10 10 Feed 7.5 7.5 Escapes 7.5 7.5 Disease 7.5 7.5 Source of stock 10 10 Predators and wildlife 7.5 7.5 Introduced species 10 10 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) Not Applicable n/a Total 95

C1 Data Final Score (0-10) 8.6 GREEN

Brief Summary Due to the focused nature of this Nova Austral assessment, the data availability on all aspects of the production was good. The company was fully transparent when requests were made for this assessment. Third-party information was also available in some categories associated with the certification of six sites (plus three currently in assessment) to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) salmon standards; this included additional monitoring, data published in audit reports, and biodiversity impact assessments. The Chilean salmon industry in general also has considerable amounts of data publicly available, particularly through the national fisheries service (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura, known as Sernapesca), and although still lagging other salmon farming countries, there is also a developing body of academic literature covering some aspects of production. This assessment must acknowledge that some data and information provided directly by the farm cannot be robustly verified, but overall, the data availability and quality is high, and the score for Criterion 1 – Data is 8.6 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking The company-level nature of this assessment means that detailed information was provided by Nova Austral on all aspects of production. In addition, there are a variety of other data sources in Chile, particularly at the government and academic levels. For example, the Chilean government’s Subsecretaria de Pesca5 (undersecretary of fisheries) known as Subpesca, and the Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura6 (i.e., national fisheries service) known as Sernapesca provide substantial information (primarily in Spanish) on their websites.

Industry and Production Statistics Nova Austral provided basic information of production volumes, site locations, site characteristics, production cycles, and the various production characteristics considered in the following sections. This information is also supported by national and regional data made available by the industry (e.g., SalmonChile 2016a) and government (primarily Sernapesca). The data score for the Industry and Production statistics is 10 out of 10.

Management and Regulations The company provided all information requested on production and management practices. National management and regulatory information in Chile is available in detail on Sernapesca’s website (in Spanish). Six of Nova Austral’s sites are certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), with an additional three in assessment, and though some data could be verified in the audit reports, other monitoring requirements and management practices required also provided useful information as describe below (e.g., water quality monitoring and biodiversity impact studies). With full transparency on request for this assessment, the data score is 10 out of 10.

Effluent and Habitat Soluble effluent monitoring is not typically done in Chile (it is not a regulatory requirement), but Nova Austral provided detailed weekly water column monitoring data for six sites as part of their commitment to ASC certification. Parameters included ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen, nitrogen Kjeldahl, orthophosphate and total phosphorous. Results for all parameters from an independent laboratory were provided for four sampling points at 0 m, 5 m, 50 m and reference stations at 500 m from the net pens. Benthic monitoring results for every site since 2010 are available from Sernapesca.7 Fallowing periods were also provided by the company. In addition, Nova Austral provided environmental impact assessments for six sites, including detailed monitoring of all biotopes in the farm areas. The company is the sole operator in the farm management areas (ACS8) it occupies; therefore, there is a high level of production coordination on neighboring sites regarding potential cumulative impacts. There is a useful body of academic literature from salmon farming in Chile and elsewhere to support Nova Austral’s farm-level data (e.g., Iriarte et al. 2013) (Niklitschek et al. 2013) (Rebolledo et al. 2011)

5 Subpesca: http://www.subpesca.cl/institucional/602/w3-channel.html 6 Sernapesca: http://www.sernapesca.cl/index.php. 7 http://www.sernapesca.cl 8 ACS = Agrupación de Concesiones de Salmonidos

(Mayr et al. 2014) (Elizondo-Patrone et al. 2015); however, the direct applicability of this research to Region XII is not certain. More specifically, though Silva and Palma (2008) lamented the “scant information published on this vast region,” they described a series of research cruises in the region under the CIMAR program (Cruceros de Investigación Marina en Áreas Remotas; Marine Research Cruises in Remote Areas) whose research covered a wide area, including that occupied by Nova Austral. Later publications based on this research (e.g., Rudolph et al. 2014) provide useful information on the region. The data scores for Effluent and Habitat are therefore both 7.5 out of 10.

Chemical Use Nova Austral provided data on chemical use since 2010, and also highlighted characteristics of their region that lead to low chemical use. In addition, Sernapesca publishes an annual report on chemical use (Informe sobre Uso de Antimicrobianos en la Salmonicultura; the latest version has data for 2016), and a Manual of Good Practices in the Use of Antimicrobial and Antiparasitic Agents in Chilean Salmon (Manual de Buenas Prácticas en el Uso de Antimicrobianos y Antiparasitarios en Salmonicultura Chilena). The annual report on antibiotic use includes a breakdown by company, and allows Nova Austral’s use to be compared to other companies in Chile.

Academic articles on resistance and direct environmental impacts are plentiful, but typically limited in specific relevance to Chile. They are useful for outlining an appropriate level of concern, particularly recent reviews such as Done and Halden (2015). Overall, Nova Austral’s chemical use is very well understood, and the full transparency leads to a score of 10 out of 10 for data availability and quality.

Feed Nova Austral’s feed company (EWOS-Cargill) provided detailed feed information regarding key ingredient inclusions and performance data (i.e., feed conversion ratios, etc.). With some variation in feeds between markets, and between feeds for ASC-certified and non-certified sites, some assumptions were made for an “average” feed, but sufficient data were available to do this robustly. Other data such as feed conversion ratio were supported by multiple production cycles. The data score for feed is 7.5 out of 10.

Escapes The company provided detailed escape data, particularly in reference to a significant escape event in 2016. All information regarding the causes of the escape and its follow up, including all formal reports to Sernapesca were provided in addition to daily recapture numbers. Various academic articles provide a basic level of understanding of the fate and impact of escaping Atlantic salmon in Chile (e.g., Niklitschek et al. 2013) (Di Prinzio et al. 2015), but as this was the first significant escape of Atlantic salmon in Region XII, there is some uncertainty regarding potential impacts. The data quality score for Escapes is 7.5 out of 10.

Disease Nova Austral provided monthly mortality rates, and the pathogens identified on the occasions chemicals (such as antibiotics) have been used. This information is supported by Sernapesca’s most recent annual fish health report (Informe Sanitario de Salmonicultura en Centros Marinos – Año 2015, published in 2016), in addition to the management through the grouping of sites (Agrupación de Concesiones salmonidos, ACS), and Sernapesca’s prevention and surveillance programs for high risk diseases (Programas de Prevención, Vigilancia y Control de la Enfermedades de Alto Riesgo) (see Disease Criterion for details). Identification of key pathogens such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD) and their potential (or not) to infect wild fish in Chile, provides information on potential impacts. Nevertheless, there is a limited body of academic literature describing the potential disease impacts in Chile. The data score for disease is 7.5 out of 10.

Source of Stock With the ubiquitous use of domesticated broodstocks, the source of stock is well established. The data score is 10 out of 10.

Wildlife and Predator Mortalities Nova Austral provided detailed biodiversity assessments conducted for six sites as part of their ASC certification. These independent reports included lists of bird and marine mammal species identified as being present near farm sites during the assessments, or otherwise observed by the company. The company provided data on entanglements and mortalities (none), but these are challenging to verify. Sernapesca provides regulations on predator control in Chile, which focus on marine mammals (Regulations 112 of 2013 and 31 of 2016 prohibit their lethal control, and Regulation 320 of 2001 requires farms to have an emergency plan for trapped or entangled marine mammals, and requires that all such events are reported to Sernapesca). Some academic papers such as (Miethke and Galvez 2009) (Ribeiro et al. 2007) and (Sepulveda et al. 2015) provide useful information, and Vidi (2004) highlights the potential for non-lethal disturbance of marine mammals. Sernapesca provides information sheets for many species of marine mammals, birds, and fish, and the anthropogenic activities that impact those species. The data score is 7.5 out of 10.

Unintentionally Introduced Species Nova Austral provided information on the location and type of hatcheries and smolt production units used by the company, and also on the routes and management of the transport of salmon from the hatcheries to their ongrowing sites in Region XII. All information necessary for the assessment was provided, and the data score is 10 out of 10.

Conclusion and Final Score Overall, data availability for this focused assessment of Nova Austral production is good, and the final score for the Data Criterion is 8.6 out of 10.

Criterion 2: Effluent

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: not allowing effluent discharges to exceed, or contribute to exceeding, the carrying capacity of receiving waters at the local or regional level.

Criterion 2 Summary Effluent Evidence-Based Assessment C2 Effluent Final Score (0-10) 6 YELLOW

Brief Summary Monitoring of soluble effluent in the water column is not a regulatory requirement in Chile, but Nova Austral provided detailed weekly monitoring data for six chemical parameters from six sites. The data show no clear patterns in nutrient levels with increasing distance from the net pens relative to reference sites at 500 m. Benthic (seabed) monitoring is required at peak biomass and Nova Austral has a substantial number of sites with low oxygen (classified as “anaerobic” by Sernapesca) levels (42% of sites), indicating an apparently high level of waste deposition and decomposition. Region XII in general has higher levels of “anaerobic” sites than Regions XI and X further north, and while this may be due to specific environmental conditions in the far south, all “anaerobic” sites (regardless of the cause) must be shown to have returned to “aerobic” conditions before restocking. Nova Austral greatly exceeds the minimum regulatory fallow periods. In addition, detailed independent site-specific environmental impact studies for six Nova Austral sites, though limited in temporal coverage, indicate there are no significant impacts to any key species or biotopes in the farm areas associated with the salmon production. Nova Austral has exclusive production in their ACS areas, giving greater potential to manage cumulative impacts. More broadly, research shows the water and sediment quality in the wider area (Strait of Magellan and Tierra del Fuego) remain pristine. Overall, the high level of “anaerobic” results remain a concern for potential impacts beyond the immediate site areas, but the final score for Criterion 2 – Effluent is 6 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking Criterion 2 – Effluent considers impacts of farm wastes beyond the immediate farm area or outside a regulatory allowable zone of effect (AZE), while Criterion 3 – Habitat considers impacts within the immediate farm area. Although the two criteria cover different impact locations, there is inevitably some overlap in terms of monitoring data and scientific studies on soluble and particulate wastes. As such, all relevant data are presented here in Criterion 2 – Effluent.

There is a substantial body of literature on the fate and impact of nutrient wastes from net pen fish farms, including salmon farms, and key recent reviews such as Price et al. (2015) provide a useful summary. Price et al. (2015) conclude modern operating conditions have minimized impacts of individual fish farms on marine water quality; effects on dissolved oxygen and turbidity have been largely eliminated through better management, and near-field nutrient enrichment to the water column is usually not detectable beyond 100 m of the farm (when formulated feeds are used, feed waste is minimized, and farms are properly sited in deep waters with flushing currents). When sited nearshore, however, or in shallow, soft-bottomed, and/or poorly flushed locations, extra caution should be taken to manage farm location, size, biomass, feeding protocols, orientation with respect to prevailing currents, and water depth to minimize near- and far-field impacts, and Price et al. caution that regardless of location, other environmental risks may still face this industry; for example, significant questions remain about the additive impacts of discharge from multiple, proximal farms, potentially leading to increased primary production and eutrophication.

As detailed below, Nova Austral provided water column monitoring data for six (of their 19 operational) sites as part of their commitment to ASC certification, and benthic monitoring results for every site since 2010 are available from Sernapesca.9 Fallowing periods were also provided by the company. The company is the sole operator in the farm management areas (ACS10) it occupies, therefore there is a high level of production coordination on neighboring sites with regard to potential cumulative impacts. In addition, there is a useful body of academic literature from salmon farming in Chile and elsewhere to support Nova Austral’s farm-level data. As such, the Evidence-Based Assessment option was used for this criterion.

Soluble wastes The key environmental regulation in Chile is the Reglamento Ambiental para la Acuicultura (RAMA) of 2001 and updated in 2009; however, the monitoring of soluble nutrient effluents in the water column is not mandated, and effluent impact monitoring in salmon farming internationally has generally focused on the discharge of particulate organic matter and the resulting changes in benthic biogeochemistry and biodiversity (Elizondo-Patrone et al. 2015). Nevertheless, Nova Austral provided weekly water quality monitoring data from six sites as part of ASC certification compliance, and although these sites do not represent all the company’s locations, approximately 75% of production is expected to be from these ASC-certified sites in 2017. Therefore, these data are used in this assessment as a representative sample of Nova Austral in total. The parameters monitored include total ammonia-nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, and orthophosphate, with each taken at the center of the net pen unit (reference E1 – 0 m), 5 m from the edge of the net pens (E2 – 5m), 50 m from the edge (E3 – 50 m) and a reference site at 500 m from the edge of the net pens (E4 – 500 m). An analysis of these data was made for the most recent production cycles at three sites selected randomly in different ACS locations (the sites selected were Aracena 3, Aracena 9, and Cockburn 13; see map Figure 2). One weekly sample date per month was selected at random

9 http://www.sernapesca.cl 10 ACS = Agrupación de Concesiones de Salmonidos

and values of ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorous at 0 m, 5 m and 50 m, were compared to the reference station at 500 m. The results are shown graphically in Figure 5 with average values for three key parameters shown as a percentage of the reference station (E4) at 500 m (red dashed line at 100%). Increased nutrient concentrations compared to the 500 m reference station would therefore be shown as (blue line) values above the red line, and lower concentrations below it. Error bars shown are one standard deviation.

Figure 5. Assessment of water quality at three Nova Austral sites. Blue lines are key parameter values as a percentage of the reference station at 500 m. The red line represents 100% (i.e., the reference station value). All values are the average for a complete production cycle, and error bars are standard deviations. Data supplied by Nova Austral.

The values show that there is some variation in the parameters close to the net pens, but values are both higher and lower than the reference station, and there is no pattern associated with increasing distance at the 0 m, 5 m and 50 m sampling points. All values are typically within one standard deviation of the reference, and show that sampling variability, particularly of the reference station is likely to be responsible for much of the overall variability.

These data agree with many studies in Chile and elsewhere that indicate the likelihood of significant impacts from soluble nutrients in appropriate sites are unlikely (e.g., Buschmann et al. 2006, 2007) (Niklitschek et al. 2013) (Husa et al. 2014) (Taranger et al. 2015). Nevertheless, Svasand et al. (2017) highlight the uncertainty in densely farmed areas (of Norway), and

Niklitschek et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of less well-studied impacts of salmon farm effluent, including changes to the natural nutrient ratios in salmon farming areas (e.g., Iriarte et al. 2010 and 2013) and (Rebolledo et al. 2011), and the effects on the microbial communities, food webs, and algal bloom events (e.g., Navarro, et al. 2008) and (Elizondo-Patrone et al. 2015).

Considering these impacts, Niklitschek et al (2013) concluded that at the regional level, the risks of exceeding the ecosystem capability to incorporate nutrients into the food web (i.e., the carrying capacity) is a matter of immediate concern; however, it is important to note that their study was based in the densely farmed Region XI, and Figure 6 shows that the scale of production, by number of farm sites, in Region XII (Magallanes) is currently very low by comparison.

Figure 6. Number of salmon farm sites in Regions X (Los Lagos), XI (Aysen) and XII (Magallanes). Graph copied from Sernapesca, (2016a).

Further evidence of a lack of significant impacts beyond the immediate farm area is provided by six independent site-specific environmental impact assessments conducted for Nova Austral in preparation for ASC certification (e.g., GEEAA 2015). These assessments identify and characterize all biotopes within the farming location and their condition. These studies conclude there is no negative (or positive impact) on the ecosystem.

Particulate wastes Under the RAMA regulations, the impact of settling particulate wastes from salmon farms in Chile are managed by environmental reports known as INFAs (Informes Sanitarios y Ambientales Acuicultura - under Resolution 3612 updated in 2014). These assessments focus on the immediate farm area, and are therefore primarily applicable to Criterion 3 - Habitat, but the information is presented here as impacts within this area can often be used to predict those beyond it.

Benthic INFA assessments are conducted before the start of harvesting (i.e., at maximum biomass). The parameters to be monitored are dictated by the category of site, which in turn depends on the production volumes, seabed types (hard or soft), and the water depth (greater or less than 60 m). Nova Austral’s sites are a mix of Categories 3, 4, and 5 (definitions as follows; 3: depth <60 m and a sediment substrate; 4: depth <60 m and a hard or rocky substrate; 5: depth >60 m, any substrate).

There is a suite of parameters for the different categories of site, but the primary indicator (i.e., the result presented by Sernapesca) is the oxygen level (aerobic/anaerobic status) of the substrate, where an “anaerobic” result (deficit of oxygen) is classified by Sernapesca as <2.5 mg l-1 of oxygen at the sediment water interface. This low level of oxygen (i.e., not truly anaerobic) indicates moderate to high level of organic enrichment of the seabed and a high rate of decomposition of wastes (i.e., consuming oxygen). A farm may not re-stock fish at a site if it does not have results showing that it is operating under “aerobic” (i.e., >2.5 mg l-1 oxygen) environmental conditions.

Average INFA results from multiple production cycles over the last three years (2014 to 2016) show 58% of Nova Austral sites sampled were “aerobic” and 42% of sites were “anaerobic” at peak biomass in the production cycle. Data from Sernapesca for Chile overall analyzed by Regions X, XI, and XII from 2010 to date in 2017 (Figure 7) show there is a distinct north–south decrease in the proportion of “aerobic” sites, which decreases from 86% of sites in Region X to 67% and 51% in Regions XI and XII respectively.

Figure 7. Percentage of “aerobic” INFA results in Regions X, XI and XII. Data analyzed from Sernapesca. Note: according to Sernapesca’s INFA classification, “aerobic” means oxygen levels >2.5 mg l-1.

There are many aspects that vary along the considerable north–south range of salmon production in Chile, particularly key variables such as temperature and local salinity levels in

fjords. Expert opinion on potential causes of the higher level of “anaerobic” results in Region XII vary; for example, it has been attributed to the influx of low-oxygen water due to upwelling (surgencia) associated with the Humboldt current (pers. comm., Nicos Nicolaides 2017); however, at the far south location of the Nova Austral sites, the opposite direction of prevailing currents (i.e., to the south) have in contrast been associated with downwelling (pers. comm., Anon. 2017). Other opinions include the heavier influx of organic material from terrestrial and glacial runoff in the far south (pers. comm., Anon. 2017). The cause is therefore unclear, but the additional direct environmental impact studies conducted at six Nova Austral sites (e.g., GEEAA 2015) are also considered site-level evidence below and in Criterion 3 – Habitat.

When a salmon farm site in Chile has an “anaerobic” result at peak biomass, it must be shown to have returned to “aerobic” status before any new fish can be stocked (after a compulsory three-month fallow period, or longer if necessary). “Anaerobic” INFA reports for each site also affect the regulatory calculations of permitted biomass for subsequent production cycles for the ACS as a whole, particularly if the anaerobic results are repetitive. Data on production cycles provided by Nova Austral show highly variable fallow periods varying from the 3-month minimum to nearly four years, with an average (of completed fallow periods) of 16.6 months during the period 2009 to 2016.

Regarding potential impacts of particulate wastes beyond the immediate farm area assessed in this Effluent Criterion, a sharply declining gradient of waste settlement with increasing distance from the net pens is generally accepted (e.g., Black et al. 2008) (Keeley et al. 2013), and the areas beyond the immediate farm area are expected to have lesser impacts. Sernapesca’s INFA sampling includes two reference points at 200 m from the edge of the net pens, but the results are not immediately apparent in the INFA monitoring results. Various 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). Mayor et al. (2010) suggest that the immediate benthic impact of the fish farms examined extended to somewhere between 25 and 50 m from the cage edge, while Mayor and Solan (2011) reported that the effects of the fish farms examined in Scotland were only statistically discernible at less than 50 m from the cage edge. Studies have shown impacts at larger distances, e.g., at 100 m from the cage boundary (Wilding et al. 2012) but these are at the limit of detection, and are not evidence of significant changes to species diversity or abundance. Although a return to aerobic status does not imply a full recovery, benthic impacts of this nature are considered to be relatively rapidly reversed with cessation of production or fallowing (Black et al. 2008).

Silva and Palma (2008) commented that, in southern Chile as a whole, there was “scant information published on this vast region,” but they described a series of research cruises in the region under the CIMAR program (Cruceros de Investigación Marina en Áreas Remotas; Marine Research Cruises in Remote Areas). The research covered a wide area, including that occupied by Nova Austral, and Rudolph et al. (2014) reported that the water quality and sediments sampled in the region are still pristine.

Specific environmental impact studies conducted for Nova Austral as part of ASC certification provide further evidence that sites are unlikely to have a significant impact beyond the immediate farm area. Figure 8 shows the predicted deposition of solid wastes at a Nova Austral site (Cockburn 14) with physical sampling locations indicated as used in the INFA monitoring. The modelling shows substantial deposition (and therefore impact) are unlikely beyond the immediate farm area. Similar detailed studies are available for five other Nova Austral sites and include a comprehensive assessment of the condition of all biotopes in the farm area. The results show a mixture of hard-rocky substrates and soft-benthic areas between sites, and though it must be accepted that these studies have a limited temporal coverage, they conclude there are no significant impacts to sensitive, protected, or commercial species from the salmon production.

Figure 8 Predicted benthic deposition area (by DEPOMOD) at Cockburn 14 site. Blue lines are depth contours, yellow is the net pen array. Grey areas have >2.5 kg solids deposition per square meter, orange = >1.5 kg solids m-2 and red = >1 kg solids m-2. Image copied from GEEAA (2015). Distance between parallels (i.e., lines of latitude) is 1.23 km.

Conclusion and Final Score The soluble nutrient levels monitored by Nova Austral at ASC-certified sites do not indicate any direct impacts within or beyond the immediate farm area. With 75% of production coming from these sites in 2017, these results are considered to represent all Nova Austral sites for the purposes of this Seafood Watch assessment. Although a typical salmon farm’s benthic impacts have been shown to dissipate rapidly with distance, and the environmental impact assessments at Nova Austral sites support this, a substantial number of Nova Austral sites and production cycles have low oxygen “anaerobic conditions” in the immediate farm area at peak biomass,

indicating there is a likelihood of temporary impact in the farm area. Nevertheless, the detailed studies at six sites, although limited in temporal coverage, indicate there are no significant impacts beyond the immediate farm area, and as Nova Austral has exclusive control of production in the areas (ACS) it operates, the potential for cumulative impacts is reduced. Though it can be concluded that the data show no evidence that discharges cause or contribute to cumulative impacts at the waterbody scale, the potential for as-yet poorly studied impacts in Chile remains; this dictates an element of caution in the scoring regarding the high level of “anaerobic” INFA results. The final score for Criterion 2 – Effluent is therefore 6 out of 10.

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: being located at sites, scales and intensities that maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 7.0 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 3.0 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 4.0 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 4.8 C3 Habitat Final Score 6.27 YELLOW Critical? NO

Brief Summary The Chilean fjord region is classified among those with the highest global conservation priority worldwide due to its threats and high degree of endemism. Although the floating net pen production system has little direct habitat impact, the operational impacts of settling wastes on the seabed habitats can be substantial. Nova Austral operates exclusively in Region XII in the far south, for which there is generally less environmental information available than more densely farmed areas further north, but detailed data provided by the company allow a robust assessment to be made. The sites are currently located in a national park (Parque Nacional Alberto de Agostini), and are therefore considered to be in high value habitats, and the company reports it is working with Sernapesca to relocate all sites by the end of 2018. Though a substantial number of Nova Austral sites have low oxygen “anaerobic” benthic conditions at peak production, these impacts are considered to be temporary and rapidly reversed by fallowing. Nova Austral greatly exceeds the regulatory fallowing period requirements (3 months) with an average of 16.6 months over the last 7 years. Detailed environmental assessments of all associated biotopes at six sites, while limited in temporal coverage, indicate there are no resulting significant impacts. Region XII has a very low number of sites compared to Regions X and XI, and Nova Austral is the sole operator in the management areas (ACS) in which it operates. Overall, despite the locations in a National Park, the results indicating that ecosystem services have not been lost as a result of the benthic impacts, in addition to Nova Austral’s ability to manage potential cumulative impacts, result in a final score for Criterion 3 – Habitat of 6.27 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking The fjordic region of southern Chile in Regions X, XI, and XII contains extraordinary marine biodiversity. It is home to many endemic and rare species such as the Chilean dolphin, and includes critical habitat for globally significant species such as the blue whale and sooty shearwater, endangered species such as southern right whale, and unique biological communities such as cold-water corals (Miethke and Gavez 2009). The region is classified among those with the highest global conservation priority worldwide due to its threats and high degree of endemism (Iriarte et al. 2010). Although the benthic communities in Chilean fjords have only recently been studied, there is no question that they are very rich and diverse, and of similarly-high ecological value (Quiroga et al. 2013). They have been shown to possess a unique benthic fauna, comprised of endemic cold-water corals, anemones, and other species (Buschmann et al. 2006). Fjords are considered one of the most biogeochemically active areas in the biosphere due to their land-ocean exchange of energy and matter (Elizondo-Patrone et al. 2015 and references therein). These ecosystems provide important services to humans which, according to Iriarte et al. (2010), have not been adequately measured and valued; as a consequence, their ecosystem services are commonly ignored in public policy design and in the evaluation of development projects.

The floating net pens used in salmon farming have relatively little direct habitat impacts, but there are operational impacts on the benthic habitats below the farm and/or within an Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE). 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). Although the Effluent Criterion assessed impacts beyond the immediate farm area, the Habitat Criterion considers impacts within it.

Factor 3.1 Habitat conversion and function Nova Austral has 28 licensed sites (see map in Figure 2), not all of which are active at any one time (thirteen sites were active at any one time in 2016). Nine sites in the Natales-Porvenir area have not been used since 2010 as they are shallow and not optimal for salmon grow-out. The remaining 19 sites are in the Aracena and Cockburn production regions located in the national park (Parque Nacional Alberto de Agostini) and must be considered high-value habitats. Nova Austral has plans to transfer the Natales-Porvenir sites to more suitable areas, and to relocate the remaining sites out of the national park to be completed by the end of 2018. This assessment cannot assume that this will be achieved.

As discussed in Criterion 2 – Effluent, the water quality monitoring data provided by Nova Austral show that there are unlikely to be significant impacts in the water column within the immediate farm area. Numerous studies in Chile and elsewhere (e.g., Iriarte et al. 2013) (Taranger et al. 2015) (Husa et al. 2014b) indicate that soluble effluents and reduced water quality are unlikely to have a direct environmental habitat impact at the site. In contrast (again as discussed in Criterion 2 – Effluent), particulate wastes generate a localized gradient of organic enrichment in the underlying and adjacent sediments, and can strongly influence the

abundance and diversity of infaunal communities in the immediate farm area (Black et al. 2008) (Keeley et al. 2013, 2015).

The INFA benthic monitoring results presented in Criterion 2 – Effluent show a substantial proportion (42%) of recent production cycles had “anaerobic” (i.e., low oxygen levels below 2.5 mg oxygen l-1) seabed conditions within the farm area at the peak of production. Although a return to “aerobic” status does not imply a full recovery, benthic impacts of this nature are considered to be relatively rapidly reversed with cessation of production or fallowing (Keeley et al. 2015). Data from Nova Austral’s production cycle timing shows highly variable fallow periods varying from the 3-month regulatory minimum to nearly four years, with an average of 16.6 months during the period 2009 to 2016. The detailed environmental impact assessments provided by Nova Austral for six sites (e.g., GEEAA 2015) show no significant impacts of production, and the low oxygen “anaerobic” conditions are therefore considered temporary and rapidly reversed.

Although it is accepted that there are temporary benthic impacts, particularly at peak biomass, there are considered to be no irreversible impacts on benthic communities, and the disturbance is considered rapidly reversed by fallowing. The detailed environmental assessments of all associated biotopes at Nova Austral sites (again emphasizing their limited temporal coverage) confirm that there are no resulting significant impacts. The broader habitat disturbances due to the activities of the salmon farming (e.g., increased boat traffic and human presence etc.) are undoubtedly a concern, but the location of Nova Austral sites in areas deemed appropriate for aquaculture (see Criterion 9X – Wildlife and Predator Mortalities for more details) is not considered to significantly impact the functionality of ecosystems. The environmental impact assessments, although limited, also do not indicate any immediate concerns. The direct benthic habitat impacts are therefore the primary driver of the score for Factor 3.1, which is 7 out of 10 due to the localized and reversible impacts.

Factor 3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) To assess the full ecological impact of an aquaculture industry on the ecosystem in which it is sited, both the farm-level and cumulative scales of impact must be considered (Husa et al. 2014). Factor 3.2 assesses the effectiveness of the regulatory and farm-level management practices in addressing the potential cumulative impacts from multiple farming sites.

Factor 3.2a: Content of habitat management measures Aquaculture in Chile is regulated by the General Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (LPGA) of 2001, and the key environmental regulation is Reglamento Ambiental para la Acuicultura (RAMA) of 2001 and updated 2009. Using the INFA benthic assessment results in addition to other production variables (e.g., mortality rates), the primary tool employed in Chile to manage cumulative impacts and the scale of production is the division of the farming regions into groups of farm sites (concessions) sharing a similar waterbody or area - Agrupación de Concesiones, or ACS. Each ACS is legally defined and has a management plan.

The rapid expansion of the salmon farming industry in Chile caused concerns regarding the ability of the regulatory system to manage potential impacts to the industry and the environment (e.g., Niklitschek et al. 2013) (Quiroga et al. 2013) (Salgado et al. 2015). Nevertheless, the regulatory system in Chile continues to evolve at a substantial pace (for example, the May 2016 revision11 of the ACS area management system, and the October 2016 moratorium on new license applications in Region XII12); perhaps most importantly, Nova Austral is the sole company operating sites in each ACS they occupy in Region XII, and there is a high level of control on cumulative production in any one area.

Regarding sensitive habitats (and in addition to the National Park status noted above), Vila et al. (2016) identified High Conservation Value Areas in the channels and fjords of the southern Chile ecoregion using 39 conservation features, and noted that the distribution of 12 conservation features overlapped to a certain extent (>10%) with Appropriate Areas for Aquaculture. Vila et al. (2016) noted that although Chile has been establishing marine protected areas since the 1960s, studies to identify representative areas for marine biodiversity conservation at the eco- regional scale are lacking. Although significant attention has been placed on the interactions of salmon farms with key marine species in Regions X and XI, leading to the establishment of a portfolio of 40 areas of high conservation value (Áreas de Alto Valor de Conservación, AAVC) there is much less understanding of the industry’s impacts as it moves further south into Region XII—Magallanes—an area increasingly affected by a burgeoning tourism industry, but generally considered as largely pristine (pers. comm., WWF-Chile 2016). Nevertheless, all proposed conservation targets in Region XII could be met with a suggested portfolio of 33 High Conservation Value Areas covering 99,432 km2 (12% of the ecoregion). The primary impact to aquaculture siting would be the exclusion of salmon farming from Tierra del Fuego island in the southernmost region of Chile.

These authors (Vila et al.) proposed some Appropriate Areas for Aquaculture, but again expressed caution that they are located in remote places where fine-scale data are lacking, and the lack of apparent potential conflict with their conservation targets may reflect this. Importantly, they also concluded that the potential impacts of salmon farming on conservation targets outside High Conservation Value Areas may be important and should be minimized. Nevertheless, the results of this process were subsequently used by the Chilean government to assist in zoning aquaculture in Region XII, and Figure 9 shows (in tandem with Figure 2 above) that all Nova Austral sites are in locations considered to be “Appropriate Areas for Aquaculture.”

11 Sernapesca (Technical report No 356). 12 Subpesca Resolution 3264 (28 October 2016).

Figure 9. Areas appropriate for Aquaculture in Region XII. Figure copied from Vila et al. (2016).

Based on a 2009 regulation (Resolution 1449) updated most recently in May 2016 (Technical report No. 356), biomass limits and stocking densities are set according to a classification calculation of the ACS based on the INFA results of the farms (aerobic or anaerobic), the mortality numbers of fish, and the production relative to projections (all from the previous production cycle). For example, if between 75.1% and 100% of the INFA results for sites in the ACS are “aerobic” after the last production cycle, then 100% of the planned stocking can be repeated. This reduces sequentially with increasing numbers of “anaerobic” INFA results, such that only 25% of the fish can be stocked in the next cycle if less than 25% of the INFA results are “aerobic.” Similarly, mortalities above 15.1% have a reduction in stocking of 10%, which increases to a reduction of 60% if mortality is greater than 26%. These factors are weighted and used to give a final score for the ACS that determines the stocking density (which ranges from 11 to 17 kg/m3 for Atlantic salmon) and the corresponding number of fish stocked. Based on growth projections, this will correspond to a predicted peak biomass before harvesting begins. Therefore, although the INFA assessment is conducted at the site level, it is at least partly involved in setting production limits at the area level.

Figure 6 above shows that the current number of sites in Region XII is very low compared to Regions X and XI further north. Yet, as referenced above, the expansion of the salmon industry in Chile, and particularly its movement further south from Region X to Region XI and then further south to Region XII has been a cause for concern regarding the effectiveness of the

regulatory system to manage it appropriately. Recent changes in the policies for site allocations in Region XII give some encouragement that further expansion in Region XII will be done under some level of control; for example, Resolution 3264 (28 October 2016) placed a moratorium on new license applications for Region XII. At that time, approximately 1,000 applications were already in place with Sernapesca, and there are currently 106 registered sites in Region XII, but it appears the existing 1,000 applications will lead to a small number of additional sites (estimated between 7 and 25) while new areas are evaluated and current sites are relocated out of the national park (Parque Nacional Alberto de Agostini) (pers. comm., Nicos Nicolaides 2017). In collaboration with Sernapesca, Nova Austral is working to relocate all their production sites in the park to alternative areas, with the full relocation planned to be completed by the end of 2018. This assessment cannot assume that this relocation will be completed until demonstrated.

While some aspects of multiple production sites are taken into account in the ACS system, the ability of Nova Austral to manage coordinated production in exclusive ACS locations is important in preventing potential cumulative impacts. The governmental siting policies also now appear to be sympathetic to the needs for sustainable development in Region XII; nevertheless, Nova Austral’s active sites are located in a National Park, and therefore demand a greater level of concern until the proposed relocation has been achieved. Thus, the score for Factor 3.2a is 3 out of 5.

Factor 3.2b: Enforcement of habitat management measures Sernapesca’s website has a substantial amount of information on the INFA and ACS area management systems, including INFA results for every site at peak biomass and pre-stocking assessments. In addition, the detailed environmental assessment information provided by Nova Austral as part of their ASC certification shows Nova Austral’s management is effective in minimizing the potential for cumulative impacts. While the company’s sites are currently grandfathered into the National Park, there is an active process underway in coordination with Sernapesca to relocate all affected sites by the end of 2018. The apparent limited consent for new sites based on existing applications, in addition to the very low production density in Region XII compared to Regions X and XI, also provide some confidence that cumulative habitats in Region XII are unlikely at present. The score for Factor 3.2b is therefore 4 out of 5.

Factor 3.2 Final Score Combining Factors 3.2a and 3.2b results in a score for the overall efficacy of the management and regulatory control of cumulative habitat impacts in Chile. This company-level assessment of Nova Austral, in combination with the government systems in place, gives high confidence that cumulative habitat impacts are currently avoided, and the final score for Factor 3.2 is 4.8 out of 10.

Conclusion and Final Score Though the installation of net pens has little direct impact on the habitat in which they are sited, the discharge and deposition of particulate organic matter can create poor sediment conditions near the sites and impact the functionality of the ecosystem. Although Nova Austral

has a substantial number of anaerobic sites at peak production, these impacts can be considered temporary and reversible, and the site impact assessments indicate no significant impacts at the sites. Despite its location in the National Park, the ability of Nova Austral to manage cumulative impacts as a sole operator in each ACS, in addition to government regulatory processes to allocate and relocate sites in Region XII as a whole, indicates that cumulative habitat impacts are currently considered unlikely. The final score for Criterion 3 – Habitat is 6.27 out of 10.

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: limiting the type, frequency of use, total use, or discharge of chemicals to levels representing a low risk of impact to non-target organisms.

Criterion 4 Summary Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score (0-10) 9 Critical? NO GREEN

Brief Summary In contrast to the very high average use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farming, Nova Austral has infrequent use; at the time of writing, the company has not used antibiotics at any of its sites for more than two years. According to Sernapesca’s annual report on antibiotic use, Nova Austral has the lowest relative antibiotic use (i.e., grams of antibiotic per ton of salmon production) of any company in Chile. The bacterial disease salmon rickettsial syndrome (SRS), which is by far the largest cause of antibiotic use in Chile, is not currently present in Region XII. The last antibiotic use at a Nova Austral site in early 2015 was to treat Bacterial kidney disease (BKD). The parasitic sea louse Caligus rogercresseyi that leads to the high use of pesticides in Regions X and XI in Chile is not present in Region XII, and Nova Austral reports that precautionary monthly monitoring has never detected the parasite at the company’s sites. As a result, there have not been any sea lice pesticide treatments at the company’s sites. Although antibiotics have been used in the past, and it is possible that chemical use could increase at any time due to a disease outbreak (and pathogens are present in the region), the company’s management and the characteristics of Region XII mean that chemical use is currently very infrequent and the score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 9 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking This Seafood Watch assessment focuses on antibiotics and sea lice pesticides as the dominant veterinary chemicals applied to salmon farming.13

Quantity of antibiotics used Nova Austral provided data on the number of antibiotic treatments since 2010 and specific quantities of antibiotic use since 2014. In addition, Sernapesca has published annual

13 For reference, Nova Austral reports that it does not use copper antifoulants on it nets.

antimicrobial use in Chilean aquaculture every year since 2011 (with data going back to 2005, reported by salmon farming companies) in the report “Informe Sobre Uso de Antimicrobianos en la Salmonicultura.” Because of a ruling in 2016, the most recent report (published June 2016, covering 2015 data) has been broken down by individual companies in addition to by species, antibiotic type/quantity, and disease treated (Sernapesca 2016b).

According to Sernapesca’s company-level data for 2015,14 Nova Austral has the lowest antibiotic use of any company in Chile (Figure 10). Nevertheless, the company considers Sernapesca’s 2015 figure of 114 g/ton to be too high due to a treatment spanning December 2014 and January 2015 that was allocated to the wrong year. The company reports its use to be 108 g/ton in 2014, 7 g/ton in 2015 and zero in 2016), and the number of treatments to be 9 in 2014, 1 in 2015, and 0 in 2016. Prior to 2014, the company’s average number of treatments per year from 2010 to 2013 was 2.75. Therefore, considering multiple sites are in production at any one time, this is substantially less than one treatment per production cycle.

Figure 10. Company-level antibiotic use in grams per ton of production in 2015. Nova Austral’s antibiotic use in 2016 was zero. Data from Sernapesca (2016b).

Figure 11 shows Nova Austral’s use is very low in comparison to the average Chilean use of approximately 700 g/ton of production, and has been decreasing since 2014.

14 Sernapesca’s most recent report on antibiotic use (Sernapesca [2017] for 2016 production) does not include company-level data. SalmonChile does present this data, but does not include all companies.

Figure 11. Solid blue line shows antibiotic use in Atlantic salmon aquaculture in Chile in grams per ton of production (data from Sernapesca 2017). Red line shows Nova Austral company data from 2014 to 2016.

Though it must be noted that there are no regulations in Chile that limit the quantity or frequency of use of antibiotics, Criterion 7 – Disease shows that Region XII currently has a different disease profile than the more densely farmed Regions X and XI further north; key diseases, such as salmon rickettsial syndrome (SRS), which dominate total antibiotic use in Chile overall, are not present in Region XII (Figure 12). Figure 12 also shows bacterial kidney disease (BKD or renibacteriosis) is the main cause of antibiotic use in Region XII, and Nova Austral’s last antibiotic treatment in early 2015 was for BKD.

Figure 12. Percentage of antibiotic treatments per disease in 2016 for the three regions X (Los Lagos), XI (Aysén), and XI (Magallanes). BKD = bacterial kidney disease, SRS = salmon rickettsia syndrome, Otras = others. Graph copied from Sernapesca (2017) (note this includes trout farming sites).

Overall, Nova Austral’s antibiotic use is the lowest in Chile and was zero in 2016. At the time of writing (August 2017), there have been no antibiotic treatments at any Nova Austral site for 30 months. Though the higher use in 2014 (9 treatments, primarily florfenicol) highlights the possibility for the use to increase, the current use is markedly less than once per production cycle.

The inappropriate use of antibiotics can lead to problems related to increased frequency of bacterial resistance and the potential transfer of resistance genes in bacteria from the aquatic environment to other bacteria (FAO, 2012). This is a particular concern for antibiotics listed as highly important for human medicine by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2016), which includes commonly-used treatments in Chile (e.g., oxytetracycline and florfenicol). For a comprehensive review of these concerns, see Done et al. (2015). The infrequent use of antibiotics at Nova Austral, particularly the steep decline in use since 2014 and the lack of use for over two years, indicates the contribution to the development of resistance or to direct environmental impacts is of low concern.

Sea lice treatments The parasitic sea louse Caligus rogercresseyi that leads to the use of pesticides in Regions X and XI in Chile is not present in Region XII (on farms or wild fish; Sernapesca, 2016a) and Nova Austral reports that precautionary monthly monitoring has never detected the parasite at the company’s sites. As a result, there have not been any sea lice pesticide treatments at the company’s sites.

Conclusion and Final Score Antibiotics have not been used over multiple production cycles for over two years at Nova Austral sites. Pathogens such as BKD are present in the region, and therefore the potential need for antibiotic treatments remains, and with a production cycle approaching two years, there is not sufficient confidence to say that the company is now entirely independent of the use chemicals (i.e., a score of 10 out of 10). Sea lice treatments have never been used. Therefore, as chemical treatments have not been used on multiple production cycles (with more than ten sites active at any one time), the score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 9 out of 10.

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: sourcing sustainable feed ingredients and converting them efficiently with net edible nutrition gains.

Criterion 5 Summary Feed parameters Value Score F5.1a Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) 1.95 5.12 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score –4.00 F5.1: Wild fish use score 3.56 F5.2a Protein IN (kg/100kg fish harvested) 39.10 F5.2b Protein OUT (kg/100kg fish harvested) 26.73 F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) –31.64 6 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 6.86 7 C5 Feed Final Score (0-10) 5.03 Critical? NO YELLOW . Brief Summary Detailed feed data were provided by Nova Austral’s feed company (EWOS – Cargill). With substantial use of crop ingredients and partial use of land animal ingredients, the Forage Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) is 1.95. This means that from first principles, 1.95 tons of wild fish would need to be caught to produce one ton of farmed salmon. The primary fisheries sourced for fishmeal and fish oil are shown to be moderately sustainable (according to FishSource scores), and the score for Factor 5.1, Wild Fish Use is 3.56 out of 10. With relatively high use of terrestrial crop ingredients, there is a 31.6% net loss of edible protein and a score of 6 out of 10 for Factor 5.2. A calculated primary production footprint for the feed ingredients is 6.9 hectares per ton of salmon production, and results in a score of 7 out of 10 for Factor 5.3. These three factors combine to result in a final score of 5.03 out of 10 for Criterion 5 – Feed.

Justification of Ranking The Seafood Watch Standard assesses 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 Standard document.15

Detailed feed data were supplied by Nova Austral’s feed company EWOS (Cargill). Minor variations in feed formulation are made for specific markets (e.g., 25% of Nova Austral’s feeds contain no land animal ingredients for European markets), but the scores generated below are based primarily on the feed formulations that represent a clear majority of production. In this regard, the feed used to supply ASC-certified sites currently represent approximately 80% of Nova Austral’s total feed use, and is used as the basis for the calculations, but variations are noted in the calculations below and scoring is based on a precautionary principle where relevant.

Factor 5.1 Wild fish use

Factor 5.1a – Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) Data provided by EWOS show inclusion levels of fishmeal and fish oil vary considerably at different stages in the production cycle, with eleven feed formulations used for different sized fish. The fishmeal content varies between 44% inclusion in smolt transfer boost feeds to 4.9% in final growout feeds, and fish oil varies between 7.5% and 11.6%. Weighted averages based on the total quantities of each feed used show an average fishmeal and fish oil inclusion of 9.20% and 9.17% respectively. The average inclusion of trimmings sources of fish meal and oil is 10% and 20% respectively across their pool of marine ingredients. The average economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR), calculated from thirteen recent production cycles, is 1.33 (range 1.22 to 1.42). Yield values provided by EWOS for fish meal and oil are 24% and 5%, sufficiently close to the 22.5% and 5% default values in the SFW standard that the EWOS values were used in the calculations.

Table 1. Nova Austral feed parameters. Parameter Data Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 9.20 Percentage of fishmeal from byproducts 10.0 Fishmeal yield (from wild fish) (%) 24.0 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 9.17 Percentage of fish oil from byproducts 20.0 Fish oil yield (%) 5.0 Economic Feed Conversion Ratio (eFCR) 1.33 Calculated Values Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) (fishmeal) 0.46 Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) (fish oil) 1.95 Seafood Watch FFER Score (0-10) 5.12

15 http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/our-standards

These data result in a Forage Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) value for fishmeal of 0.46 and 1.95 for fish oil. The higher value, 1.95 for fish oil, results in a score for Factor 5.1a - Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio of 5.12 out of 10.

Factor 5.1b – Source fishery sustainability The FFER score is adjusted by a factor determined by the sustainability of the fisheries sourced to provide marine ingredients. The default adjustment value of 0 is based on the assumption that aquaculture should use sustainable feed ingredients, and an increasingly negative penalty is generated by increasingly unsustainable sources.

EWOS provided both a general feed sourcing policy, and specific source fisheries for fishmeal and fish oil. The list shows byproduct sources of fishmeal and fish oil are varied with a wide range of sources from South and Central America; the dedicated (i.e., whole fish reduction) fishery sources are more limited to sardines from Mexico and Namibia, and Alaska Pollock, and have a minimum FishSource16 score of 6 out of 10 for all scores. Though some of these fisheries score higher, the proportion of ingredients from each source is not known and the minimum FishSource scores (based on sardines from Mexico) are used on a precautionary basis. This equates to a Source Fishery Sustainability score of -4 out of –10 for Factor 5.1b, and results in an adjustment of –1.56 to the Factor 5.1a score (5.12 out of 10). The final score for Factor 5.1 – Wild Fish Use is 3.56 out of 10.

Factor 5.2 Net protein gain or loss Feed protein content typically varies over a production cycle, and data provided by Nova Austral show a weighted average crude protein content of 35.6%. Three-quarters of Nova Austral feeds use land animal byproduct ingredients at an average inclusion level of 10%; this was used as a base for all calculations,17 but no specific values for the quantity of protein supplied by marine, crop, and land animal ingredients were provided. Therefore, default values in the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard were used to calculate the protein inputs and outputs as shown in Table 3.

Table 2: The protein budget for Nova Austral. Parameter Data Protein content of feed 35.6% Percentage of protein from edible sources (whole fish FM, edible crops) 82.6% Percentage of total protein from non-edible sources (byproducts, etc.) 17.4% Feed Conversion Ratio 1.33 Edible protein INPUT per ton of farmed salmon 391.0 kg Protein content of whole harvested salmon 18.5% Percentage of farmed salmon byproducts utilized 100%

16 www.fishsource.org 17 If the calculations were made with a feed containing no land animal ingredients, the net protein loss would be slightly greater (-38.4%) due to the greater inclusion of “edible” crop ingredient protein sources, but the overall score for Factor 5.2 would remain 6 out of 10.

Utilized protein OUTPUT per ton of farmed salmon 238.6 kg Net protein loss –31.6% Seafood Watch Score (0-10) 6

The majority of feed protein (82.4%) is considered to come from edible sources (whole fish and edible crops), with the remainder (17.4%) coming from marine and terrestrial land animal byproducts. A calculated adjustment allows for the recognition of an increased protein quality of the harvested salmon compared to that of the crop feed ingredients, and considering the eFCR of 1.33, the edible protein input is 391 kg per MT of farmed salmon production, and the utilized protein output is calculated to be 238.6 kg per MT. Overall, there is a net edible protein loss of 31.6%, which results in a score of 6 out of 10 for Factor 5.2 – Net Protein Gain or Loss.

Factor 5.3 Feed footprint The information provided by EWOS shows feeds include 18.4% marine ingredients and 10% land animal ingredients,18 and though a few percent of the feed formulation will be vitamin and mineral mixes and processing ingredients, the remainder (71.6%) is assumed to be terrestrial crop ingredients.

Table 3: Marine, crop, and land animal inclusion in Nova Austral salmon feed, and the ocean and land areas necessary to support one ton of farmed fish production. Parameter Data Marine ingredients inclusion 18.4% Crop ingredients inclusion 71.6% Land animal ingredients inclusion 10% Ocean area (ha) used per ton of farmed salmon 6.35 Land area (ha) used per ton of farmed salmon 0.51 Total area (ha) 6.86 Seafood Watch Score (0-10) 7

The area of aquatic and terrestrial primary productivity required to produce these ingredients is calculated (using the equations in the Seafood Watch Standard) to be 6.35 ha and 0.51 ha respectively. The total area of 6.86 ha equates to a score of 7 out of 10 for Factor 5.3 – Feed Footprint.

Conclusion and Final Score The final score is a combination of the three factors with a double weighting for the Wild Fish Use factor. Factors 5.1 (3.56 out of 10), 5.2 (6 out of 10), and 5.3 (7 out of 10) combine to result in a final score of 5.03 out of 10 for Criterion 5 – Feed.

18 Approximately 25% of Nova Austral feeds do not include land animal ingredients. If these are excluded from the calculations, there would be a decrease in the terrestrial area from 0.51 ha to 0.41 ha, and the total area would decrease from 6.86 ha to 6.77 ha, but this would not affect the overall score for Factor 5.3.

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: preventing population-level impacts to wild species or other ecosystem-level impacts from farm escapes.

Criterion 6 Summary Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 System escape risk 2 F6.1 Recapture adjustment 2 F6.1 Final escape risk score 4 F6.2 Competitive and Genetic Interactions 6 C6 Escape Final Score (0-10) 5 Critical? NO YELLOW

Brief Summary The loss of 8,301 salmon (6,493 after recaptures) from a Nova Austral site in July 2016 was the first reported escape in Chile’s Region XII and highlights the vulnerability of the production system. Atlantic salmon is a non-native species in Chile, introduced primarily for sport fishing alongside many other salmonid species over more than a century. Unlike other introduced species such as brown trout, rainbow trout, and Chinook salmon (which have established breeding populations in Chile), the available evidence indicates Atlantic salmon has been a poor colonizer beyond its native range and the species is unlikely to be an effective competitor or predator of wild fish, or to become established. Yet, if this conclusion regarding the likelihood of establishment is incorrect, the potential impact to native fish could be severe. The combination of Factors 6.1 and 6.2 results in a final score for Criterion 6 – Escapes of 5 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking

Factor 6.1 Escape risk All escape events in Chile, regardless of size, must be reported immediately on detection to Sernapesca under the RAMA environmental regulations (Articles 5 and 6 of Resolution 320 of 2001). After an escape, more complete reporting is required that includes the number of fish, their size, their health status, their most recent veterinary treatments, and a full assessment of the systems failures and the contingency plans initiated (e.g., recapture efforts, repairs and prevention of further losses).

Nova Austral had no reported escapes until 2016, but lost 8,300 fish in July 2016 due to structural failure in bad weather (note the recapture section below). This was the first major escape in Chile’s southernmost Region XII. Nova Austral provided the full follow-up report sent to Sernapesca (dated 29 September 2016) for this assessment, indicating that 8,301 fish of average weight, 5.99 kg, escaped from three net pens in an array of eight. The total site population was 177,390 fish prior to the escape.

Large-scale escape events have been a characteristic of the development of the industry in Chile (Thomassen and Leira 2012). Between 1993 and 1996, for example, approximately four million salmon and trout escaped from aquaculture facilities across the country (Moreno et al., 1997). More recent data show that total escape numbers have decreased markedly with better infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance, and Piccolo and Orlikowska (2012) proposed the frequency and magnitude of escape events might be expected to decrease as industry practices improve. Yet, they also concluded that due to the nature of salmon farming (i.e., the use of open net pens, the vulnerability of pens to storm- and predator-induced damage, etc.), large accidental escapes are likely to continue to occur sporadically. Official data from Sernapesca are of poor quality; they do not differentiate between species, and are currently (as of May 2017) only available to 2014. Figure 13 shows escapees of all species from 2011 to 2014. The 1.453 million escaped fish in 2013 are of unknown species, but includes one escape event of 787,929 Atlantic salmon.

Figure 13. Official escape number in Chile (undeclared species) from 2011 to 2014. Data from Sernapesca.

Nova Austral has a detailed Escape Prevention Plan (covering the construction, maintenance, and inspection of the anchoring system, the flotation structures, the nets and associated predator nets, in addition to contingency plans and staff training), but the 2016 escape event clearly indicates its practical limitations. Academic articles also maintain the likelihood that escaped salmon can leave the net pens unreported and possibly undetected, and therefore estimates of actual escapes of both smolts and adults are significantly higher than reported numbers (Skilbrei et al. 2015).

The loss of 8,301 fish (before recaptures) highlights the vulnerability of the system despite best management practices that are in place, and suggests an initial score of 0 out of 10 for Factor 6.1. Yet, the loss represented 1.2% of the site’s standing stock of fish, and does not meet the scoring definition of a “large” escape in the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard (i.e., >5% of the holding unit); in addition, corrective actions have been taken (engineers have redesigned the net pen arrays (pers. comm., Nico Nicolaides 2017). The company’s best management practices remain in place and a score of 2 out of 10 is also justified. Overall, the most appropriate score for Factor 6.1 – Escape Risk is 2 out of 10.

Recaptures Chilean aquaculture legislation mandates the existence and application of contingency plans to manage escape events at each farm. Though Niklitschek et al. (2013) argued there is a lack of sufficient incentives or sanctions to stimulate relevant recapture efforts, there are examples of partly-successful recapture efforts in Chile, including one from Nova Austral. Figure 14 shows recapture numbers by day reported by Nova Austral to Sernapesca after the 2016 escape of 8,300 fish.

Figure 14. Recaptures post-escape. Data provided by Nova Austral from Sernapesca report.

Considering the escape of 8,301 fish, the total recaptures of 1,808 fish represents 21.8% of the initial loss. This recapture is similar in scale to that achieved by AquaChile after the large escape in 2013, where 16.8% of fish were recaptured (pers. comm., AquaChile 2016). A small recapture adjustment of 2 out of 10 increases the escape risk score to 4 out of 10.

Factor 6.2. Competitive and genetic interactions The Atlantic salmon species was one of several non-native salmonids introduced into Chile for sport fishing beginning in the 1890s, with successful establishment of brown trout (Salmo trutta fario) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss); however, all intentional historic attempts to establish Atlantic salmon have failed (Joiner 1980).

Schröder and Garcia de Leaniz (2011) and references therein conclude that the “encroachment” of salmonids is one of the biggest threats to native fish biodiversity in Chile. One of the primary concerns—in Chile and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere—is the impact to native galaxiid fish; according to De Leaniz et al. (2010), “Across the southern hemisphere, exotic salmonids [note the type of “salmonid” is not defined] directly impact on native galaxiids by reducing their foraging efficiency, limiting their growth, restricting their range, forcing them to seek cover or to use suboptimal habitats, and also by preying upon them.” Also, Niklitschek et al. (2013) (and references therein) show that escaped salmonids can impose a strong predatory pressure upon schooling fish, including small pelagic species of importance to artisanal fishers, such as southern sprat and Chilean silverside, and to a lesser extent, juvenile Patagonian grenadier, a key target of the local fishing industry. Importantly, however, the challenge of attributing the impacts of salmonid establishment to any one species (Atlantic salmon included) among the several introduced and farmed in Chile has been highlighted by several authors (e.g., De Leaniz et al. 2010) (Soto et al., 2001) (Buschmann et al. 2009).

Rainbow trout and brown trout have clearly become widely established in Chile, and are associated with the significant impacts on native fish species highlighted by De Leaniz et al. (2010); there is additional evidence that Chinook salmon are also successfully reproducing and rapidly extending their range in the wild in Chile (Arismendi et al. 2009) (Ciancio et al. 2015) (Becker et al. 2007) (Correa and Gross 2008). Though all these species have become established primarily from deliberate introductions and ranching programs rather than from aquaculture escapes, Di Prinzio et al. (2015) report that the contribution of more recent escapes from Chinook salmon farms to their establishment success had been strong due to the more diverse genetic structures of Chinook from different broodstock sources imported into Chile.

For Atlantic salmon, information on the direct mortality of escapees in the area in proximity to the farm site is conflicting. Again, this may be due to poor clarifications in relevant studies as to the “salmon” species involved, but Sepulveda et al. (2015) indicate predation on escaped Atlantic salmon by the South American sea lion is likely to be high. Data collected following a catastrophic escape event in Chile suggest farm-raised salmon (species not defined) feed on wild prey and maintain positive growth rates (Buschmann et al. 2009). Although adult escapees of Atlantic salmon have been found in Chilean streams (Young et al. 2009) (Schröder et al.

2011), the evidence for the establishment of this species in Chile is very sparse and inconclusive; for example, Schröder et al. (2011) concluded the free-living juvenile salmon in their study river were possibly the offspring of naturally reproducing Atlantic salmon; however, as this has not been reported in Chile, they could also have been fish of hatchery origin that escaped at a very early age. Similarly, Atlantic salmon of varying sizes have been found in three of five freshwater lakes in Chile studied by Barragan (2010), and it also appears likely that these are escapes from (the now largely discontinued) smolt production in these locations. Atlantic salmon were the least frequently observed of the non-native salmonid species found in the lakes (i.e., also coho salmon, rainbow trout, brook trout, and brown trout), and condition analyses described them as “thin.” This appears to be further evidence of poor acclimation or establishment of this species.

Otherwise, the apparent lack of evidence of establishment in Chile is supported by several additional sources; for example, according to Soto et al. (2001), escaping farmed Atlantic salmon are apparently unable to adapt to the Chilean marine environment and feed on natural resources (reflected in a 42% incidence of empty stomachs, possibly leading to individuals starving to death). This is supported by Niklitschek et al. (2011), who reported 71% with empty stomachs, and by a review in British Columbia by Noakes (2011) who reported that of 1,584 recaptured Atlantic salmon in BC (where the species is also non-native), 80% had empty stomachs, leading the author to conclude, “Most escaped Atlantic salmon do not successfully feed and survive for any extended period of time.”

The escape from Nova Austral in 2016 was the first (reported) escape event of this species in Chile’s southern-most Region XII, and it must be noted that the characteristics of this region could potentially be more suitable to establishment than those in Regions X and XI where Chile’s salmon farming industry is concentrated (and where there have been large numbers of escapes in the past). Nevertheless, in consideration of the information provided above, particularly the lack of establishment beyond its native range in a wide variety of locations, Atlantic salmon are considered present in the wild in Chile, but not ecologically established. Based on repeated intentional introductions and the fact that farm escapes have not resulted in establishment, the available evidence indicates they are highly unlikely to establish viable populations because of escapes from Nova Austral sites (or from other sites in Region XII). Given the likely high mortality rates of escapees and the irrelevance of potential genetic introgression typical in regions to which Atlantic salmon are native, escapees could be considered to have a low risk of competition, predation, disturbance, or other impacts to the receiving ecosystem; however, as farm expansion into the far south of Chile is recent and the region-specific data to support this are lacking, an overall low risk of impact cannot be assured. Therefore, the score for Factor 6.2 is 6 out of 10.

Conclusion and Final Score Overall, although the total escape numbers in Chile (and in other salmon farming regions) have declined, the loss of 8,301 salmon (6,493 after recaptures) from a Nova Austral site in July 2016 highlights the vulnerability of Nova Austral’s production system. The available evidence (although limited) indicates the fish are unlikely to be effective competitors or predators of wild

fish, and are unlikely to survive or become established; however, this was the first escape event in Region XII, and if this conclusion is incorrect, the potential impact to native fish could be severe. The final score for Criterion 6 – Escapes combines Factors 6.1 and 6.2, and reflects the ongoing concern with a score of 5 out of 10.

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 water body . Sustainability unit: wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and parasites. . Principle: preventing population-level impacts to wild species through the amplification and retransmission, or increased virulence of pathogens or parasites.

Criterion 7 Summary Risk-Based Assessment Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Disease Score (0-10) 6 Critical? NO YELLOW

Brief Summary Nova Austral has not had any significant disease events (i.e., those that require treatment) in the last two years. Diseases that cause major production problems further north in Regions X and XI, such as salmon rickettsial syndrome and the parasitic sea lice Caligus rogercresseyi, are not currently present in Region XII. Mortality rates resulting from disease at Nova Austral are low, and the total biomass of farmed salmon in Region XII is also very low compared to Regions X and XI. The low use of antibiotics at Nova Austral (i.e., lower than the Region XII average, and the lowest in Chile) in addition to the lack of sea lice pesticides provide further evidence of the low prevalence of disease at the company. Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was the last disease requiring treatment (two years ago), and as the pathogen is prevalent among wild fish, there is a limited risk of impact. Overall, there appears to be little likelihood of significant impacts to wild fish from pathogens and parasites at Nova Austral sites. Nevertheless, there are no apparent data with which to confirm this and it is acknowledged that the apparent lack of impacts cannot be assured. Therefore, the score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 6 out of 10.

Justification of Ranking Nova Austral reports their most recent significant disease outbreak (requiring the use of antibiotics) was in early 2015 for an outbreak of Bacterial kidney disease (BKD), caused by the bacterium Renibacterium salmoninarum. It is clear that the far south of Chile currently has a different disease profile compared to the more densely farmed Regions X and XI further north; for example, Figure 15 (from Sernapesca’s most recent annual fish health report (Informe Sanitario de Salmonicultura en Centros Marinos - Año 2015, published in 2016) shows monthly mortality rates in Region XII – Magallanes (yellow bars) are substantially lower than Regions X and XI (blue and green bars respectively). Data supplied by Nova Austral show an average annual mortality rate per production cycle (approximately 18 months) of 10 to 12%, which is consistent with the Sernapesca data for all production in Region XII.

Figure 15. Monthly mortality figures by region for Regions X (Los Lagos), XI (Aysén), and XII (Magallanes). Graph copied from Sernapesca (note this includes trout farming sites).

Nova Austral did not specify the specific causes of mortality, but Sernapesca shows that there are a wide variety in Chile as a whole; Figure 16 shows a breakdown from 2015 data (Sernapesca 2016a). Compared to the chronic disease problems in Regions X and XI (resulting in the high antibiotic use noted in Criterion 4), the lower mortality in Region XII and at Nova Austral in combination with the low antibiotic use means that disease-related mortalities are likely much lower than the Chile national average figure of 26% of total mortalities. Though not confirmed, these aspects indicate a low disease prevalence in Nova Austral production at present.

Figure 16. Causes of mortality in Atlantic salmon in all regions in Chile. Percentages of total mortality. Data from Sernapesca (2016a).

The primary concern in the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard is the amplification of pathogens on fish farms and their potential retransmission to wild fish, whereas the management and regulatory control of disease in Chile is focused on preventing mortality and production losses of farmed fish (for which the economic implications are severe; e.g., Ibierta et al. 2011). The most recent disease outbreak at Nova Austral (January 2015) was BKD, of which the pathogen Renibacterium salmoninarum has been detected in Chilean native fish since as early as 1980s (pers comm., Anon. 2017).

Regarding other potential disease concerns at Nova Austral, after the infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) outbreak in Chile from 2007 to 2009, the focus of regulatory disease management in Chile has been on three specific diseases under a program of health surveillance and control (Programa Sanitario Específico de Vigilancia y Control). The program focuses on infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISA), salmon rickettsial syndrome (SRS—caused by the bacterium Piscirickettsia salmonis), and parasitic sea lice (particularly Caligus rogercresseyi), with sites defined in states of surveillance (“vigilancia”), alert (“alerta”), and high dissemination (“Centro de Alta Diseminación, CAD”). Although these diseases have not been reported at Nova Austral sites, they are briefly covered below regarding their level of concern in Chile’s Region XII.

Infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) virus In Chile, infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) is managed under Sernapesca’s “Programa Sanitario Específico de Vigilancia y Control de la Anemia Infecciosa del Salmón” (PSEVC-ISA). Although the presence of the ISA virus in Chile is broadly considered to be associated with the development

of salmon farming in Chile, and has been detected in Region XII (Kibenge 2011), it has not been reported at Nova Austral sites. Sernapesca’s health report shows there were 10 positive identifications of ISA in Region XII in 2015, compared to 21 and 38 in Regions X and XI respectively; all these were of the non-pathogenic strain HPR0. Regarding potential impacts to wild fish, after the peak of the Chilean ISA epidemic, the virus was not identified in any of 502 samples of local fish, mollusks, crustaceans, sea lion feces, or microplankton, and the only positive result was from a free-living Atlantic salmon escapee (Gonzalez et al., 2011). There has thus far been no evidence that it has impacted wild fish anywhere in Chile, and more broadly, ISA has not caused die-offs of any wild fish globally (APHIS 2016).

Bacterial Piscirickettsia salmonis (SRS) P. salmonis is managed in Chile under Sernapesca’s “Programa Sanitario Específico de Vigilancia y Control de Piscirickettsiosis” (PSEVC- Piscirickettsiosis). Figure 12 in Criterion 4 – Chemical Use shows that although SRS is the primary disease concern in Chile and is the dominant cause of antibiotic use in Regions X and XI, this disease is not currently present in Region XII and is not represented in the causes of antibiotics in Figure 12.

P. salmonis is largely a pathogen of salmonids, but has been found in a variety of fish species (Rozas and Enriquex 2014). Rozas and Enriquex, and references therein, report there is conjecture about the major mode of transmission of P. salmonis under natural conditions, but it can survive for extended periods in seawater, and direct horizontal transmission has been demonstrated in both seawater and freshwater. In addition, the sources and reservoirs of P. salmonis are not yet known (Rozas and Enriquex 2014). Though natural hosts may act as carriers and not display clinical disease symptoms, P. salmonis has evolved over time; each new outbreak is increasingly insidious, with increased virulence, and clinical and pathological severity (Rozas and Enriquex 2014). Although there is no practical evidence of clinical piscirickettsia outbreaks in wild fish in Chile, including in “wild” (i.e., feral) salmonids, the potential for the pathogen to evolve into more virulent strains remains a concern. As noted above, P. salmonis has not caused outbreaks of SRS in Region XII, and Sernapesca (2016a) reports there are no high dissemination sites (CAD) in the region.

Sea lice - Caligus rogercresseyi Bravo et al. (2013) demonstrated that as the salmon farming industry moved south from Region X and expanded production in Region XI, Caligus sea lice also became established further south; however, there is no indication that this has happened in the far south in Region XII, and Sernapesca (2016a) gives no indication that sea lice are present in this region. Although some uncertainty remains, Nova Austral reports that despite sea lice currently not being present, monthly monitoring is conducted as a precaution; to date, the presence of sea lice has never been detected.

Nova Austral reports very low disease prevalence, and it is clear that Region XII has a different disease profile than Regions X and XI further north. Nova Austral’s current practices, particularly the lower antibiotic use than the Region XII average (Criterion 4 – Chemical Use)

highlight the limited evidence of pathogens, and therefore limited potential for impacts to wild fish.

Conclusion and Final Score The total biomass of farmed salmon in Region XII is very low compared to Regions X and XI further north, and there is clearly a different disease profile in this region. Mortality rates resulting from disease at Nova Austral are low, and there have been no treated disease outbreaks in the last two years. Nova Austral’s low antibiotic use (lower than the Region XII average, and the lowest in Chile) supports the apparent low prevalence of pathogens. Sea lice, a major problem in other areas, are not present. There appears to be little likelihood of significant impacts to wild fish from Nova Austral sites. Nevertheless, there are no apparent data with which to confirm this and it is acknowledged that the apparent lack of impacts cannot be assured. Therefore, the Risk Assessment option is used and the characteristics of the region and Nova Austral’s fish health management measures are considered to result in low, temporary, or infrequent occurrences of infections or mortalities, and the score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 6 out of 10.

Criterion 8X: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: the removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms . Sustainability unit: wild fish populations . Principle: using eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

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 8X Summary Source of stock parameters Score C8X Independence from unsustainable wild fisheries (0-10) 0 Critical? NO GREEN

Brief Summary As is common throughout the global salmon aquaculture industry, Nova Austral sources all fish for growout from hatcheries that utilize domesticated, hatchery-raised broodstock and are considered independent of wild salmon fisheries. The final deductive score for Criterion 8X – Source of Stock is 0 out of –10.

Justification of Ranking Farmed Atlantic salmon in Chile originated from Norwegian populations, and have undergone domestication and directional selection for >10 generations (Heino et al. 2015). All Nova Austral fish come from domesticated, hatchery-raised broodstock in Chile, and are therefore considered to be independent of wild sources of either juvenile or adult fish. The final deductive score for Criterion 8X – Source of Stock is 0 out of –10.

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: mortality of predators or other wildlife caused or contributed to by farming operations . Sustainability unit: wildlife or predator populations . Principle: aquaculture populations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wildlife or predator populations that may interact with farm sites.

Criterion 9X Summary Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score (0-10) –3 Critical? NO GREEN

Brief Summary The presence of salmon in net pens at high density is attractive to opportunistic coastal marine mammals, seabirds, and fish. Also, the broader farm operations can disturb sensitive wildlife. In Chile as a whole, the primary direct interactions are considered to be with the South American sea lion (“Lobo de Mar”; Otaria flavescens) and various species of bird. Biodiversity assessments conducted at six Nova Austral sites (as part of their ASC certification) confirm the presence of sea lions and list between 10 and 16 common species of birds around the farms. Regulatory prohibitions on lethal control (of marine mammals), in addition to the use of predator nets above and below the waterline, are considered to reduce mortality to exceptional cases, and the company reports no interactions resulting in mortality. Although not observed during the biodiversity assessments, there are several species of whale and dolphin of conservation concern in Chile, and though there is some potential for disturbance from farming operations, the information from Sernapesca does not associate any negative impacts to salmon farming in general in Chile. The final score for Criterion 9X – Wildlife and Predator Mortalities is a deduction of –3 out of –10.

Justification of Ranking The presence of farmed salmon in net pens—at higher densities than they are found in the wild —inevitably attracts opportunistic coastal marine mammals, seabirds, and fish that normally feed on native fish stocks (Sepulveda et al. 2015). Chile’s fjordic regions provide important habitat to a variety of species of whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, otters, birds, and fish (Miethke and Galvez 2009), several of which could interact with fish farms actively (e.g., as predators of salmon) and/or passively (e.g., through disturbance or entanglement). Of these potential predators, Sepulveda et al. (2015) and references therein report that pinnipeds are among the most troublesome for farm operators (because they have plastic feeding strategies and individuals can learn to exploit situations where salmon are concentrated and vulnerable); they note a strong operational interaction between the South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) and the Chilean salmon farming industry. Some bird species are attracted in high

numbers to farm sites. For example, the observed abundance of omnivorous diving and carrion- feeding birds increase two- to five-fold in some salmon-farming areas in Chile when compared to control areas without farms (Buschmann et al. 2006).

The environmental impact studies and biodiversity assessments provided by Nova Austral for six sites (e.g., GEEAA 2015) confirm the presence of the South American sea lion, and also list between 10 and 16 bird species present in the area around the farms. No other marine mammals were identified in the assessments. None of the common species identified are listed as threatened in Chile’s classification of species (Reglamento de Clasificación de Especies; RCE) or by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); however, the biodiversity assessments do note reports from Nova Austral farm staff of occasional observations of Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) and black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris), both of which are listed by IUCN as near threatened.

Nova Austral has reported that there have been no interactions resulting in mortalities, but it must be noted that this is impossible to confirm. The company reports comprehensive use of predator nets both below and above the water (for sea lions and birds respectively). This assessment considers it likely that there are some entanglements of birds, but this is not considered likely to negatively affect population sizes.

Regulations on predator control in Chile (under RAMA) focus on marine mammals, for which Sernapesca’s Regulations 112 of 2013 and 31 of 2016 prohibit their lethal control (Regulation 31 of 2016 extended Regulation 112 until the year 2021). Regarding reporting, Regulation 320 of 2001 requires farms to have an emergency plan for trapped or entangled marine mammals, and requires that all such events be reported to Sernapesca. Reporting requirements include:

 Farm name and reference number  Date  Number of mammals involved  Final disposition of the mammals  Causes  Measures adopted by the farm to prevent repeat events

There is little evidence of any direct mortality of marine mammals in Chile in general (for example, by entanglement or boat collisions); however, the daily activities of the farms can disturb sensitive species; for example, Vidi (2004) and Ribeiro et al. (2007) noted aquaculture operations might negatively affect the movement, distribution, and behavioral patterns of Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia), representing a potential threat to their populations. Sernapesca’s (2016c) Chilean dolphin information sheet does not mention aquaculture as one of the “anthropic threats” but does note the risk of commercial fishing activities with gill nets. Similar information sheets for a variety of aquatic Species of Conservation Status in Chile (Especies Hidrobiológicas en Estado de Conservación en Chile)

including many species of marine mammals, turtles, otters, and fish also do not implicate salmon farming among their human threats.

Vila et al. (2016) present the results of a participatory science-driven process (conducted in 2009) to identify areas of high value for marine conservation in the channels and fjords of Region XII, an ecoregion home to rare and endemic species, such as the Chilean dolphin Cephalorhynchus eutropia, the southern sea otter Lontra felina, and the southern river otter Lontra provocax, which contains critical habitats for marine mammals of global conservation concern.

As described in Criterion 3 – Habitat, Vila et al. (2016) identified High Conservation Value Areas using 39 conservation features, and noted that the distribution of 12 of these features overlapped to a certain extent (>10%) with aquaculture production; however, Figure 9 and Figure 1 show that all the current Nova Austral production is in locations considered to be “Appropriate Areas for Aquaculture.”

Conclusion and Final Score Overall, although predators and wildlife may interact with the aquaculture operations, management and prevention measures are in place that very likely limit mortalities to exceptional cases, which results in a minor deduction of –2 out of –10. Although there is government information available indicating that salmon farming does not cause mortalities to sensitive species such as whales and dolphins, disturbance of these species by general farming activities may be significant. The score is reduced slightly on a precautionary basis and the final score for Criterion 9X – Wildlife and Predator Mortalities is –3 out of –10.

Criterion 10X: Escape of secondary species Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: movement of live animals resulting in introduction of unintended species . Sustainability unit: wild native populations . Impact: aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid reliance on the movement of live animals, therefore reducing the risk of introduction of unintended species.

Criterion 10X Summary Escape of secondary species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments 0 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 5 C10X Escape of secondary species Final Score –5.00 YELLOW

Brief Summary Movements of smolts from freshwater hatcheries to seawater growout sites are an integral part of the salmon production system. Because of the logistical challenges of operating in the far south of Chile, Nova Austral has only recently established plans to build a hatchery in Region XII, and currently ships all smolts considerable distances by well-boat from hatcheries in Regions IX and XIV. This represents a clear concern about the potential introduction of pathogens or other organisms into Region XII from the more-densely farmed Regions X and XI. The sources of the movements are land based hatcheries considered to have a high level of biosecurity in regard to unintended organisms (e.g., pathogens) entering shipments at the source. The destination (open net pens) has inherently low biosecurity. Until recently, Nova Austral was transporting the fish with “open valves,” such that water in the holding tanks was exchanged with the seawater outside the boat, but the company lost 149,000 fish to mortality in two well-boats in February 2017 because they passed through an algae bloom during transport. Since then, the company has operated with closed valves or used a water sterilization process (UV) when exchange is necessary; however, it cannot be assured that this is effective for all pathogens or other organisms passing into and out of the system during the long transport through salmon farming regions. Overall, the complete reliance on trans- waterbody live fish movements, in addition to practical limitations regarding the effectiveness of water treatment during transport, means there is concern about the potential movement and introduction of secondary species, and the deduction is –5 out of –10 for Criterion 10X – Escape of Secondary Species.

Justification of Ranking

Factor 10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments There are no egg imports into Chile associated with Nova Austral production, but due to the logistical challenges of operating in the far south, Nova Austral has only recently established plans to build a hatchery in Region XII, and currently ships smolts considerable distances by

well-boat from hatcheries in Regions IX and XIV. Considering the distance, and the shipment through the densely-farmed Regions X and XI, in addition to the sensitivity of introducing pathogens from these regions into Region XII, these fish movements are considered “trans- waterbody” for the purposes of this assessment. The score for Factor 10Xa is 100% reliance on movements, and 0 out of 10.

Factor 10Xb Biosecurity of the source and destination Under Sernapesca’s Control System for Aquaculture (Sistema de Fiscalización de la Acuicultura, SIFA), movements of fish from freshwater to marine sites must be notified within the context of the project "Autorización de Movimiento Salmónidos." An Application of Sanitary Authorization Movement (Solicitud de Autorización Sanitaria de Movimiento) must be authorized in an Application for Authorization of Movement (Solicitud de Autorización de Movimiento). The source of Nova Austral’s smolt movements are land-based, recirculating hatcheries. As such, they are considered to have high biosecurity capabilities, in contrast to the destination of the movements (an open net pen) which has very little biosecurity in this context.

Despite the potentially biosecure starting point, shipments of smolts in well-boats travelling through the densely farmed regions of X and XI on the way south to Region XII risk the introduction of pathogens if water is exchanged during the transport. Until recently, Nova Austral was transporting the fish with “open valves,” such that water in the holding tanks was exchanged with the seawater outside the boat, but the company lost 149,000 fish (i.e., mortalities) in two well-boats in February 2017 due to an algae bloom during transport from Region X to Region XII. Since then, the company has operated with “closed valves” or used a water sterilization process (UV) when exchange is necessary. As such, the risk of entry or discharge of pathogens during live fish movements is reduced, but cannot be considered eliminated, and pathogens can still be discharged at any point during the transport. The UV dose was initially intended to kill the ISA virus, but its effectiveness for a range of diseases cannot be assured during the long transport through salmon farming regions (pers. comm., Anon. 2017). Thus, while the biosecure hatchery origin of live fish movements drives a high score of 8 out of 10, there is some uncertainty regarding the robustness of biosecurity during transport. The treatment is considered more robust than a flow-through (open-valve) system, but not considered to be a fail-safe method. Therefore, the score for Factor 10Xb is 5 out of 10.

Conclusion and Final Score The final score for Criterion 10X combines Factors 10Xa and 10Xb; despite the complete reliance on trans-waterbody fish movements, the capabilities of land-based hatcheries to limit pathogen entry at the source, combined with the use of closed-valve transport, results in a minor deduction of –5 out of –10 for Criterion 10X.

Overall Recommendation

The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical scores as follows:

– Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e. <3.3) – Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one individual “Red” criterion. – Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one or more Critical score. –

C8X Source 0.00 GREEN NO C9X Wildlife mortalities -3.00 GREEN NO C10X Introduced species escape -5.00 YELLOW Total 37.93 Final score (0-10) 5.42

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 5.42 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 0

Interim rank YELLOW FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? NO YELLOW –

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 the consulting researcher and author of this report, Pete Bridson, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Aaen, S.,Helgesen, K., Bakke, M., Kaur, K., Horsberg, T. 2015. Drug resistance in sea lice: a threat to salmonid aquaculture. Trends in Parasitology, February 2015, Vol. 31, No. 2.

Alvial, A., F. Kibenge, J. Forster, J. Burgos, R. Ibarra, and S. St-Hilaire. 2012. The Recovery of the Chilean Salmon Industry - The ISA crisis and its consequences and lessons. Global Aquaculture Alliance, Puerto Montt, Chile, February 23, 2012.

APHIS. 2016. Questions and Answers: Infectious Salmon Anemia. US Department of Agriculture, Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/faq_isa_pacific_nw.pdf

Arismendi, L. et al. 2012. Differential Invasion Success of Atlantic and Pacific Salmon in Southern Chile: Patterns and Hypotheses American Fisheries Society 142nd Annual meeting abstract M- 10-19.

Bannister., R. Johnsen, I., Hansen, P., Kutti, T., Asplin, L. 2016. Near- and far-field dispersal modelling of organic waste from Atlantic salmon aquaculture in fjord systems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2016) doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw027. First published online: March 21, 2016

Barragan, E. 2010. Caracterización de Los Peces en Cinco Lagos del Sur de Chile. Memoria de Título presentada como parte de los requisitos para optar al TÍTULO DE MÉDICO VETERINARIO. Valdivia, 2010.

Becker, L., Pascual, M., Basso, N. (2007) Colonization of the Southern Patagonia Ocean by Exotic Chinook Salmon. Conservation Biology 21(5): 1347–1352.

Black, K., P. K. Hansen, and M. Holmer. 2008. Working Group Report on Benthic Impacts and Farm Siting. Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue, WWF.

Bravo, S., G. Boxshall, and G. Conroy. 2011. New cultured host and a significant expansion in the known geographical range of the sea louse Caligus rogercresseyi. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 31(4)::156-160.

Bravo, S., M. Nuñez et al. 2013. "Efficacy of the treatments used for the control of Caligus rogercresseyi infecting Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in a new fish-farming location in Region XI, Chile." Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3): 221-228.

Bureau, D. P. and K. Hua. 2010. Towards effective nutritional management of waste outputs in aquaculture, with particular reference to salmonid aquaculture operations. Aquaculture Research 41:777-792.

Buschmann, A., B. A. Costa-Pierce, S. Cross, J. L. Iriarte, Y. Olsen, and G. Reid. 2007. Nutrient impacts of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on pelagic ecosystems and implications for carrying capacity: Report of the Technical Working Group (TWG) on Nutrients and Carrying Capaity of the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue.

Buschmann, A. H., F. Cabello, K. Young, J. Carvajel, D. Varela, and L. A. Henríquez. 2009. Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: Analysis of regulations, environmental impacts and bioremediation systems. Ocean and Coastal Management 52:243–249.

Buschmann, A. H., V. A. Riquelme, M. C. Hernández-González, D. Varela, J. E. Jiménez, L. A. Henríquez, P. A. Vergara, R. Guíñez, and L. Filún. 2006. A review of the impacts of salmonid farming on marine coastal ecosystems in the southeast Pacific. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63:1338-1345.

Buschmann, A. H., A. Tomova, A. López, M. A. Maldonado, L. A. Henríquez, L. Ivanova, F. Moy, H. P. Godfrey, and F. Cabello. 2012. Salmon Aquaculture and Antimicrobial Resistance in the Marine Environment. PLOS ONE 7:e42724.

Cabello, F. C., H. P. Godfrey, et al. 2013. "Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health." Environ Microbiol 15(7): 1917-1942.

Cabello, F., Godfrey, H., Buschmann, A., Dölz, H. 2016. Aquaculture as yet another environmental gateway to the development and globalisation of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet Infect Dis 2016 Published Online April 12, 2016.

Cambero, F., Slattery, G. 2016. Chile to examine possible link between salmon industry, red tide. Reuters. May 17 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-environment- idUSKCN0Y42KC

Ciancio, J., C, Rossi, Pascual, P., Anderson, E., Garza, J. 2015. The invasion of an Atlantic Ocean river basin in Patagonia by Chinook salmon: new insights from SNPs. Biological Invasions, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 2989•2998.

Correa C & MR Gross (2008) Chinook salmon invade southern South America. Biol Invasions 10(5): 615–639

De Leaniz, C. G., G. Gajardo, and S. Consuegra. 2010. From Best to Pest: changing perspectives on the impact of exotic salmonids in the southern hemisphere. Systematics and Biodiversity 8:447-459.

Di Prinzio, C., Rossi, C., Ciancio, J., Garza, J., Casaux, R. 2015. Disentangling the contributions of ocean ranching and netpen aquaculture in the successful establishment of Chinook salmon in a Patagonian basin. Environmental Biology of Fishes, Volume 98, Issue 9, pp 1987-1997.

Done, H., Halden, R. 2015. Reconnaissance of 47 antibiotics and associated microbial risks in seafood sold in the United States. Journal of Hazardous Materials 282 (2015) 10–17.

Done, H., Venkatesan, A., Halden, R. 2015. Does the Recent Growth of Aquaculture Create Antibiotic Resistance Threats Different from those Associated with Land Animal Production in Agriculture?. The AAPS Journal. Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 513-524.

Dowle, E., Pochon, X., Keeley, N., Wood, A. 2015. Assessing the effects of salmon farming seabed enrichment using bacterial community diversity and high-throughput sequencing. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv089 fiv089 First published online: 22 July 2015

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on infectious salmon anaemia. EFSA Journal 2012;10(11):2971.[22 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2971.

Elizondo-Patrone, C., et al., 2015 The response of nitrifying microbial assemblages to ammonium (NH4+) enrichment from salmon farm activities in a northern Chilean Fjord. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.03.021

Fernandez-Alarcon et al. 2010. Detection of the floR gene in a diversity of florfenicol resistant Gram-negative bacilli from freshwater salmon farms in Chile. Zoonoses Public Health. 2010 May;57(3):181-8.

GEEAA. 2015. “Conservación del hábitat natural, la biodiversidad local y el ecosistema” Centro De Cultivo Cockburn 14. Systema de Gestion y Medioambiente. Document provided by Nova Austral.

Gonzalez, R. R., P. Ruiz, A. Llanos-Rivera, F. Cruzat, J. Silva, A. Astuya, M. Grandon, D. Jara, and C. Aburto. 2011. ISA virus outside the cage: Ichthyofauna and other possible reservoirs to be considered for marine biosafety management in the far-southern ecosystems of Chile. Aquaculture 318:37-42.

Heino, M., Svåsand, T. Wennevik, V., Glover, K. 2015. Genetic introgression of farmed salmon in native populations: quantifying the relative influence of population size and frequency of escapees. Aquacult Environ Interact. Vol. 6: 185–190, 2015

Helgesen, K. O., S. Bravo et al. 2014. "Deltamethrin resistance in the sea louse Caligus rogercresseyi (Boxhall and Bravo) in Chile: bioassay results and usage data for antiparasitic agents with references to Norwegian conditions." Journal of Fish Diseases: In press

Henríquez P, Kaiser M, Bohle H, Bustos P, Mancilla M. 2016 . Comprehensive antibiotic susceptibility profiling of Chilean Piscirickettsia salmonis field isolates. J Fish Dis. 2016 Apr;39(4):441-8.

Henriquez-nunez, H., O. Evrard, G. Kronvall, and R. Avendano-Herrera. 2012. Antimicrobial susceptibility and plasmid profiles of Flavobacterium psychrophilum strains isolated in Chile. Aquaculture 354-355:38-44.

Husa, V., Kutti, T., Ervik, A., Sjøtun, K., Kupka, P., Aure, H. 2014. Regional impact from fin-fish farming in an intensive production area (Hardangerfjord, Norway), Marine Biology Research, 10:3, 241-252, DOI: 10.1080/17451000.2013.810754

Ibieta P, Tapia V, Venegas C, Hausdorf M, Takle H 2011 Chilean salmon farming on the horizon of sustainability: review of the development of a highly intensive production, the ISA crisis and implemented actions to reconstruct a more sustainable aquaculture industry. In: Sladonja B (ed.) Aquaculture and the Environment – A Shared Destiny. Intech, Rijeka, Croatia. Available from URL: http://www.intechopen.com/source/ pdfs/25465/InTech-Chilean_salmon_farming_on_the_horizon_ of_sustainability_review_of_the_development_of_a_highly_ intensive_production_the_isa_crisis_and_implemented_actions_ to_reconstruct_a_more_sustainable_aquaculture_industry.pdf.

Iriarte, J., H. González, and L. Nahuelhual. 2010. Patagonian Fjord Ecosystems in Southern Chile as a Highly Vulnerable Region: Problems and Needs. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 39:463-466.

Iriarte, J., S. Pantoja et al. 2013. "Assessing the micro-phytoplankton response to nitrate in Comau Fjord (42°S) in Patagonia (Chile), using a microcosms approach." Environmental monitoring and assessment 185(6): 5055-5070.

Jones, P. G., K. L. Hammell et al. 2013. "Detection of emamectin benzoate tolerance emergence in different life stages of sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, on farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L." Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3): 209-220.

Kaur K, Helgesen KO, Bakke MJ, Horsberg TE (2015) Mechanism behind Resistance against the Organophosphate Azamethiphos in Salmon Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis). PLoS ONE 10(4): e0124220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124220

Keeley, N., Cromey, C., Goodwin, E., Gibbs, M., Macleod, C. 2013. Predictive depositional modelling (DEPOMOD) of the interactive effect of current flow and resuspension on ecological impacts beneath salmon farms. Aquaculture Environmet interactions. Vol. 3: 275–291, 2013

Kibenge, F. S. B. 2011. The Recovery of the Chilean Salmon Industry: The ISA crisis and its consequences and lessons. GAA GOAL Conference, Santiago Chile, November 2011.

Kowalewski, M. 2011. Shell assemblages as recorders of salmon industry:anthropogenic declien of marine benthic communities around Chiloe Isalnd, Chile. The Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 43:32.

Little, C., Felzensztein C., Gimmon, E., Muñoz, P. 2015. The business management of the Chilean salmon farming Industry. Marine Policy. Volume 54, April 2015, Pages 108–117

Madhun, A.S., Karlsbakk, E., Isachsen C,H., Omdal L.M., Eide Sørvik A.G., Skaala, O., Barlaup, B.T., Glover K.A. 2015. Potential disease interaction reinforced: double-virus infected escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., recaptured in a nearby river. Journal of Fish Diseases 2015, 38, 209–219

Manríquez, K., Escribano, R., Hidalgo, P. 2009. The influence of coastal upwelling on the mesozooplankton community structure in the coastal zone off Central/Southern Chile as assessed by automated image analysis. J Plankton Res (2009) 31 (9): 1075-1088

Marine Harvest. 2017. Salmon Industry Handbook. http://marineharvest.com/globalassets/investors/handbook/salmon-industry-handbook- 2017.pdf

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 111:635-642. Mayor, D. J., A. F. Zuur, M. Solan, G. I. Paton, and K. Killham. 2010. Factors Affecting Benthic Impacts at Scottish Fish Farms. Environmental science & technology 44:2079-2084.

Mayr, C., L. Rebolledo et al. 2014. "Responses of nitrogen and carbon deposition rates in Comau Fjord (42°S, southern Chile) to natural and anthropogenic impacts during the last century." Continental Shelf Research 78(0): 29-38.

Miethke, S. & M. Gálvez. 2009. Marine and Coastal High Conservation Value Areas in Southern Chile – International Workshop Report. Valdivia: WWF Chile, 45 p.

Millanao, A., M. Barrientos, C. Gomez, A. Tomova, Buschmann A, H. Dolz, and F. Cabello. 2011. Injudicious and excessive use of antibiotics: Public health and salmon aquaculture in Chile. Revista médica de Chile 139:107.

Miranda, C. 2012. Antimicrobial Resistance in the Environment, First Edition. Edited by Patricia L. Keen and Mark H.M.M. Montforts . John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miranda, C., Tello, A., Keen, P. 2013. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in finfish aquaculture environments. Front. Microbiol., 22 August 2013 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00233

Moreno, C.A., Jara F. H. y Soto D. 1997. Mortalidad y sobrevivencia de salmons escapados de jaulas balsas en el mar interior de Chiloé y Aysén. Resúmenes XVII Congreso Ciencias del Mar, Santiago, Chile. Pág. 126.

Niklitschek, E. J., D. Soto et al. 2013. "Southward expansion of the Chilean salmon industry in the Patagonian fjords: main environmental challenges." Reviews in Aquaculture 5(3): 172-195.

NMFS. 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service – Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Searched June 29 2016, at https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index

NOAA 2012. Informational Bulletin on the Status of Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus in the Pacific Northwest. Federal Aquatic Animal Health Task Force. February 14, 2012.

Noakes, D. (2011). "Impacts of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye salmon: results of the Noakes investigation." Cohen Commission Tech. Rept. 5C. 113p. Vancouver, BC www.cohencommission.ca.

NORM/NORM-VET 2014. Usage of Antimicrobial Agents and Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Norway. Tromsø / Oslo 2015. ISSN:1502-2307 (print) / 1890-9965 (electronic).

OIE. 2014. List of Antimicrobial Agents of Veterinary Importance, World Organisation for Animal Health. www.oie.org

Oliva, D., E. A. Crespo, S. L. Dans, M. Sepúlveda, and E. A. Crespo. 2009. Workshop on the status of South American sea lions along the distribution range, Valparaíso, Chile, 15-17 June 2009.

Otterlei, A., Brevik, O., Jensen, D., Duesund, H., Sommerset, I., Frost, P., Mendoza, J., McKenzie, P., Nylund, A., Apablaza, P. 2016. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of Piscirickettsia salmonis from Chilean and Canadian salmonids. BMC Veterinary Research (2016) 12:55

Piccolo, J. and E. Orlikowska 2012. "A bilogical risk assessment for an Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) invasion in Alaskan waters." Aquatic Invasions 7(2): 259-270.

Pfeiffer, E. 2016. Chile's Record Toxic Tides May Have Roots in Dirty Fish Farming. National Geographic Society. May 17 2016. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160517-chile- red-tide-fishermen-protest-chiloe/

Pitchon, A.,2015. Large Scale Aquaculture and Coastal Resource Dependent Communities: Tradition in Transition on Chiloe Island, Chile. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology. Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 343–358

Pozo, A. 2016. Marine Harvest for salmon crisis: “If the industry is not reached agreement, politicians must intervene”.Diario Financiero. April 22 2016. www.df.cl

Price D, Stryhn H, Sánchez J, Ibarra R, Tello A, St-Hilaire S (2016) Retrospective analysis of antibiotic treatments against piscirickettsiosis in farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Chile. Dis Aquat Org 118:227-235

Quick NS, Middlemas SJ, Armstrong JD. A survey of antipredator controls at marine farms in Scotland. Aquaculture. 2004; 230: 169–180.

Quiroga, E., P. Ortiz et al. 2013. "Classification of the ecological quality of the Aysen and Baker Fjords (Patagonia, Chile) using biotic indices." Marine pollution bulletin 68(1–2): 117-126.

Rebolledo, L., González, H. E., Muñoz, P., Iriarte, J. L., Lange, C.B., Pantoja, S. et al. (2011). Siliceous productivity changes in Gulf of Ancud sediments (421S, 721 W), southern Chile, over the last 150 years. Continental Shelf Research, 31, 356–365.

Ribeiro S, FA Viddi, JL Cordeiro & TRO Freitas (2007) Fine-scale habitat selection of Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia): interactions with aquaculture activities in southern Chiloé Island, Chile. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 87(01): 119-128-

Rozas, M., Enriquez, R., 2014. Piscirickettsiosis and Piscirickettsia salmonis in fish: a review. J Fish Dis 37, 163-188.

Rudolph A, Novoa V, Ahumada R, Sáez K & Silva N. 2014. Calidad de los sedimentos marinos entre el Estrecho de Magallanes y el Cabo de Hornos (Patagonia chilena), en función de pruebas toxicidad. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 49(1): 7-16.

SAG. 2016. Servicio Agricola y Ganadero, website accessed June 30 2016. http://www.sag.cl/

Salgado, H., Bailey, J., Tiller, R., Ellis, J. 2015. Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts from salmon aquaculture in the Chilean Patagonia. Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 118, Part B, December 2015, Pages 189–204

SalmonChile. 2016a. Annual production figures downloaded from: http://www.salmonchile.cl/en/produccion.php. Accessed June 28, 2016

SalmonChile. 2016b Export figures downloaded from: http://www.salmonchile.cl/en/exportaciones.php. Accessed June 28, 2016

Samuelsen, O., Lunestad, B., Hannisdal, R., Bannister, R., Olsen, S. 2015. Distribution and persistence of the anti sea-lice drug teflubenzuron in wild fauna and sediments around a salmon farm, following a standard treatment. Science of the Total Environment 508, 115-121

Sandoval et al. 2016. Resistance-nodulation-division efflux pump acrAB is modulated by florfenicol and contributes to drug resistance in the fish pathogen Piscirickettsia salmonis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2016 Jun;363(11). pii: fnw102. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnw102. Epub 2016 Apr 15

Schröder, V. and C. Garcia de Leaniz. 2011. Discrimination between farmed and free-living invasive salmonids in Chilean Patagonia using stable isotope analysis. Biological Invasions 13:203-213.

Sepúlveda M, Newsome SD, Pavez G, Oliva D, Costa DP, Hückstädt LA (2015) Using Satellite Tracking and Isotopic Information to Characterize the Impact of South American Sea Lions on Salmonid Aquaculture in Southern Chile. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0134926. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0134926

Sernapesca. 2015. Informe Sectorial De Pesca Y Acuicultura. Departamento de Análisis Sectorial. http://www.subpesca.cl/publicaciones/606/articles-93466_documento.pdf

Sernapesca. 2016a. Informe Sanitario De Salmonicultura En Centros Marinos Año 2015. Departamento De Salud Animal, Subdirección De Acuicultura, Servicio Nacional De Pesca Y Acuicultura. Febrero 2016.

Sernapesca 2016b. "Informe sobre uso de antimicrobianos en la salmonicultura nacional 2015." Unidad de Salud Animal, Valparaiso.

Sernapesca. 2016c. Especies Hidrobiológicas en Estado de Conservación en Chile. Website accessed June 29 2016. http://www.sernapesca.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=671&Itemid=766

Sernapesca. 2016c. Informe Sectorial De Pesca Y Acuicultura. Departamento de Análisis Sectorial. Junio 2016. http://www.subpesca.cl/publicaciones/606/articles- 93818_documento.pdf

Sernapesca. 2017a. "Informe sobre uso de antimicrobianos en la salmonicultura nacional 2016." Unidad de Salud Animal, Valparaiso. Junio 2017.

Shah, S., Cabello et al. 2014. "Antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial resistance genes in marine bacteria from salmon aquaculture and non-aquaculture sites." Environmental Microbiology: in press.

Silva, N., Palma, S. 2008. 1.1 The CIMAR Program in the austral Chilean channels and fjords. In Progress in the oceanographic knowledge of Chilean interior waters, from Puerto Montt to Cape Horn. N. Silva & S. Palma (eds.). 2008. Comité Oceanográfico Nacional - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, pp. 11-15.

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.

Soto D., Norambuena F. 2004. Evaluation of salmon farming effects on marine systems in the inner seas of southern Chile: a large-scale mensurative experiment. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 2004;20:493-501.

Svåsand T., Grefsrud E.S., Karlsen Ø., Kvamme B.O., Glover, K. S, Husa, V. og Kristiansen, T.S. (red.). 2017. Risikorapport norsk fiskeoppdrett 2017. Fisken og havet, særnr. 2-2017

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. 2015. Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 997–1021.

Thomassen, P. E. and B. J. Leira 2012. "Assessment of Fatigue Damage of Floating Fish Cages Due to Wave Induced Response." Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 134(1): 011304.

Thorstad, E. B., I. A. Fleming, P. McGinnity, D. Soto, V. Wennevik, and F. Whoriskey. 2008. Incidence and impacts of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in nature.

Tobar, J. A., S. Jerez, M. Caruffo, C. Bravo, F. Contreras, S. A. Bucarey, and M. Harel. 2011. Oral vaccination of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) against salmonid rickettsial septicaemia. Vaccine 29:2336-2340.

Tomova, A.,Ivanova,L., Buschmann, A.,Rioseco,M., Kalsi,R, Godfrey, H., Cabello, F. 2015. Antimicrobial resistance genes in marine bacteria and human uropathogenic Escherichia coli from a region of intensive aquaculture. Environmental Microbiology Reports (2015) 7(5), 803– 809

Vargas, P., Arismendi, I., Gomez-Uchida, D. 2015. Evaluating taxonomic homogenization of freshwater fish assemblages in Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural (2015) 88:16.

Vidi, F. 2004. Ecology And Conservation Of The Chilean And Peale’s Dolphins In Southern Chile. The Rufford Foundation.

Viddi, F. A., Harcourt, R. G. and HuckeGaete, R. (2015), Identifying key habitats for the conservation of Chilean dolphins in the fjords of southern Chile. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., doi: 10.1002/aqc.2553 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2553).

Vila, A, Falabell, V., Gálveza, M., Faríasa, A., Droguetta, D., Saavedra, B. 2016. Identifying high- value areas to strengthen marine conservation in the channels and fjords of the southern Chile ecoregion. Oryx / Volume 50 / Issue 02 / April 2016, pp 308-316

Vilata J, Oliva D, Sepúlveda M. The predation of farmed salmon by South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in southern Chile. ICES J Mar Sci. 2010; 67: 475–482.

WHO (2016). "Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. 3rd revision - 2013." World Health Organization.

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.

Wilding, T. A., C. J. Cromey, T. D. Nickell, and D. J. Hughes. 2012. Salmon farm impacts on muddy-sediment megabenthic assemblages on the west coast of Scotland. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2:145-156.

WWF-Chile. 2009. Salmon Escapes In Chile - Incidents, impacts, mitigation and prevention.

WWF-Chile. 2011. Ecorregión Marina Chiloense - Áreas de Alto Valor de Conservación. WWF Factsheet, May 2011. https://www.mpaaction.org/sites/default/files/WWF%20Chile_2011_Factsheet%20Areas%20d e%20Alto%20Valor%20de%20Conservacion.pdf

Yatabe, T., G. Arriagada, C. Hamilton-West, and S. Urcelay. 2011. Risk factor analysis for sea lice, Caligus rogercresseyi, levels in farmed salmonids in southern Chile. Journal of Fish Diseases 34:345-354.

Young, K., J. Stephenson, A. Terreau, A.-F. Thailly, G. Gajardo, and C. de Leaniz. 2009. The diversity of juvenile salmonids does not affect their competitive impact on a native galaxiid. Biological Invasions 11:1955-1961.

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.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished19 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:  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

19 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other

invertebrates.

 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 energy-intensive closed recirculation systems)

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.

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 Data Quality (0-10) Industry or production statistics 10 Management 10 Effluent 7.5 Habitats 7.5 Chemical use 10 Feed 7.5 Escapes 7.5 Disease 7.5 Source of stock 10 Predators and wildlife 7.5 Unintentional introduction 10 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) n/a Total 95

C1 Data Final Score (0-10) 8.6 GREEN

Criterion 2: Effluents Effluent Evidence-Based Assessment C2 Effluent Final Score (0-10) 6 GREEN Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score (0-10) 9 C4 Chemical Use Final Score (0-10) 9 GREEN Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use Feed parameters Score 5.1a Fish In : Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 9.2 Fishmeal from by-products (%) 10 % FM 8.28 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 9.17 Fish oil from by-products (%) 20 % FO 7.336 Fishmeal yield (%) 24 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.33 FIFO fishmeal 0.46 FIFO fish oil 1.95 FIFO Score (0-10) 5.12 Critical? NO 5.1b Sustainability of Source fisheries Sustainability score –4 Calculated sustainability adjustment –1.56 Critical? NO

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score (0-10) 3.56 Critical? NO

5.2 Net protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed (%) 35.6 eFCR 1.33 Feed protein from fishmeal (%) Feed protein from EDIBLE sources (%) 82.58 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 17.42 Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18.5 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 60 Use of non-edible by-products from harvested fish (%) 100 Total protein input kg/100 kg fish 47.348 Edible protein IN kg/100 kg fish 39.10 Utilized protein OUT kg/100 kg fish 26.73 Net protein gain or loss (%) –31.64 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score (0-10) 6

5.3. Feed Footprint 5.3a Ocean Area appropriated per ton of seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 18.37 eFCR 1.33 Carbon required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7 Ocean productivity (C) for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68 Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 6.35 5.3b Land area appropriated per ton of seafood Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 71.6 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 10 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.33 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.51 Total area (Ocean + Land Area) (ha) 6.86 F5.3 Feed Footprint Score (0-10) 7

Final feed score C5 Feed Final Score (0-10) 5.03 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a System escape risk (0-10) 2 6.1a Adjustment for recaptures (0-10) 2 6.1a Escape Risk Score (0-10) 4 6.2. CGI score (0-10) 6 C6 Escapes Final Score (0-10) 5 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 7: Diseases Disease Evidence-based assessment (0-10) Disease Risk-based assessment (0-10) 6 C7 Disease Final Score (0-10) 6 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 8X: Source of Stock C8X Source of stock score (0-10) 0 C8 Source of stock Final Score (0-10) 0 GREEN Critical? NO

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities C9X Wildlife and Predator Score (0-10) –3 C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score (0-10) –3 GREEN Critical? NO

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species F10Xa live animal shipments score (0-10) 0.00 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination score (0-10) 5.00 C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score (0-10) –5.00 YELLOW Critical? n/a