Standards Taskforce

1. Standards Taskforce Alfonso Marquez de la Plata

2. GSI objectives following Chile meeting • GSI objective • Improve industry reputation • Expand licence to operate • Avoid consumer resistance • GSI approach • Improve sustainable performance • Transparency • Industry cooperation

3. Role of standards task force • Examine standards potential to • Provide a framework for • Sustainability improvements • Transparent reporting • Maximise public credibility of GSI progress • ENGO support • No green wash label • Customer and government credibility • Reduce the current standards “chaos”

4. The choice of a standard is essential for credibility • Without an agreed framework “significant progress on sustainability” and “transparent reporting” will be seen as platitudes without enough substance

5. Focus on ASC • Attractive because: • Result of years of dialogue • Only global standard with wide ENGO support • Already being actively considered by large industry players • But problematic: • Designed to be out of reach for 80% of industry • GSI approach is to raise the reputation of all members not a small proportion

6. GSI vs. ASC • Both seek significant progress but the paradigms are different:

7. How can GSI and ASC be reconciled?

8. Can we achieve this paradigm shift to ASC? • Three tests • Is the ASC out of reach for GSI members if the time horizons are sufficient (5 years)? • Will WWF and ASC cooperate? • Is there a willingness among GSI members to coordinate?

9. Is the ASC out of reach? • GSI members rated each of the 159 individual ASC criteria for materiality and achievability • Ratings were done by company and by region • The results showed some variability reflecting individual circumstances and attitudes • Most criteria which were rated unachievable by some companies were rated achievable by most others

10. Results of achievability ratings • Only seven of the 159 criteria were rated as unachievable by more than 25% of the industry • The problematic areas relate to feed, copper levels, treatment and counting technology • Of these seven, two were felt to be out of reach for more than half of the locations • These very problematic criteria relate to parasiticide treatment index

11. Parasiticide treatment index SAD Standard is proposing lower treatment thresholds and therefore the number of treatments is likely to increase under such a regime and therefore a corresponding increase in the PTI score Based on previous production cycles no farms achieved a PTI score of ≤ 13 The current sea lice mitigation is too dependent on medical treatments This requirement needs to be balanced with consideration of animal health and welfare PTI is unachievable with government policy of treatments The way the PTI is calculated any treatment during June-August will take the PTI above 13. PTI score also need revision as it is not scientifically based

12. Accuracy of counting technology This is considered unachievable at present based on available technology All fishmeal and fish oil fisheries to be ISEAL certified Feed supplier states 100% compliance to IFFO RS, and full compliance to ISEAL by 2017 Currently no whole fish fishmeal fish oil fishery is MSC compliant

13. Copper levels More a question on the use or non use or alternative antifoulant compounds which needs to be addressed Levels in farm sediments are typically higher than SAD Standard requirements Maximum number of lethal incidents Fish Welfare also has to be considered, as it’s the main reason why lethal actions are taken Chilean law doesn't allow this practice Maximum on-farm lice levels The levels are considered too low and carry a risk of impact on the available consented treatment allowance of a farm site Not a practical level

14. Will WWF support the new paradigm? • YES • Ifwe adopt ASC as our framework for progress • Jason Clay, Senior Vice President, Markets, will come to Trondheim to announce a partnership with GSI at our press conference • WWF would accept a five year horizon as ambitious and worthy of praise and support • WWF will encourage the development of continuous improvement metrics • They are comfortable with the GSI being clear on obstacles within the standard because it paints the standard as rigorous and tough

15. Will ASC adjust to the new paradigm? • Yes • They want most of the industry to reach ASC not just 20% • They would regard movement of a significant percentage of the industry as huge • They think 5 years is an ambitious goal and will applaud it • They are open to an “improvers program” to recognise progress toward ASC • They are open to revisions as long as those revisions meet the “demonstrable best practices” criteria

16. Possible GSI statement on ASC • The members of the GSI are committed to significant improvements in the sustainability of their operations • The ASC standard for salmon aquaculture provides a framework to guide that progress • It is the clear intention of the signatories of the GSI to bring their operations to the level required for ASC certification • It is recognised that this is a significant transformation which will take time and face technical financial regulatory and other hurdles • The intention is overcome all these challenges and achieve ASC certification for the large majority of operations within a five year timeframe and to measure progress toward ASC over that time period • It is recognized that the ASC standard is new and will require adjustment in the light of in the field experience. These revisions will provide an opportunity to address any technical barriers while maintaining the necessary rigor to ensure no lessening of sustainability outcomes

17. Key strategic questions • Do we adopt the ASC as the GSI framework? • Do we declare an intention to achieve ASC certification in 5 years?

18. Key Tactical Dimensions • Coordination between GSI members • Getting the advantages of coordination without creating rigidities • Sharing solutions • Focus on driving early first revision • Gathering information on best available practices • Finding solutions to technical barriers • Not giving ASC easy wins that demotivate revisions • Communication • Need to ensure this is seen as difficult so credibility of standard remains very high • Need to focus the communication on the continuous improvement approach