14 A ASC Final Audit Report_ Tigaras (PT Suri Tani Pemuka

Transcription

IMO II 33.5 CH-e ASC Laporan Audit ASC
Nama Unit Budidaya: Tigaras
Nama Perusahaan: PT. Suri Tani Pemuka (dahulu PT. Artha Lautan Mulya)
Lokasi: Tigaras, Sumatera Utara - Indonesia
Laporan Audit Final untuk Publik *
CAB: IMOswiss AG (IMO)
Author: J. Unger
Date: 22.07.2014
*Laporan ini untuk diketahui oleh publik dan tidak mengandung informasi rahasia.
14 A ASC Final Audit Report_ Tigaras (PT Suri Tani
Pemuka) JAPFA_33.5_Bahasa language
Page 1 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Daftar Isi
Daftar Istilah.................................................................................................................................... 3
1.
Ringkasan Utama .................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Informasi Kontak CAB .............................................................................................................. 4
3.
Latar Belakang Unit Budidaya .................................................................................................. 4
4.
Ruang Lingkup......................................................................................................................... 5
5.
Rencana Audit ......................................................................................................................... 5
Nelayan ikan bilih ..................................................................................................................... 6
Nelayan ikan bilih ..................................................................................................................... 6
6.
Temuan ................................................................................................................................... 6
7.
Hasil Evaluasi .......................................................................................................................... 7
8.
Keputusan ............................................................................................................................... 7
9.
Penentuan COC dimulai .......................................................................................................... 7
10.
Rencana Audit Selanjutnya .................................................................................................. 9
Lampiran ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Lampiran 1c. Hasil Evaluasi Tilapia P1 - 6 .................................................................................... 10
Lampiran 2c. Hasil Evaluasi Tilapia P 7 ........................................................................................ 10
Lampiran 3. Klasifikasi ketidaksesuaian minor/ mayor .................................................................. 11
Lampiran 4. Formulir 1 – Permohonan untuk Interpretasi atau Penyimpangan ............................. 12
Lampiran 5. Pernyataan Pihak-Pihak yang Berkepentingan.......................................................... 14
Page 2 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Daftar Istilah
ASI
Accreditation Services International
ABU
Ann Bussarin Kosin
CC
Certification Committee IMO
d
hari
IMO
IMOswiss AG
JU
Julia Unger
Lead
Lead Auditor
MIS
Michèle Stark
UOC
Unit of certification
TOS
Tori Spence
TXS
Tran Xuan Sang
Page 3 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
1. Ringkasan Utama
Versi apapun dari laporan ini dalam bahasa selain bahasa Inggris adalah merupakan terjemahan
yang belum diverifikasi, dan dalam hal bila terdapat perbedaan maka yang diikuti adalah yang
dalam versi bahasa Inggris.
Unit budidaya Tigaras sedang dalam proses penilaian untuk mendapatkan sertifikat ASC. Laporan
ini hanya mengulas penilaian dari Unit budidaya PT. Suri Tani Pemuka.
Unit budidaya Tigaras telah diaudit sesuai dengan prinsip ke-satu hingga ke-tujuh dalam dua hari
(21&22 Mei 2014). Audit tersebut dilakukan oleh satu auditor dengan menggunakan bahasa
Inggris.
Selama penilaian dampak lingkungan, telah ditemukan 0 (nol) temuan mayor, 2 (dua) temuan
minor (2 sudah terselesaikan sebelum laporan ini dipublikasikan.) dan 0 (nol) rekomendasi. Tidak
ada penilaian sosial yang dilakukan pada saat audit ulang ini.
Selain pembesaran ikan, cakupan penilaian ini meliputi kegiatan pemanenan ikan, pendaratan dan
pengangkutan ikan oleh penyedia transportasi subkontrak yang menggunakan tangki yang
tersegel dan dikirim ke pabrik pengolahan. Sertifikat COC diperlukan dari tangki yang tersegel
hingga titik bongkar di pabrik pengolahan..
IMO menentukan bahwa semua persyaratan standar telah terpenuhi dan menyarankan Unit
Budidaya Tigaras untuk diberi sertifikasi.
2. Informasi Kontak CAB
IMOswiss AG (IMO)
Fisheries & Aquaculture
Weststr. 51
8570 Weinfelden, Switzerland
Tel: 0041-71-626 0 626 (umum)
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.imo.ch
3. Latar Belakang Unit Budidaya
Unit budidaya ikan Tigaras telah beroperasi sejak awal tahun 2012 dengan 33 keramba. Unit ini
terletak di Tigaras, Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. Keramba dipasang di tengah danau dengan
jangkar yang kuat terikat di sepanjang sisi daratan. Proses budidaya intensif dilakukan dengan
menjamin ketersedian pakan secara kontiniu untuk memastikan pertumbuhan dapat
dimaksimalkan. Karyawan yang dipekerjakan berasal dari daerah sekitar unit budidaya, sesuai
dengan aturan pemerintah dan aturan lainnya. Karyawan memperhatikan hal-hal yang
berhubungan dengan kesehatan dan keselamatan. Pakan yang diproduksi oleh Indo Jaya
Agrinusa, JAPFA grup, merupakan pakan yang aman dari antibiotik, obat-obatan dan produk
byproduct Tilapia. Benih yang digunakan berasal dari perusahan pembenihan milik sendiri yang
memiliki proses budidaya yang baik, tanpa menggunakan antibiotik dan obat-obatan. Air yang
digunakan untuk budidaya keramba adalah air Danau Toba dengan luas 120.000 hektar dan
memiliki kedalaman rata-rata 525 meter. Air danau cukup jernih dengan sedikit kandungan
plankton. Debit air Danau Toba sekitar 3.01 x 109 mt3 per tahun. Banyak air di sekitar Danau Toba
yang berasal dari sungai dan masing-masing memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda. Ada sungai yang
Page 4 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
memiliki pasokan air sepanjang tahun tetapi ada juga sungai yang mengalir hanya pada musim
hujan. Ikan mati dari proses budidaya ditangani dengan baik dan dijadikan sebagai pupuk cair.
Proses panen dilakukan setiap hari dan Unit budidaya memperhatikan prinsip-prinsip
kesejahteraan hewan dalam proses budidaya.
Terdapat 97 staf termasuk 90 pekerja. Staf tidak tinggal di unit budidaya.
Sertifikat BAP sudah dimiliki.
Kapasitas produksi unit budidaya: 4.000 ton
4. Ruang Lingkup
Penilaian ini dilakukan terhadap ASC Tilapia Standar v1.0.
Spesies yang diproduksi di unit budidaya adalah Oreochromis sp.niloticus.
Lingkup audit: Unit budidaya Tigaras (lokasi tunggal), Oreochromis niloticus.
Badan air yang diterima: Danau Toba. Ini berbeda dari badan air yang diterima pembenihan, oleh
karena itu, pembenihan telah dikecualikan dari ruang lingkup.
5. Rencana Audit
Kegiatan
Lokasi
Petugas
Tanggal*
Tinjauan: data sebelum audit
Kantor Pusat IMO
MIS
NA
Audit (prinsip 1-6)
Tigaras Sumatera Utara
Indonesia
TXS
21.05.14 to
22.05.14
Audit (prinsip 7)
Rapat/wawancara masyarakat dan
pihak yang berkepentingan
NA – Audit ulang
(Temuan audit sosial awal tergabung dalam laporan audit
ulang teknis)
Penulisan laporan
Kantor pusat IMO
TXS
02.06.14
Peninjauan laporan
Kantor pusat IMO
JU
03.06.14
Laporan klien untuk klien
Kantor pusat IMO
TXS
03.06.14
Pembaharuan laporan
Kantor pusat IMO
JU/ABU
09.06.14
Draft laporan publik untuk ASC
Kantor pusat IMO
JU/ABU
13.06.14
Komentar pihak yang
berkepentingan
10 hari
Pembaharuan laporan
Kantor pusat IMO
JU/ABU
18.07.14
Keputusan sertifikasi
Kantor pusat IMO
CC
21.07.2014
Laporan publik akhir untuk ASC
Kantor pusat IMO
JU/ABU
22.07.2014
*Versi terdahulu dari laporan ini tidak untuk publik.
Audit ini dilakukan bersama Bp. Hermanto – Kepala Unit BudidayaTilapia, Bp. Marc Wasistha –
Perwakilan Kantor Jakarta, Bp. Hartoyo – HOU, Bp. Muljadi – Kepala F&A, Bp. Fauzan – Kepala
Page 5 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Unit Pembesaran, Bp. Jahormat Napitu – PGA Unit Budidaya, Ibu Any Mahyuni – Staf QC, Ibu
Margareta – Staf Lab, A.S. – Kepala QC. Staf /pekerja lainnya Bp. Effendy, Ibu Nani, Ibu Siti, Bp.
Advent, Ibu. Eva, bergabung dalam audit, tergantung pada tanggung jawab mereka dan kriteria
yang dinilai.
Wawancara dengan pihak yang berkepentingan dan masyarakat tidak dilakukan karena ini
merupakan audit ulang. Terlampir di bawah ini daftar dari pihak yang berkepentingan yang
diwawancara pada audit sebelumnya di bulan Desember 2013.
Name
Mikajaya Sitio
Samarudin Sitio
Rajudin Sitio
Osmar Sitanggang
Andika Napitupulu
R Nainggolan
Riantoni Damanik
Affiliation
Kepala desa
Kepala dusun
Tokoh masyarakat
Nelayan ikan bilih
Nelayan ikan bilih
Pemilik toko
Pemilik jasa transportasi
6. Temuan
Rincian dari bukti kepatuhan dari setiap kriteria yang tercantum dalam standard yang diperoleh
selama audit dapat dilihat di Lampiran 1.
Seluruh ketidaksesuaian dan rencana perbaikan dapat dilihat di bagian 10 dari laporan ini. Seluruh
rekomendasi dan ketidaksesuaian yang telah diselesaikan, tidak tertulis di laporan ini dan menjadi
bagian dari Lampiran 1.
Audit ulang tidak mencakup indikator sosial, karena audit lengkap yang telah dilakukan
sebelumnya dan masih berlaku. Ruang lingkup dalam audit ini meliputi indikator penting dan
indikator yang dipilih sesuai dengan perkembangan dan hasil dari temuan ketidaksesuaian yang
telah ditemukan sebelumnya. Audit ulang tidak mencakupi wawancara ke masyarakat.
Rincian pernyataan dari pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan yang diperoleh selama proses sertifikasi
dapat dilihat pada Lampiran 5.
Oksigen terlarut telah diukur setiap minggu sejak April 2013, akan tetapi terdapat ketidaksesuaian
dalam pengambilan data. Oksigen terlarut hanya diukur sebelum matahari terbenam. Oksigen
terlarut di pagi hari dilakukan setelah matahari terbit (dari jam 7 sampai dengan 8 pagi). Alhasil,
budidaya tidak sesuai dengan peraturan standar ASC tentang waktu pengambilan data dan
periodenya. Selain itu, pengukuran parameter air yang telah dilakukan setiap bulan sejak Mei 2013
hanya dilakukan di RWFO, sedangkan RWFA dan RWRP belum dilakukan pada saat audit
sertifikasi dilakukan pada bulan Desember 2013. Akan tetapi, Unit Budidaya telah melakukan
pengukuran oksigen terlarut secara benar sejak Desember 2013 (selama 6 bulan berturut-turut).
Pengukuran kualitas air dan analisa telah dipastikan sesuai pada saat Audit ulang pada bulan Mei
2014.
Pada saat audit ulang, telah ditemukan 4 temuan mayor, 9 temuan minor dan 2 rekomendasi atas
aspek sosial yang diperiksa, dan seluruh hal tersebut telah diselesaikan dengan penyampaian
langkah-langkah perbaikan selama proses audit dilakukan di lokasi, dan telah dinyatakan
memenuhi persyaratan.
Page 6 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Secara umum, Unit Budidaya dinilai sangat siap pada saat dilaksanakannya audit ulang ini.
Keterangan tentang status sertifikasi dapat dilihat pada bagian 8 dari laporan ini.
7. Hasil Evaluasi
Rincian bukti kepatuhan untuk setiap kriteria dalam standar dapat ditemukan pada Lampiran 1.
8. Keputusan
Sebelum ini, fishmeal dengan bahan dasar produk sampingan (by product) dari pabrik fillet
Thunnus albacares dan Thunnus alalungus telah digunakan, yaitu sebagai salah satu bahan
pembuatan pakan ikan yaitu maksimum 3%. Kedua spesies tersebut terdaftar di IUCN Red List
dan dikategorikan sebagai “Hampir Terancam”. Penilaian IUCN terakhir kali dilakukan pada tahun
2009. Kedua spesies tersebut juga telah mendapatkan sertifikasi menurut standar MSC . Kedua
spesies tersebut terdaftar di FishSource score dan sesuai dengan aturan ASC, yaitu mempunyai
individual score > 6, Thunnus albacares (Laut Pacific Barat) dan Thunnus alalungus (Laut Pacific
Selatan). Evaluasi atas sertifikasi MSC maupun FishSource score adalah lebih baru dibandingkan
penetapan rating IUCN.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka telah menyerahkan seluruh informasi untuk mendukung fakta-fakta diatas
ke IMO. Dan Komite Sertifikasi IMO telah menetapkan bahwa nilai FishSource dan Sertifikasi MSC
lebih penting dibandingkan IUCN rating, karena profil dari kedua spesies di IUCN sudah cukup
lama dan belum di-update kembali dan tidak spesifik ke populasi tertentu. Dan karena Fishmeal
yang digunakan hanya menggunakan Produk sampingan (by product), dan hanya digunakan
dalam persentase yang rendah, maka dampak bagi perikanan menjadi semakin rendah. Dan PT.
Suri Tani Pemuka sudah tidak menggunakan Fishmeal lagi sebagai salah satu sumber protein
atas pembuatan pakannya. Oleh karena itu, IMO menetapkan bahwa ketidak sesuaian ini telah
terselesaikan dan Unit Budidaya telah memenuhi seluruh standar peraturan dan dapat disertifikasi.
ASC saat ini sedang mempelajari lebih lanjut atas masalah ini dan untuk saat ini ASC telah
menetapkan bahwa produk dari PT. Suri Tani Pemuka mungkin tidak dapat masuk ke dalam antai
sertifikasi lebih lanjut dan tidak memenuhi syarat untuk menggunakan label ASC sampai TAG
selesai membahas masalah ini. Oleh karena itu, penerbitan sertifikat tersebut sedang tertunda.
9. Penentuan COC dimulai
Penilaian resiko - COC didalam Unit Budidaya
L – resiko rendah: tidak ada kegiatan atau sistem terkontrol di lokasi (contoh: lisensi).
M – resiko menengah: kegiatan tersebut terjadi di dalam lokasi Unit Budidaya, akan tetapi telah
terdapat sistem yang baik
H – resiko tinggi: kegiatan tersebut terjadi dan terdapat resiko pencampuran dan sistem tidak
cukup baik untuk mengantisipasi hal tersebut.
Ref to
CR
17.5.1
Integritas produk yang bersertifikat
Resiko
terkait
Dasar pemikiran
Sistem yang digunakan
L
Staf telah terlatih dan
mengimplementasikan
standar-standar ASC
17.5.1.2 Kemungkinan substitusi sebelum/
pada saat panen
L
Kecil kemungkinan untuk
terjadinya substitusi karena
Page 7 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
hanya ada Unit Budidaya PT.
Suri Tani Pemuka saja
dalam lokasi sekitar 4 km
Hanya ada beberapa
perusahaan budidaya di
wilayah tersebut. Namun,
tidak ada interaksi bisnis
diantara perusahaanperusahaan tersebut.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka
menjaga pengendalian
internal terhadap kejelasan
asal-usul/ traceability dan
aliran produk.
17.5.1.3 Kemungkinan adanya produk lain dari
pihak diluar Unit yang sedang
disertifikasi
L
17.5.1.4 Ketahanan sistem manajemen
L
Sistem manajemen yang kuat
17.5.1.5 Kegiatan pengiriman secara bertahap/
transshipment
L
Tidak ada kegiatan
transshipment
17.5.1.6 Jumlah dan/atau lokasi panen
L
Hanya ada 1 (satu) lokasi
panen yaitu didepan kantor
Estimasi resiko secara keseluruhan
L
Jika CAB menentukan sistem ini cukup, maka produk dapat dimasukkan lebih lanjut ke certified
chains of custody (COC) dan berhak menggunakan Label ASC.
Ruang lingkup sertifikat akuakultur, termasuk perubahan kepemilikan setelah sertifikasi COC
diperlukan:
Selain pembesaran, ruang lingkup penilaian meliputi panen, pendaratan dan transportasi
subkontrak dalam tangki yang disegel dan dikirimkan ke unit pengolahan. Sertifikasi COC
diperlukan sejak tangki disegel hingga titik bongkar/ unloading.
Sertifikasi tidak berlaku mundur. Hanya produk yang dipanen sejak tanggal sertifikasi disetujui
yang dapat menggunakan logo ASC.
Jika CAB menganggap sistem yang ada tidak memadai, maka produk tidak dapat dilanjutkan ke
sertifikasi COC dan tidak dapat menggunakan logo ASC.
Produk berikut kemungkinan tidak dapat dimasukkan lebih lanjut ke sertifikasi COC dan tidak
diperbolehkan menggunakan logo ASC:
NA
Penentuan ini tetap berlaku sampai dengan direvisi oleh CAB pada audit selanjutnya.
10. Laporan Temuan Ketidaksesuaian
Produsen: Tigaras Farm/ PT. Suri Tani Pemuka
N° of
CC
Tahun Kateg
ori
Ketidaksesuaian
(ringkasan)
Rencana Kerja
Tenggat
waktu
Tidak ada Temuan
Ketidaksesuaian yang
Page 8 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Produsen: Tigaras Farm/ PT. Suri Tani Pemuka
N° of
CC
Tahun Kateg
ori
N° of CC
Year
Cat.
Non-conformity
Action plan
Deadline
Status
rec
min
Maj
Ketidaksesuaian
(ringkasan)
masih belum
terselesaikan
Rencana Kerja
Tenggat
waktu
Nomor tidak terpenuhinya kriteria (contoh 1.1.1). Bila terdapat keraguan, akan ditulis pada bagian terakhir dari
laporan ini.
Tahun pertama pada saat ketidaksesuaian terdeteksi.
Kategori sangsi: tingkat sangsi dikategorikan sebagai rekomendasi, minor atau mayor
Ketidaksesuaian terhadap standar
Langkah perbaikan atas ketidaksesuaian yang diusulkan oleh perusahaan dan disetujui oleh IMO.
Implementasi dari langkah perbaikan harus dilengkapi dengan jangka waktu penyelesaian.
Tanggal pada saat IMO akan menilai implementasi dari pelaksanaan dari langkah perbaikan.
Status atas implementasi langkah perbaikan: done, partly done, not done
Rekomendasi (tidak diharuskan ada langkah perbaikan)
Ketidaksesuaian minor: lihat Lampiran 2
Ketidaksesuaian mayor:lihat Lampiran 2
10. Rencana Audit Selanjutnya
Rencana pengawasan audit selanjutnya; (bulan, tahun):
Mei 2015
Sertifikasi ulang penuh setiap tiga tahun; paling lambat (tahun)
Mei 2017
IMO berhak melakukan audit mendadak sesuai dengan standar operasi (SOP) IMO. Selain itu,
audit tambahan dapat dilakukan dalam rangka peninjauan dokumen.
Komentar operator (optional):
Operator telah menyetujui laporan ini dan telah memberikan komitmennya untuk
mengimplementasikan rencana perbaikan yang telah disampaikan. Keputusan final atas
sertifikasi ini dibuat oleh officer IMO yang bertanggungjawab atas sertifikasi ini. Operator
memastikan bahwa laporan ini tidak mengandung informasi rahasia dan dapat dipublikasikan
oleh ASC.
Konfirmasi operator
Marc Wasistha__________________________________
Nama & tanda tangan
Konfirmasi auditor
18.07.2014, Tigaras
Tanggal, Lokasi
Tran Xuan Sang __________________________________
Nama & tanda tangan
18.07.2014, Ho Chi Minh
Tanggal, Lokasi
Page 9 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Lampiran
Lampiran 1c. Hasil Evaluasi Tilapia P1 - 6
Silakan lihat dokumen terpisah. Informasi berikut ini adalah rahasia dan telah dihapus dari laporan
publik:
- Data pemantauan air dan analisis
Lampiran 2c. Hasil Evaluasi Tilapia P 7
Silahkan lihat dokumen terpisah.
Page 10 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Lampiran 3. Klasifikasi ketidaksesuaian minor/ mayor
Ketidaksesuaian minor
a) Untuk sertifikasi awal, CAB dapat merekomendasikan pemohon untuk disertifikasi setelah
sebuah rencana kerja untuk mengatasi ketidaksesuaian telah disepakati oleh kedua klien dan
CAB.
i. Rencana kerja mencakup penjelasan :
A. Akar permasalahan dari ketidaksesuaian
B. Tindakan korektif yang akan diambil ditujukan untuk penanganan
penyelesaian ketidaksesuaian
C. Jangka waktu untuk pelaksanaan tindakan koreksi
ii. Ketidaksesuaian minor dapat diperpanjang satu kali dalam jangka waktu maksimum
(1) satu tahun jika penerapan penuh tindakan koreksi tidak mungkin karena keadaan di luar
kendali klien
b) CAB harus menaikkan ketidaksesuaian mayor bila ketidaksesuaian minor diajukan berulang
kali terhadap persyaratan tertentu.
c) CAB harus mensyaratkan bahwa ketidaksesuaian minor yang muncul selama pengawasan
audit yang secara memuaskan dibahas dalam satu (1) tahun.
Ketidaksesuaian Mayor
a) CAB harus mensyaratkan bahwa ketidaksesuaian mayor harus ditangani oleh pemohon
secara memuaskan:
i. Sebelum sertifikasi yang diberikan.
ii. Dalam waktu 3 bulan dari tanggal audit atau audit ulang penuh - wajib.
iii. Bahwa akar masalah dari ketidaksesuaian diidentifikasi.
b) Dalam kasus ketidaksesuaian mayor yang muncul selama masa berlaku sertifikat, CAB
memerlukan:
i. Bahwa pemegang sertifikat secara memuaskan menangani ketidaksesuaian dalam
waktu maksimal tiga (3) bulan.
ii. Ketidaksesuaian mayor dapat diperpanjang sekali untuk jangka waktu maksimal
tiga bulan jika penerapan penuh tindakan koreksi tidak memungkinkan karena keadaan di luar
kendali klien.
iii. Bahwa akar masalah ketidaksesuaian diidentifikasi.
Page 11 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Lampiran 4. Formulir 1 – Permohonan untuk Interpretasi atau
Penyimpangan
Formulir ini digunakan untuk pengajuan permohonan dari CAB untuk ASC untuk meminta
interpretasi dari persyaratan normatif ASC dan/atau permintaan untuk penyimpangan dari
persyaratan normatif tertentu.
I Permohonan CAB
1.1 NAMA DARI CAB
Institute for
Marketecology (IMO),
Switzerland
1.2 TANGGAL
PENYAMPAIAN
1.3 KONTAK PERSONAL
CAB
01.05.14
Michèle Stark
1.4 ALAMAT EMAIL KONTAK
PERSONAL CAB
[email protected]
1.5 DOKUMEN ACUAN ASC
ASC Farm Certification and Accreditation Requirements
1.6 LATAR BELAKANG (MEMBERIKAN PENJELASAN LENGKAP DARI MASALAH DI ATAS)
Peraturan ASC:
Indikator: 2.3.1: Perbedaan persentase diurnal oksigen terlarut di daerah penerimaan air
dibandingkan dengan oksigen terlarut pada saat saturation, di salinitas dan temperature air tertentu.
Manual Audit: 2.3.1a. Kumpulkan ≥ 12 bulan data atas sampel DDDO jika Unit Budidaya berdiri
setelah Desember 2009 (Unit Budidaya yang berdiri sebelum Desember 2009 hanya perlu
mengumpulkan data selama 6 bulan).
Pertimbangan berdasarkan hal diatas:
Danau Toba adalah sebuah badan air yang unik, salah satu di dunia yang dikenal mempunyai tingkat
oksigen terlarut yang tinggi, tanpa tergantung musin ataupun kondisi atmosfer. Tingkat oksigen
terlarut hanya mempunyai variasi yang kecil walaupun pada tingkat kedalaman yang berbeda.Hal ini
merupakan penyebab utama yang membuat Danau Toba menjadi tempat yang menarik untuk
budidaya ikan pada umumnya, dan Tilapia pada khususnya.
Dari rasa tanggung jawabnya sendiri, PT. Suri Tani Pemuka sangat menyadari atas kebutuhan untuk
memonitor parameter kualitas air danau dan oksigen terlarut. Oleh karena itu, PT. Suri Tani Pemuka
melakukan investasi laboratorium air, tepat di tepi danau, yang akan beroperasi penuh dalam
beberapa minggu ke depan.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka telah mengumpulkan data DDDO sejak awal 2013, akan tetapi teknik
pengambilan sampel dilakukan tidak sesuai dengan standar ASC, yaitu pada kedalaman 30 cm, tapi
pada kedalaman 100 cm. Pengukuran juga dilakukan pada waktu yang salah, yaitu setelah matahari
terbit, bukan 1 jam sebelum matahari terbit dan 2 jam sebelum matahari terbenam.
Pada saat audit ASC yang pertama, PT. Suri Tani Pemuka menjadi menyadari atas prosedur yang
salah tersebut dan segera membuat perubahan dalam pengumpulan data sehingga menjadi sesuai
dengan persyaratan standar ASC.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka telah mengumpulkan 5 (lima) bulan data berturut-turut yang dilakukan dengan
benar, dan akan akan memiliki data benar ke-6 sebelum jadwal Audit ulang/ audit kedua ini.
Karena persyaratan yang ditentukan dalam kriteria 2.3.1 adalah <65%, dan secara alami Danau Toba
mempunyai sifat yang secara signifikan lebih tinggi dari ambang batas tersebut, maka kami percaya
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka akan sepenuhnya sesuai dengan standar ini, sama seperti budidaya Tilapia
bersertifikat lainnya di danau yang sama. Ketidaksesuaian ini disebabkan oleh interpretasi yang salah
dari prosedur teknis dalam mengumpulkan sampel dan merekam data.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka akan membangun dan melengkapi dirinya dengan laboratorium terbaik, staf
yang sangat berkualitas, untuk secara terus menerus dan teliti memantau keadaan eutrification,
stratifikasi, atau perubahan lain atas kualitas air Danau Toba.
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka bertekad untuk melakukan banyak penelitian, analisis, lebih jauh dari apa
yang dibutuhkan oleh standar ASC. Kami bermaksud untuk berbagi data ini dengan semu pihak yang
Page 12 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
peduli tentang nasib danau dan keberlanjutan operasi kami.
Kami menyarankan untuk menerima 6 (enam) bulan berturut-turut yang benar dan sesuai data dari
PT. Suri Tani Pemuka, dan tidak mengharuskan untuk mengumpulkan data > 12 bulan atas sampel
DDDO untuk indikator 2.3.1 ini.
1.7 TINDAKAN REKOMENDASI / KEPUTUSAN
Y
II Penentuan ASC
2.1 Status
Ditutup
2.2 Tanggal Penentuan ASC
09.07.2014
2.3 Penentuan ACS atas Penyimpangan
ASC menyetujui permohonan ini untuk PT. Suri Tani Pemuka Farm (single site)
2.3 Interpretasi oleh ASC
ASC menegaskan pentingnya kesesuaian dengan standar yang ada. Berdasarkan
kesungguhan dari Unit budidaya, pencatatan pengukuran dan penyesuaian metoda
pengecekan kualitas air telah dilakukan setelah kesalahan atas pencatatan telah diketahui
dan kondisi air secara alami. Kondisi air , mistakes in recording and
Kondisi air di danau alami ini menunjukkan bahwa telah mempunyai cukup bukti, yang
memastikan bahwa intensi dari standar ASC Tilapia telah terpenuhi. Pada saat audit
surveillance berikutnya, pengumpulan data ini harus termasuk dalam ruang lingkup audit.
Page 13 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Lampiran 5. Pernyataan Pihak-Pihak yang Berkepentingan
Termasuk informasi tertulis atau terdokumentasi dan reaksi tertulis dari CAB pada setiap
pernyataan.
Jangka waktu konsultasi
umum
Respon IMO
Pernyataan pihak yang
berkepentingan
Pemberitahuan audit
(30 hari sebelum audit)
Tidak ada pernyataan yang
diterima
NA
Draf laporan umum
(10 hari dari publikasi
laporan)
Tidak ada pernyataan yang
diterima
NA
Page 14 of 14
Version 3
06.2014
Annex 1c
Tigaras/PT. Suri Tani Pemuka - Tilapia Farming JAPFA
criteria
Date of finding
recomendation
minor NC
major NC
deadline
NC
action plan
action plan
approved by IMO
Root Cause: xxx
Corrective Action: xxx
Timeframe: xxx
2.3.1
2014
Root Cause: Farm did not follow ASC requirement properly before our
1st ASC audit, either time, depth or location.
Corrective Action: Since Dec 2013, for the last 6 consecutive months, ASC
DO measurement
rules for the DO measurements and procedures are fully implemented
DO were weekly measured from May 2013 but the data was and strictly observed. As per IMO suggestion, Farm submitted the
wrong in time period and location of sampling. The farm has detailed Variance Request on May 1st, 2014. Again, as per ASC/IMO
monthly and correctly measured since Dec 2013.
request, farm submitted the scientific citations for the natural DO
profiles on May 27th and 28th, 2014. Farm standby for any additional
data solicited.
Time frame: 2.6.2014
1
Prior to
certifification
approved
Status of implementation of action plan
initial
re-audit
surveillance I
2013
2014
2015
na
DONE
VR approved on
09.07.2014
Re-submitted action plan 09.07.2014
Root Cause: Farm failed to explain of using exclusively fishmeal which is a
by-product of the cannery industry - and instead mentioned the species
it is made from - looking for the Fish Score ≥ 6.
Corrective Action: We will stop using fish meal since July 11th, 2014 and
will substitute with protein source from terrestrial animal.
Timeframe: July 11th, 2014
5.1.2b
2014
Fishes used in fishmeal & fishoil listed in the IUCN Red List
Repeated search of IUCN database. Client obtained an
accurate result.
Thunnus Alalunga and Thunnus Albacares are categorized in
the IUCN's Red list as "Near Threatened". However,
fishmeal in feed is by-products of these processed fishes, It Action plan submitted 02.06.2014
does not come from direct fisheries. Orcorhynchus
Root Cause: Farm failed to explain of using exclusively fishmeal which is a
gorbuscha used in fishoil is not in the IUCN Red list.
by-product of the cannery industry - and instead mentioned the species
it is made from - looking for the Fish Score ≥ 6.
Corrective Action: Submit the statement from fishmeal supplier which
specifically confirmed that they use leftovers from the filleting process
(by-products).
Timeframe: Done (on May 23rd, 2014)
1
2013
14 A ASC Annex 1c_Tigaras (PT Suri Tani Pemuka) JAPFA_33.3.1c
1/6
1
Root Cause: Production data is available but still not complete properly
tabulated. The staff is responsible not know well the data matrix according to
standard ASC.
Corrective Action: We will re-calculate in specific cage and time then we"ll keep
Data preparation
Data was not well pre-pared prior the audit. Calculations of as data resource. Staff in charge will make the appropriate data matrix
standart ASC. Matriculation data will already be running from January 2014
TP, TN, FFER, recovery rate, have to be recalculated during
and will be controlled by quality control staff. When staff can not be
the audit. The staff who is responsible to these data
responsible the conduct of matriculation, it will be replaced by the supervisor.
calculation does not know or trainned following ASC
Timeframe: 50 days
standard.
IMO Statement: approved. The farm’s summary sheet of calculation is
submitted (received 16.01.14). Farm has used its own data to fill-in IMO's
calculation excel template and re-submit to IMO (received 30.04.14).
NCs
Prior to
certifification
approved
31. Jan 14
approved
na
DONE
DONE
na
Version 2
03.2014
1.1.2a
2.2.1
2.3.1
2013
Tax
Three kinds of taxes that the farm has to pay.
Monthly water used tax: tax was paid in October 2013.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the farm paid
the water used tax in other months except this October.
Yearly buliding used tax: checked the tax receipt in 2013
Yearly farm location tax: checked the tax receipt in 2012.
The evidence of paying tax from January 2013 to October
2013 were not available.
1
2013
2013
2/6
1
1
Root Cause: We got tax invoice on 2013 start October. We cannot force the
government to issue a tax bill according to our wishes.
Corrective Action: The staff in charge will ask about the tax billing format that
has been paid to the government. And the response from the government that
format cannot be changed because it is legally valid. For the next tax payment
To be verified
of staff who is responsible to try to ask for a payment format can be paid
regularly every month complete with proof of payment.
during next audit.
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO
Statement: approved. Please prepare the proof of tax payment for all kind of
taxes covering months and year if applicable. The implementation will be
verified during next audit.
Root Cause: So far there has been no official statement from the government
about the existence of tilapia in Lake Toba before 1 January 2008, it is evident
that tilapia has been cultivated in Lake Toba before 2008 by farmers and
private companies.
Corrective Action: The officer in charge will formally request information and
Tilapia establishing
statements of a government fisheries department of the existence of tilapia in
There is no evidence available during the audit proving that
Lake Toba to prove that it has farmed tilapia in Lake Toba before 2008.
tlialpia species establishing before 1st January 2008
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO
Statement: approved. The statement from Head of Fisheries and livestock in
the district (issued on 10.01.14) stating Tilapia have been cultured in fresh
water lake Toba before January 1, 2008 has been submitted to IMO (received
15.01.14)
31. Jan 14
Root Cause: We had water monitoring equipment start on April 2013. We do
not have a trained laboratory personnel to measure DO. We are still using the
standard measurement of DO at a depth of 1 meter and DO measurement
DO measurement
point determination still has not specified as to use in the open lake that was
a. DO were weekly measured from April 2013 while the
not clear enough water inlet and outlet
standard requires 12 months data bacause the farm has
Corrective Action: We'll monitoring water quality frequently as ASC standart.
been set up after December 2009 (farm has set up in
We will re-arrange the monitoring of water quality and provide trained staff
January 2012). Only DO before sunset were measured . DO and will record the data well according to the ASC standard.
12-month results
in the morning were taken after sunrise (from 7am to 8am). Timeframe: 50 days
should be
IMO statement: approved. Regarding DDDO, farm corrected measurement
Not compliant about the data collection time and period.
submitted before
with 0.3 meter depth in RWFA was starting from December 20th, 2013. So,
d.There is no calculation DDDO prior the audit. Besides,
the
next audit.
farm already had 5 (five) data with right measurement and will have the 6th
since the method of water sample taken is not correct, it
data before re-audit planning. Based on ASC regulation, farm has to submit 12
lead to the results may not correct too.
months correct data. Noted that IMO has sent a variance request for approval
f. Witness the DO. DO equipment was calibrated every
to ASC. If VR is approved, please submit the correct measurment 6th data to
measurement. Client measured at 1 metre depth instead of
IMO. If VR is not approved, please submit the results covering 12 month
0.3 meter as required.
record with method and time of measurement according to ASC standard to
IMO prior the next audit. Pending for VR approval from ASC
NCs
approved
OPEN
approved
DONE
DONE
The implementation
was verified
na
OPEN
approved
(Pending for
VR approval
from ASC)
DONE
VR approved on
09.07.2014
Version 2
03.2014
2.5.1
2.6.1
4.1.3
2013
2013
2013
3/6
1
Root Cause: We have no laboratory yet.
Measurement of water quality and water quality matrix formulation still using
the company's internal standards and still use the services of a laboratory
measurement of water quality.
Corrective Action: We'll fixed and completed Water quality monitoring matrix
as ASC Standard. We will have the laboratory sooner. We will recruit
specialized staff to control the water quality monitoring, as well as provide its
Water Quality Monitoring Matrix
a. Parameters were monthly measured from May 2013 only own laboratory equipment to monitor and analyze the results of the water
quality measurements
in the FO. There is no data in FA and RP. Not compliant.
Timeframe: until end of 2014
b. The Water Quality Monitoring Matrix is not completed.
IMO statment: approved. Farm has submitted matrix result sheet of only one
Data of FA and RP were missing.
type of receiving water to IMO (recieved 16.01.14) starts from May 2013 until
g. Waiting for the Lab testing
Dec 2013 which is covering 6 month and standard parameters but there is no
indication of RWRP, RWFO, RWFA at GPS coordinates defined. Farm has
submitted the recent results of water quality for all type of receiving water
obtained from laboratory in December. Farm has re-submitted the results of
different receiving water sample (submitted 01.05.14) starts from Dec.2013
until Apr.2014. Farm plans to submit the results in May 2014 to cover 6
month records to IMO prior the next re-audit.
To be verified
during next audit.
approved
OPEN
1
Root Cause: We have not received specific information about the wetlands
around Lake Toba from the local government but the filing of a location permit
floating net cages we have coordinated with local authorities regarding our
proposed location. We haven't no maps about lake toba wetland.
Corrective Action: We'll contact to Wetland indonesia and will find out about
Wetland
Before the next
the wetland around the lake Toba, either look for information on the internet,
No eveidence for any wetland conversion occuring within a
local government, WWF and other agencies who understand the wetland
audit arrangment
5km, radius of the farm since 1999.
around Lake Toba.
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO statement:
approved. The map that farm submitted as corrective action (received
16.01.14) was later supported by Wetlands documents from the government
as evidence which confirms that farm locates outside the wetland area.
approved
DONE
na
1
Trap devices
a. The farm does not have the program for monitring
escapee with trapping devices. There is no trapping devices
used in the farm.
b.Farm has not recorded the number of escapees, they
record the number of fishes they take from outside of the
cages into the cages. These are considered as escapees. No
trapping used.
approved
DONE
na
Root Cause: We've been using a trap device but we do not organize well trap
placement and use of the device, and the data is in central office.
Corrective Action: We'll sent the data of fish escape and sent the pictureof trap
device. Trap devices that we have is to use protective nets installed in a certain
place that has the potential to catch fish that escaped. We will organize
properly use the device traps in order to reduce the potential for fish escapes
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO statement: approved. Farm has submitted the photo of trap device set up
in between cages to sample for escapees, and a record of findings and actions
taken (received 16.01.14). The data covered 6-month record in 2013.
NCs
DONE
31. Jan 14
Data are now
available for 6
month
Version 2
03.2014
4.4.2
5.1.3
1
2013
2013
1
4/6
IUCN red list
No analysis for IUCN red list species.
Root Cause: Root Cause: The predator of our Tilapia is crane. Actually we never
interfere crane or any other animals nearby our Cage so far, but we haven't put
this Policy in writing before. We haven't got the IUCN red list. We do not yet
understand about the standard IUCN red list.
Corrective Action: We will find out about the standard of the IUCN red list and
request information. We do not take care the threatened species predator
only, but we do not interfere any animals, including the predator, because we
don't want to ruin the ecosystem which already in place there.
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO statement: approved. Farm resent the action plan (submitted 21.04.14)
and corrective actions: IUCN red list analysis for crane (submitted on 29.04.14)
and SOP for predator control (submitted on 21.04.14) . Refer to: Technical
Audit_NC 4.4.2_SOP of Predators control.jpg and Technical Audit_NC
4.4.2_IUCN Analysis of Crane. In addition, The corrective action (received
16.01.14) farm submitted before is the IUCN documents from the government
as evidence which confirms the presence of fish in the IUCN list and call of the
government for preservation can be used to support for the IUCN analysis.
Root Cause: We do not yet understand about ISEAL standards. Actually we
haven't implemented to buy Fish Feed which only using ISEAL certified Fish
Meal and Fish Oil at the moment. The previous Statement of Policy which we
have submitted was wrong, due to we misunderstood the meaning (due to
language barrier).
Corrective Action: We will prepared the policy stating the organization's intent
Feed
to source feed containing fish meal and fish oil originating from fisheries
a.Client has not yet prepared the policy stating the
organization's support of effort to shift feed manufactures deemed sustainable by an ISEAL member's accredited certification scheme by
19 December 2014. We will make sure to feed the existing provider of the
to an ISEAL-accredited certification scheme for fish meal
content in the feed we use. We will ensure that the requirements and make the
and fish oil.
feed that we use does not violate the standards of ISEAL and providers of raw
b. Client has not yet prepared the policy stating the
materials in feed that we use are members of ISEAL. We will contact the feed
organization's intent to source feed containing fish meal
to prepared the policy stating the organization's support of effort to shift feed
and fish oil originating from fisheries deemed sustainable by manufactures to an ISEAL-accredited certification scheme for fish meal and fish
an ISEAL member's accredited certification scheme by 19
oil.
December 2014.
Timeframe: 50 days
and corrective actions. Refer to: Technical Audit_NC 5.1.3_Statement of Policy
from the Farming.pdf and Technical Audit_NC 5.1.3_Letter of Intent from the
Feed Manufacturer regarding ISEAL certified by 19 Dec 2014.jpg.
NCs
31. Jan 14
approved
DONE
na
31. Jan 14
approved
DONE
na
Version 2
03.2014
5.1.4
5.2.1
6.1.1
1
2013
2013
5/6
31. Jan 14
approved
DONE
na
Root Cause: We haven't had a letter of intent from supplier.
Corrective Action: We'll ask to get that letter of intent, sustainability and
traceability form.
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO statement: approved. Farm and feed supplier JAPFA have submitted
letters of intent to preferentially source, traceability and sustainability policy to
IMO (received 16.01.14). In addition, the statements submitted refer to
5.1.3a,b (submitted on 21.04.14)
31. Jan 14
approved
DONE
na
Root Cause: We have the complete data, the production of the report to our
head office to calculate the recovery rate of seed size stocking for further
analysis and calculation of production cost. We also can not be sure when we
sized fish average weight of 100 grams because our sampling done every two
Recovery rate
c. Calculation was not correct during the audit. The farm use weeks on a regular basis.
Corrective Action: We will do the calculations and make better recovery rate
fish stocking at around 10 -20 gram to calculate the
calculation of the weight of 100 grams up to harvest in our production data
recovery rate. During the audit, the farm re-calculated by
recording standards.We will update the production reports relating to the
deducting the number of dead fish at the date the fish
calculation of the recovery rate is calculated from weight of 100 grams, we will
reaching 100gram.
also seek that the recovery rate reached more than 65% by improving
d. There were 24 harvested time since Dec 2012. There was production techniques of holding up to harvest with better monitoring in the
9 harvested time with compliant recovery rate. The rest
management in farming.
was non compliant. Average recovery rate was 62.35%. Not Timeframe: 50 days
compliant.
IMO statement: approved. Farm has submitted the calculation sheet (received
16.01.14) with average of percentage of Recovery rate using harvest data of
whole year of 2013 (Jan to Nov). The Recovery rate is >65% which is compliant
to the standard.
31. Jan 14
approved
DONE
na
Feed
b. Client has not yet prepared the letter of intent to
preferentially source from supplier who have a traceability
and sustainability.
e. Client has not yet requested sustainability policy from
feed supplier.
1
2013
Root Cause: Actually we haven't implemented to buy Fish Feed which only
using ISEAL certified Fish Meal and Fish Oil at the moment. The previous
Statement of Policy which we have submitted was wrong, due to we
misunderstood the meaning (due to language barrier).
Corrective Action: We just received Letter from our Feed manufacturer that
FishSource Score
they only use FishSource score >= 6, with no individual score < 6. In additin,
Client did not record the scores for fish used in fishmeal and
farm will ask for an official statement regarding the composition of the feed
fish oil. There is only information saying that Fishsource
provider in fish oil and fish meal used in feed that we use.
status are >=6.
Timeframe: 50 days
and corrective actions. Refer to: Technical Audit_NC 5.1.4_Letter from Feed
Manufacturer regarding FishSource score_page#01.jpg and Letter from Feed
Manufacturer regarding FishSource score_page#02.jpg.
1
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
6.3.1b
6.4.1b
1
2013
1
2013
Total
0
2
Root Cause: Administrative staff record the death of fish and sanitation to
complete since the first farming operation, but in a different book but have not
been grouped in tables specially good for death records and sanitation.
Corrective Action: We will complete death records from January 2013 to
Dead fish record
update and tabulate well as standard ASC and make it as our standard
Record of sanitation shows the number of dead fish.
To be verified
production data recording.
Records have been kept since May 2013. The record time is
during next audit.
Timeframe: 50 days
not compliant.
IMO statement: approved. Farm has submitted IMO the dead fish summary
record (received 16.01.14) covering 12 month from Jan 13 to Dec. 13 (monthly
basis summary). The implementation of records of daily removals of fish
mortality will be verified during next audit.
Health plan
The health plan was compiled and followed correctly what
standard requires. However, it is written by management,
not reviewed and approved by fish health specialist.
examples:
Root Cause: Tilapia Health Care Management we put only applies to the
company's internal and applies only to farming in Lake Toba. Tilapia health
management that is structured on our experience so far that has proven to be
real able to maintain the level of health and freshness of the fish.
Corrective Action: We submitted SOP of Health Plan which we already
translated the important information (only) in it. And we have received the
written approval from our company's veterinarian.
Timeframe: 50 days
IMO statement: approved. Farm resent corrective action (submitted 21.04.14)
and corrective action. Standard operating procedure has been submitted to
IMO (received 16.01.14). In addition, refer to: Technical Audit_NC 6.4.1b_SOP
of Health Plan.zip (see page 11).
see report (for minors)
corrective measure implemented (for majors)
6/6
NCs
31. Jan 14
see report
DONE
approved
OPEN
approved
DONE
ok
na
open
done
The implementation
of records of daily
removals of fish
mortality was
verified
na
Version 2
03.2014
AUDIT MANUAL - ASC TILAPIA STANDARD
Created by the Tilapia Aquaculture Dialogue
add "1" per criteria in
applicable column below
Initial/recertification
Scope: Species of the Family Cichlidae commonly referred as Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, O. mossambica, O. aureus and O. hybrids)
PRINCIPLE 1. OBEY THE LAW AND COMPLY WITH ALL NATIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
1.1 Criteria: Evidence of legal compliance
Evaluation results
Compliance Criteria (Required Client Actions):
Auditor Evaluation (Required CB Actions):
Description
Business license No. 021510300244 was issued by Simalunggun district in 10th Jan 2014. There is the temporary letter from
Simalungun district confirms that the company allowed to do Tilapia aquaculture in Toba Lake.
Water using permit No. 610/09/BPPTSU/2/12.1/11/2013 is issued by Government of North Sumatra Province in 6 Feb 2013.
It says that the farm can use the water in Toba lake with 60 cages valid to 28th Sep 2014.
Office used permit is issued by Simalunggun district in 17 September 2013.
Land is rent from Mr. Elson Turnip in 12 October 2011 and valid to 12 October 2021.
ok
minor
major
1
a. Maintain copies of applicable land and water use laws.
A. Review compliance with applicable land and water use laws.
b. Maintain original lease agreements or land titles on file.
B. Confirm client holds original lease agreements or land titles.
Land is rent from Mr. Elson Turnip in 12 October 2011 and valid to 12 October 2021.
1
c. Keep records of inspections for compliance with national and local laws and regulations
(only if such inspections are legally required in the country of operation).
C. Review inspection records for compliance with national and local laws and regulations
(as applicable).
Water quality measurement record was done by Simalunggun district in 27th June 2013. The water parameters (TSS, BOD5,
COD, NH3N, pH) were compliant according to No.82 Tahun 2001 Kelas Air. The inspection is done every year.
Government of Simalunggun district issues the labor complance decision in 16 April 2013.
1
d. Obtain permits and maps showing that farm does not conflict with national preservation
D. Verify facility does not conflict with national preservation areas.
areas.
The farm has not have more evidences to prove that the farm does not conflict with national preservation area besides the
licences mentioned in 1.1.1a. However, the the article f of bussiness license saying that one of condition is the farm has to
be out of conservation area.
1
a. Keep records of tax payments.
A. Verify client has records of tax payments to appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Three kinds of taxes that the farm has to pay.
Monthly water used tax: receipts were checked from May 2013 to now.
Yearly buliding used tax: checked the tax receipt in 2013
Yearly farm location tax: checked the tax receipt in 2012, 2013, 2014. The evidence of paying tax from January 2012 to
October 2013, October 2013 to Octber 2014 were available.
1
b. Maintain copies of tax laws for jurisdiction(s) where company operates.
B. Confirm client has a basic knowledge of tax requirements for farm.
Client has a basic knowledge of tax requirement
1
C. Verify client is registered with local or national authorities.
Business license No. 503/4344 IK-PPT/2011 was issued by Simalunggun district in 28th Sep 2011 allowed to do Tilapia
aquaculture in Toba Lake a
It says that the farm can use the water in Toba lake with 60 cages nd valid to 28th Sep 2014.
1
Indicator: Presence of documents proving compliance with local and national
authorities on land and water use (e.g., permits, evidence of lease,
concessions and rights to land and/or water use)
1.1.1
Requirement: Yes
Applicability: All Farms, Farm-Wide
Indicator: Presence of documents proving compliance with all tax laws
1.1.2
Requirement: Yes
c. Register with national or local authorities as an “aquaculture activity".
Indicator: Presence of documents proving compliance with all labor laws and
a. Maintain copies of national labor codes and laws applicable to farm.
regulations
1.1.3
Requirement: Yes
A. Confirm client has specified documentation.
Labor Law No.13 2003 was kept.
1
b. Keep records of farm inspections for compliance with national labor laws and codes
(only if such inspections are legally required in the country of operation).
B. Review inspection records for compliance with national labor laws and codes (as
applicable).
Government of Simalunggun district issues the labor complance decision in 16 April 2013.
1
a. Obtain permits for water quality impacts where applicable.
A. Verify that client obtains permits as applicable.
It says that the farm can use the water in Toba lake with 60 cages nd valid to 28th Sep 2014.
1
b. Comply with all discharge laws or regulations.
B. Review evidence of compliance with discharge laws or regulations.
There is no water discharged permit according to the national regulation. The farm takes water and send to the lab for
testing every month (starting in May 2013). Besides, the district gorvement come twice a year to inspect water quality and
compare with No.82 Tahun 2001.
1
c. Maintain records of monitoring and compliance with discharge laws and regulations as
required.
C. Verify that records show compliance with discharge laws and regulations.
Water record of district Simalunggun gorvement done in 26 July 2013. Compliance.
1
Indicator: Presence of documents proving compliance with regulations or
permits concerning water quality impacts
1.1.4
Requirement: Yes
PRINCIPLE 2. MANAGE THE FARM SITE TO CONSERVE NATURAL HABITAT AND LOCAL BIODIVERSITY
2.1 Criteria: Site information
Indicator: Site location, history and stewardship activities matrix located in
Appendix 1, Table 1 is completed and validated
a. Complete the Receiving Water Information Checklist in Audit Reference 2 (Table 1 in
Appendix 1 of the Standard).
A. Do not schedule on-site audit of client until checklist review is complete.
The checklist is completed. The farm is located in Toba lake, Simulungun area. The water used is from Toba lake.
EIA was done in Feb 2012 and approved by Simalungun gorvement in 2nd Feb 2012.
Dates of the farm establishment was 28 September 2011
1
b. Submit checklist and attachments to CB before the on-site audit.
B. Review client submission for completeness, accuracy, and currency of information.
Request clarification if needed.
Checklist is reviewed.
1
Requirement: Yes
2.1.1
Audit Manual - ASC Tilapia Standard - version 1.0 Jan2012
Audit Manual
Copyright © 2012 Aquaculture Stewardship Council. All rights reserved by Aquaculture Stewardship Council
1 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Site location, history and stewardship activities matrix located in
Appendix 1, Table 1 is completed and validated
Requirement: Yes
2.1.1
C. Verify client information by cross-checking with independent sources (e.g. local
authorities).
2.2 Criteria: Presence of natural or established tilapia species
Indicator: Demonstration that the tilapia species cultured is established[1]
and naturally reproducing in the receiving waters[2], of the operation on or
before 1 January 2008[3]
a. Collect documentary evidence that cultured species was established in receiving waters
on or before 1 January 2008,
or
Collect first hand accounts showing evidence for natural reproduction of tilapia species in
receiving waters on or before 1 January 2008.
Submit evidence with checklist (Audit Reference 2).
EIA was done in Feb 2012 and approved by Simalungun gorvement in 2nd Feb 2012.
1
A. Review evidence for compliance with the Requirement.
Acceptable documentary evidence: peer-reviewed literature; verifiable Environmental
Impact Assessment; and government certification.
The statement from Head of Fisheries and livestock in the district (issued on 10.01.14) stating Tilapia have been cultured in
fresh water lake Toba before January 1, 2008 was available.
1
b. If system does not have receiving waters according as defined in this requirement [2] then
B. Auditor response to 2.2.1A is “not applicable” (NA).
the requirements of Indicator 2.2.1 are not applicable.
See 2.1.1a.
1
c. If water is discharged into municipal water systems, show that there is a mechanism for
treating effluent to eradicate/eliminate macro-biological organisms such as fish.
See 2.1.1a
1
A. Review evidence for compliance with the Requirement.
Acceptable documentary evidence: peer-reviewed literature; verifiable Environmental
Impact Assessment; and government certification.
NA. Asia
1
Acceptable first hand accounts: community testimonials and direct evidence for multiple
size classes of tilapia species in receiving waters captured with cast nets, trapping devices
or fishing.
NA. Asia
1
b. If system does not have receiving waters as defined in this Requirement [2] then the
requirements of Indicator 2.2.2 are not applicable.
B. Auditor response to 2.2.2A is “not applicable” (NA).
NA. Asia
1
c. If water is discharged into municipal water systems, show that there is a mechanism for
treating effluent to eradicate/eliminate macro-biological organisms such as fish.
C. Review evidence to confirm compliance.
NA. Asia
1
Acceptable first hand accounts: community testimonials and direct evidence for multiple
size classes of tilapia species in receiving waters captured with cast nets, trapping devices
or fishing.
2.2.1
Requirement: Yes
Applicability: All farm locations outside Africa (see 2.2.2), Farm-Wide
C. Review evidence to confirm compliance.
[1]
Footnote
“A non-indigenous species is considered established if it has a reproducing population within the basin, as inferred from multiple discoveries of adult and juvenile life stages over at least two consecutive years. Given that successful establishment may require
multiple introductions, species are excluded if their records of discoveries are based on only one or a few non-reproducing individuals whose occurrence may reflect merely transient species or unsuccessful invasions.” (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration)
[2]
Footnote
“Receiving water” is defined as all distinct bodies of water that receive runoff or waste discharges, such as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and estuaries (adapted from World Health Organization). This does not include farm-constructed water courses,
impoundments or treatment facilities.
Footnote
[3]
Where there are no-discharge systems, or no discharge to receiving waters, requirements 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are not applicable.
a. Collect documentary evidence that cultured species and strain was present in receiving
waters on or before 1 January 2008
or
Indicator: In Africa, demonstration that the tilapia species and strain cultured Collect first hand accounts showing evidence for natural reproduction of tilapia species and
strain in receiving waters on or before 1 January 2008.
is established and naturally reproducing in the receiving waters of the
Submit evidence with checklist (Audit Reference 2).
operation or before 1 January 2008
2.2.2
Requirement: Yes
Applicability: Farms located in Africa only (see 2.2.1), Farm-Wide
Audit Manual
2 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
2.3 Criteria: The effects of eutrophication
2.3.1
Instruction to Clients for Indicator 2.3.1 - Diurnal Difference in Dissolved Oxygen (DDDO)
- Sampling for DDDO is done at least once per month and is measured only at Receiving Water Farm Afar (RWFA) site.
Indicator: The percent change in diurnal dissolved oxygen of receiving waters - Measure dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity (or salinity), and temperature at 0.3 m depth. Take all three measurements at the same time.
relative to dissolved oxygen at saturation for the water’s specific salinity and - For each monthly sampling of DDDO, take measurements two times: 1 hour before sunrise and 2 hours before sunset.
- Equations for calculating DDDO are given in Audit Reference 6 (also Equation 1 in Appendix III of the Standard).
temperature
Note 1: For farms located in temperate zones, audits will occur during the 4-month window of peak primary productivity in receiving waters.
Note 2: For farms where thermal destratification occurs (a natural event when oxygen is depleted due to mixing of deep waters with surface waters), the detection of low oxygen
Requirement: ≤ 65%
concentration will be recorded but will not be considered a non-conformance.
Note 3: The pre-sunset measurements are taken at the same time that samples are collected for water quality monitoring (see Instructions for 2.5.1) at the day of the audit.
2.4 Criteria: Water quality in oligotrophic receiving waters
a. Collect ≥ 12 months of DDDO samples if farm was built after December 2009 (farms built
A. Do not schedule on-site audit until client provides baseline DDDO data.
before December 2009 need only 6 months of data).
DO were weekly measured from May 2013 but the data was wrong in time period and location of sampling. The farm has
monthly and correctly measured since Dec 2013. Pending for the VR approval from ASC
b. Calibrate all equipment at the frequency and by the method recommended by the
manufacturer. Calibrate daily if there is no manufacturer's recommendation.
DO equipement (name:YSI Enviromnemtal 550A Field Pocket Guide) has to be calibrated every measurement according to
the manufacturer.
1
c. Adjust DO at saturation to reflect temperature, salinity and altitude during calibration or C. Verify that client adjusts for temperature, salinity and altitude through calibration or in
in calculations (see Audit Reference 6).
calculations (Audit Reference 6).
Client did calibration about saturation, slainity and adtitude.
1
d. Calculate DDDO using equation 1 (Audit Reference 6) and oxygen saturation values
(Audit Reference 5). Enter DDDO values into Water Quality Monitoring Matrix (Audit
Reference 4).
D. Review Water Quality Monitoring Matrix. Verify that all DDDO measurements from the
receiving water comply with the Requirement.
Calculation DDDO prior the audit were available and review.
e. Calculate average annual DDDO for the prior 12-month period. Enter result into Water
Quality Monitoring Matrix (Audit Reference 4).
E. Review monitoring matrix and confirm that mean annual DDDO ≤ 65 %.
DDDO average was from 4% to 12% since Dec 2013.
Farm value was 12%, auditor value was 12%. Compliance
f. Arrange to take DO measurements while the auditor is at the farm.
F. Witness client measuring DO. On-site values should fall within range of farm data for
DDDO. If an out of range measurement is observed, raise a non-conformity.
B. Verify that client calibrates equipment as required.
1
1
See 2.3.1d.
Witness the DO. DO equipment was calibrated every measurement. Client measured at 0.3 meter as required.
1
Data is collected from April 2013 to May 2014. The highest 8.1m and lowest is 5.5m
1
Instruction to Clients for Indicator 2.4.1 - Upper Limit of Secchi Disk Visibility (SD)
The TAD concluded that "Water bodies with an average annual Secchi disk visibility at or above 10 meters are not permitted to be used as receiving waters under the ISRTA because of
their ecological uniqueness and rarity." Thus, Indicator 2.4.2 sets an upper limit on eligibility for certification: SD ≤ 10 m.
- Testing of the upper limit of SD is done only at the RWFA sampling station.
- When depth at RWFA station is < 10 meters, the Requirement does not apply.
- The required methods and equipment for measuring SD are given in Audit Reference 1.
Indicator: Secchi disk visibility[4] limit above which production is not
certifiable
2.4.1
Requirement: 10 meters
a. Collect ≥ 12 months of SD readings at RWFA station (for first audits, farm must have ≥ 6 A. Review matrix to verify that average annual SD < 10 m. If average annual SD equals or
months of data). Enter SD values into Water Quality Monitoring Matrix (Audit Reference 4). exceeds 10 m, production is not certifiable.
b. Arrange to take SD measurements at RWFA during the audit of the farm. The auditor will B. Witness client measuring SD. Repeat the SD measurement yourself at the same time and
Witness client measuring SD. SD of farm was 5.5, auditor is 5.6.
witness and replicate your SD measurements.
location. Record both sets of values.
Audit Manual
3 / 15
1
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Secchi disk visibility[4] limit above which production is not
certifiable
2.4.1
Requirement: 10 meters
-
Footnote
2.4.2
C. Calculate percent error of farm data using Equation 2 (Audit Reference 6). If < 5%
difference is observed between auditor and farm min and max SD readings, then accept the
The both value is in the range of SD reading in 6 months. Compliant.
annual average from farm data. If > 5% difference is observed between auditor and farm
min and max SD readings, then raise a non-conformity (see Audit Reference 3).
1
[4] Measurements shall be taken at the Receiving Water Farm Afar (RWFA) sampling station. See Appendix II for RWFA definition.
Indicator: Compliance with Requirements 2.4.3. & 2.4.4. when Secchi disk
visibility[4] ≤ 5.0 meters
Requirement: Yes
Instruction to Clients for Indicator 2.4.2 - Decision about Oligotrophy using SD
The TAD concluded that it was necessary to protect oligotrophic waters from excessive nutrient loading. They imposed strict limits on concentration of Total Phosphorus (Indicator
2.4.3) and Chlorophyll a (Indicator 2.4.4). To decide whether a given waterbody is oligotrophic or not, the TAD mandated a functional definition: "Oligotrophic receiving waters are
characterized as those that have a Secchi disk visibility equal to or greater than 5.0 meters." Thus, the Secchi disk measurement (SD) will determine whether Standard nutrient limits
shall apply to a given receiving water. The flow chart in Audit Reference 7 shows how to make decisions using SD measurements.
A few points about the logic of the decision-making process must be noted:
- Highly oligotrophic waters (i.e. where the average annual SD is > 10 m) are automatically ineligible from certification because they do not comply with Indicator 2.4.1.
- The decision about oligotrophy is made based solely on SD measurements taken at RWFA (i.e. SD measures from RWRP, RWFO or other locales are not considered).
- The auditor will verify accuracy of farm SD measurements while on site. Where farm and auditor measurements differ, the auditor's SD measurement shall prevail.
- When deciding if Requirement nutrient limits apply to a receiving water body, the auditor shall also compare the annual average SD to the on-site SD measurement.
- If water depth at RWFA is < 5.0 meters and the SD measurement is to 'bottom' then 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 are not applicable.
Note: If the client suspects that an abrupt reduction in SD as measured by the auditor (e.g. case D below) was caused by natural seasonal variations (i.e. summer blooms or rainy season
turbidity), the client may request exemption from 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 but only if it can be shown annual average SD has not decreased by > 5% over the previous 2 years.
Indicator: Total phosphorus concentration limit in receiving waters[4]
a. If auditor measurement shows SD > 5.0 m and annual mean SD < 5.0 m, then (see next
column -->)
A. Proceed to Indicator 2.4.3 and 2.4.4.
See 2.4.2 B
1
b. If auditor measurement shows SD > 5.0 m and annual mean SD > 5.0 m, then (see next
column -->)
B. Stop
Witness client measuring SD. SD of farm was 6.1, auditor is 6.1
1
c. If auditor measurement shows SD ≤ 5.0 m and annual mean SD < 5.0 m, then (see next
column -->)
C. Stop
See 2.4.2 B
1
d. If auditor measurement shows SD ≤ 5.0 m and annual mean SD > 5.0 m, then (see next
column -->)
D. Proceed to Indicator 2.4.3 and 2.4.4.
See 2.4.2 B
1
a. If required under Indicator 2.4.2, collect water samples at RWFA. Determine total
phosphorus concentration.
A. Take duplicate water sample at RWFA. Have sample analyzed by a qualified independent
See 2.4.2 B
laboratory for total phosphorus concentration (for handling, see Indicator 2.5.1)
1
b. Report results to CB.
B. Calculate percent error of farm data using Equation 2 (Audit Reference 6). If > 5%
difference is observed between auditor data and farm min/max, raise a non-conformity
(see Audit Reference 3).
See 2.4.2 B
1
c. Analyze total phosphorus concentrations in all subsequent water samples from monthly
water quality monitoring. Continue until instructed otherwise by the CB.
C. Verify that samples from receiving waters comply the Requirement.
See 2.4.2 B
1
Requirement: ≤ 20 µg/L
2.4.3
Audit Manual
4 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
a. If required under Indicator 2.4.2, collect water samples at RWFA. Determine chlorophyll
a concentration.
A. Take duplicate water sample at RWFA. Have sample analyzed by a qualified independent
See 2.4.2 B
laboratory for chlorophyll a concentration (for handling, see Indicator 2.5.1)
1
b. Report results to CB.
B. Calculate percent error of farm data using Equation 2 (Audit Reference 6). If > 5%
difference is observed between auditor data and farm min/max, raise a non-conformity
(see Audit Reference 3).
See 2.4.2 B
1
c. Analyze chlorophyll a concentrations in all subsequent water samples from monthly
water quality monitoring. Continue until instructed otherwise by the CB.
C. Verify that samples from receiving waters comply the Requirement.
See 2.4.2 B
1
Indicator: Chlorophyll a concentration limit in receiving waters[4]
2.4.4
Requirement: ≤ 4.0 µg/L
2.5 Criteria: Receiving water monitoring
Instruction to Clients for Indicator 2.5.1 - Water Quality Monitoring
- Required parameters for the water quality monitoring program are shown in Appendix II of the Standard.
- Samples are collected from each of the 3 sampling stations: RWRP; RWFO; and RWFA.
- A minimum of one sample is taken per station but the TAD encourages multiple sampling to investigate waterbody dynamics.
- Water samples are taken from a 1-meter column of water or deeper.
- Water samples are taken 2 hours before sunset.
- Water samples must be kept in sealed coolers and kept at a temperature of less than 10⁰C.
Note 1: Laboratories used by the auditor for analyses not performed on site with auditor equipment will use ISO methods as described in Audit Reference 1, and farms are suggested to
periodically send water samples to these laboratories to assure farm analyses are within a 5% level of error.
Note 2: Water samples from RWFA should be taken at the same time that DO is measured for the calculation of DDDO (see Instructions for Indicator 2.3.1) at the day of the audit.
Parameters in RWFO were monthly measured from May 2013
Parameters in RWFA and RWRP were measured from 20 Dec 2013.
1. In RWFO:
Max NTU: 0.78; min NTU: 0.1
Max DO: 7.66, min DO: 4.28
Max conductivity: 152.6 , min 147.7
Max chlorophylla : 2.2211, min: 2.111
Max Amonia - nitrogen: 7.33, min 0.39
Max Phosphate-phosphorus: 18 , min: 13
2.5.1
Indicator: Receiving water quality monitoring matrix completed and
validated (Appendix II)
a. Conduct ≥ 6 months of water quality monitoring before first audit.
A. Do not schedule the on-site audit until client has monitoring dataset.
Requirement: Yes (6 months data, pre-audit, required)
2. In RWFA:
Max DO: 7.69, min DO: 5.21
Max chlorophylla : 2.224; min: 2.0022
Max Phosphate-phosphorus : 18 , min: 13
1
3. In RWRP
Max DO: 8.02 , min DO: 6.14
Max chlorophylla : 2.2019, min: 2.111
Max Phosphate-phosphorus: 20, min: 15
b. Complete the Water Quality Monitoring Matrix (Audit Reference 4) and submit to CB.
B. Review Matrix to verify that client monitored all required parameters at the required
frequency.
The Water Quality Monitoring Matrix is not completed. Data of FA and RP were missing.
1
c. Calibrate all equipment at the frequency and by the method recommended by the
manufacturer. Calibrate daily if there is no manufacturer's recommendation.
C. Verify that client calibrates equipment as required.
Only DO measured by farm. Other parameters were sent to the Lab for testing.
1
d. During the audit of the farm, arrange to conduct water quality monitoring. The auditor
will witness and replicate water sampling.
D. Witness client conducting water quality monitoring. Repeat on-site measurements at the Withness client conductin g water quality monitoring. Reapeat on-site measurement at the same time and location. Both
same time and location. Record both sets of values.
values were recorded.
1
e. Collect water samples and prepare them for shipment as applicable.
E. Collect duplicates of water samples for independent analyses performed by either the CB
or an independent laboratory (i.e. not by farm staff). At a minimum, the independent
Collected the samples at RWFA, RWFO, RWRP and kept below 10oC
analyses shall include determination of: chlorophyll a (ug/L), phosphate-phosphorus (ug/L),
ammonia-nitrogen (ug/L), and turbidity (NTU). Keep samples in a sealed cooler at < 10⁰C.
1
Audit Manual
5 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
f. Perform routine analysis of water samples (i.e. done in the same manner as for previous
months of water quality monitoring).
F. Keep samples under auditor control until analyses are complete or until samples are
placed into custody of a qualified independent laboratory.
Kept the samples in below <10oC ad under control of auditor. Auditor went to the lab in Medan to send the sample.
1
g. Record values for each parameter and submit results to CB.
G. Calculate percent error of farm data using Equation 2 (Audit Reference 6). If > 5%
difference is observed between auditor and farm data, raise a non-conformity (see Audit
Reference 3).
The results showed no more than 5% difference observed beetween auditor and farm data.
1
2.6 Criteria: Wetland conservation
Indicator: Hectares of allowable wetland[5] conversion since 1999[6]
2.6.1
a. Provide a map delineating all wetlands currently within a 5-km radius of the farm.
A. Evaluate whether there is evidence for any wetland conversion occuring within a 5-km
radius of the farm since 1999.
There is the confirmation by Environmental department of County of Simalungun issued in 4 February 2014 and the map
issued in 20106 from Province of North Sumatra showing that there is no wetland withing a 5-km radius of the farm.
The map that farm submitted as corrective action (received 16.01.14) was later supported by Wetlands documents from the
government as evidence which confirms that farm locates outside the wetland area.
1
b. Prepare a map showing pre- and post-1999 wetland coverage at farm site.
B. If evidence shows that farm siting or related activities have resulted in loss of wetland
habitat since 1999, then the client is not certifiable.
See 2.6.1
1
Requirement: 0 ha
Footnote
[5]
“Wetland is defined as lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface.” (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Footnote
PRINCIPLE 3. CONSERVE WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Criteria: Nutrient utilization efficiency
[6]
The year Ramsar contracting parties adopted strategic framework for the development of the Ramsar List
a. Calculate total weight of feed used. Keep invoices.
A. Review invoices to confirm the total weight of feed used.
Invoices to confirm the total weight of feed used were reviewed.
1
b. Calculate total weight of all fish purchased. Keep invoices.
B. Review invoices to confirm the total weight of fish purchased.
Invoices to confirm the total weight of fish purchased were reviewed.
1
c. Calculate total weight of fish produced. Keep invoices for all fish sold or shipped.
C. Review invoices to confirm the total weight of fish sold or shipped.
Invoices to confirm the total weight of fish sold were reviewed.
1
d. Obtain a signed letter from feed manufacturer stating phosphorus content of the feed.
D. Confirm that a letter from the feed manufacturer states phosphorus content.
Letter from Japfa supplier states phosphorus content was verified. The phosphorus content is 1%
1
e. Complete nutrient budget worksheet (Audit Reference 8).
E. Review nutrient budget worksheet for accuracy.
Nutrient budget worksheet was reviewed.
1
-
F. Confirm that total phosphorus added does not exceed requirement.
TP was 26.9 kg. Compliance.
1
Indicator: The total amount of phosphorus added to the culture system per
metric ton of fish produced per year. Use equations from Appendix III.
3.1.1
Requirement: ≤ 27 kg
Applicability: All Farms, Unit of Certification Only
Clients may omit/delete pricing details from purchase documents.
Audit Manual
6 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Farms without post-culture treatment for phosphorus
Indicator: The total amount of phosphorus released from the culture system
per metric ton of fish produced per year. Phosphorus loading will be either
calculated using equations from Appendix III or measured in effluent if there
is post-culture treatment.
3.1.2A
Farms without post-culture treatment for phosphorus
1
1
1
d. Complete nutrient budget worksheet (Audit Reference 8)
D. Review nutrient budget worksheet for accuracy.
1
-
E. Confirm that phosphorus released does not exceed requirement.
TP release was 13.68. Compliance
1
Applicability: Farms with no post-culture treatment for phosphorus, Unit of
Certification Only
Farms with post-culture treatment for phosphorus
3.1.2B
F. Complete steps A-D (above) for Indicator 3.1.2A.
NA. No post-culture treatment for phosphorus.
1
G. View evidence for effective post-culture treatment.
1
H. Review records for phosphorus capture.
1
I. Review calculations for accuracy.
1
-
J. Confirm that the total amount of phosphorus released does not exceed requirement.
1
h. Keep records of the quantity of phosphorus captured by treatment.
Applicability: Farms that use post-culture treatment for phosphorus, Unit of
Certification Only
i. Subtract net phosphorus captured in treatment facility from total output of phosphorus,
expressed as kg P/mt fish produced over prior 12-month period.
3.1.3
Farms with post-culture treatment for phosphorus
Indicator: The total amount of phosphorus released from the culture system f. Complete steps a-d (above) for Indicator 3.1.2A.
per metric ton of fish produced per year. Phosphorus loading will be either
calculated using equations from Appendix III or measured in effluent if there g. Describe method for treatment (e.g. sludge removal for fertilizer, water treatment
facilities, etc.) and means of quantifying phosphorus capture.
is post-culture treatment.
1
Indicator: Calculation and verification of the total amount of nitrogen applied
to the culture system. Use equations from Appendix III.
1
Requirement: Measured in kg nitrogen/mt fish/year
1
d. Obtain a signed letter from feed manufacturer stating nitrogen content of the feed.
D. Confirm that a letter from the feed manufacturer states nitrogen content.
Letter from Japfa supplier states nitrogen content was verified. The phosphorus content is 5.12%
1
e. Complete nutrient budget worksheet (Audit Reference 8)
Nutrient budget worksheet was reviewed. TN was 137.9kg
Audit Manual
7 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Calculation and verification of the total amount of nitrogen
released from the farming activity. Use equations from Appendix III.
1
1
1
d. Use equation from Audit Reference 6 to calculate total amount of nitrogen released.
D. Confirm calculation.
Comfirm the calculation. TN released was 87.27kg
1
e. Complete nutrient budget worksheet (Audit Reference 8)
1
Requirement: Measured in kg nitrogen/mt fish/year
3.1.4
3.2 Criteria: Groundwater salinization
3.2.1
Indicator: Percent change in specific conductance of freshwater from a
drilled well at the time of drilling and the time of audit. This is required when
freshwater wells are used in combination with brackish surface water for the
culture of tilapia. Freshwater aquifers are defined as having a specific
conductance less than 1,300 µS/cm.
Requirement: ≤ 10 %
Applicability: Only farms where brackish water is used for tilapia culture,
Farm-Wide
a. Inform CB if brackish water is used for tilapia culture (3.2.1 applies only to farms where
surface water is > 1,300 µS/cm or initial well water is < 1,300 µS/cm).
A. Confirm whether client uses brackish water for tilapia culture. If not, then auditor
response to 3.2.1B-E is “not applicable” (NA).
NA. Water used is from Toba lake
1
b. Show well locations on map of farm.
B. Confirm well locations.
1
c. Record date of drilling and initial specific conductance (µS/cm) at each well.
C. Retain a record of location and initial specific conductance for wells.
1
d. Measure specific conductance of all wells less than 4 weeks before audit.
D. Review updated measurements of specific conductance. Compare values to initial
measurements taken from the same wells.
1
-
E. Verify that specific conductance at wells did not change by > 10 %.
1
PRINCIPLE 4. CONSERVE SPECIES DIVERSITY AND WILD POPULATIONS
4.1 Criteria: Escapes from aquaculture facilities
4.1.1
Indicator: Presence of net mesh or grills/screens, barriers on inlets and
outlets of culture vessels (e.g., tanks, ponds and raceways), and mesh on all
netted confinement units (e.g., cages and impoundments), appropriately
sized to retain the stocked fish
a. Install net mesh, screens and barriers in required locales.
A. Inspect site to verify that net mesh, screens and barriers are in place.
b. Use meshes that are appropriately sized to retain stocked fish.
B. Inspect site to verify meshes are appropriately sized to retain stocked fish.
Inspect site. Nets are appropriately sized to retain stocked fish.
1
a. Establish program for regular inspection of permanent barriers.
A. Inspect site to verify effectiveness of inspection program.
Net inspection is done before stocking, when changing the net size and everydays.
1
b. Record the dates, findings and actions taken in an 'Inspection Register'.
B. Review records.
Records were reviewed. Net states, date of inspection, finding and action taken were mentioned in the Net inspection form.
1
C. Do not schedule the first audit until client submits 6 months of inspection data.
Records have been kept since 1st June 2013
1
Indicator: Presence of trapping devices placed in effluent/drainage canals or a. Establish program for monitoring escapes with trapping devices.
in between cages to sample for escapees, and a record of findings and actions
taken
b. Record all traps used, findings and actions taken.
Requirement: Yes
A. Inspect farm to verify that trapping devices are used in an effective and representative
way for monitoring escapees.
The farm has has the program for monitring escapee with trapping devices in the Protocol complied in the first of April
2014. There are trapping devices used in the farm ()net size is 3 inches)
1
B. Review records.
Farm has recorded the number of escapees.
1
C. Collect data for 6 months before first audit.
C. Do not schedule the first audit until client submits 6 months of monitoring data.
Data is collected from 5th Dec 2013
1
-
A. For cage systems, confirm that distance between cage bottom and bottom sediment is ≥
Net cage length is 6metres while the Toba lake, the place where the farm is located is around 50 metres to 70 metres.
3 m.
Requirement: Yes
1 inches used for the fishes less than 150gram, 2 inches used for the fishes than more than 150gram.
1
Indicator: Presence of net mesh, or grills/screens and permanent barrier
inspection register recording dates, findings and actions taken, including
mitigation or fish containment structure repairs
4.1.2
Requirement: Yes
4.1.3
Indicator: In cage culture systems, the minimum distance between the
bottom of the cage and the bottom of the receiving waters where the cage is
placed
4.1.4
Requirement: ≥ 3.0 m
1
Applicability: Cage systems only, Farm-Wide
If the farm is a land-based system, the client shall arrange to have tilapia cultures sampled
for percentage of male fish (or sterile fish) as follows:
For land-based systems, the auditor shall confirm that clients follow requirements for
determination of percentage of male fish (or sterile fish) in culture.
1
a. Select three (3) culture vessels at random.
A. Verify samples were selected at random.
NA. Net cages
b. Capture 40 fish from each culture vessel for a total of 120 fish.
B. Verify that fish originated from different culture vessels.
NA. Net cages
1
c. Determine the number of fish in the sample that are male (or sterile).
C. Verify method used to determine sex (or sterility).
NA. Net cages
1
d. Calculate the percentage of male fish (or sterile fish) in culture.
D. Review results to confirm compliance with the requirement.
NA. Net cages
1
e. Alternate approach when farm has fewer than 3 culture vessels: capture a total of 100
fish and determine the percentage male fish (or sterile fish).
E. As for 4.1.5D.
NA. Net cages
1
Indicator: The minimum percentage of males or sterile fish in a culture unit
4.1.5
Requirement: 95 %
Applicability: Land-based systems only, Farm-Wide
4.2 Criteria: Transporting live tilapia
Audit Manual
8 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Presence and evidence of use of fish transport containers that
have no escape path for fish
4.2.1
Requirement: Yes
A. Inspect site to verify containers do not provide escape paths for live fish transported to
the farm.
b. For transport of live fish away from the farm (e.g harvested fish), ensure that containers B. Inspect site to verify containers do not provide escape paths for live fish transported
do not provide escape paths for fish.
from the farm.
Indicator: Allowance for the culture of transgenic tilapia
a. Maintain records for the origin of all cultured stocks including the supplier name, address
A. Review records to confirm compliance with the requirement
and contact person(s) for stock purchases.
4.3 Criteria: Transgenic fish
4.3.1
a. For transport of live fish to the farm (e.g. fry), ensure that containers do not provide
escape paths for fish.
Inspect site with containers when harvesting. Nets are covered to prevent escapees.
1
Obsever harvest. Harvested fishes are collected and moved to the harvested cages. Harversted cagrs were pulled to the land
and till kept in the cages in 24 hours. Afterthat, these fishes were transferred into the truck by the baskets with net coverred
to prevent from escapees.
For fingerlings, they are transferred from the trucks to the net cages via the tanks. No escapees/
1
The farm uses fingerlings from their own hatchery. Records are reviewed and show complance.
1
Requirement: No (None allowed)
b. Purchase documents must confirm that culture stock is not transgenic.
B. If the auditor suspects that transgenic fish are in culture, test stock identity by collecting
The first Indonesian Molecular Biotechnology Company did the test to prove that the fish is not transgenic.
3 fish and sending to an ISO 17025 certified laboratory for genetic analysis.
Audit Manual
9 / 15
1
Version 2
03.2014
4.4 Criteria: Predator control
Indicator: Use of lethal[7] predator control
4.4.1
[7]
List of predator was prepared. There are Bubulcus ibis kuntul, Niseatus bartelsi, Clarias batrachus, Varanus albigularis. The
farm has records showing the date finding.
1
-
B. Inspect sites to verify no use of lethal predator controls.
No lethal predator controls.
1
1
The use of lethal predator control is prohibited, unless a predator becomes impinged in netting and is required to be euthanized.
Indicator: Mortality of IUCN red listed species
4.4.2
A. Review list.
Requirement: No (None allowed)
Footnote
Requirement: 0 (zero)
Instruction to Clients for Indicator 4.4.2 - Presence of IUCN Red List Species
Determine whether IUCN red list species are present in the region as follows:
- go to http://www.iucnredlist.org/
- follow to "other search options"
- select "Taxonomy"
- select "Animalia"
- indicate appropriate "Location", "Systems", "Habitat",
- click on "run search" and record species listed and whether they are threatened by the farming activity.
Note: The IUCN Red List uses nine categories for ranking species according to threat, and search results may include species that are not currently threatened. For the purposes of
determining whether a farm complies with indicator 4.4.2, species in the following IUCN categories may be excluded from further analyses: "Not evaluated", "Data Deficient", and
"Least Concern".
a. Perform analysis. Record all IUCN red list species and farm-related threats.
A. Repeat analysis to verify that client obtained an accurate result.
IUCN documents from the government as evidence which confirms the presence of fish in the IUCN list and call of the
government for preservation can be used to support for the IUCN analysis
b. If an IUCN Red List species is identified in region of the farm (including receiving and
source waters), take appropriate precautions.
B. Verify that client takes appropriate precautions as required.
See 4.4.2
PRINCIPLE 5. USE RESOURCES RESPONSIBLY
5.1 Criteria: Use of wild fish for feed (fishmeal and oil)
a. Obtain a signed letter from feed manufacturer stating percentage of fish meal and/or
fish oil (Audit Reference 9) in feed used during the past 12 months.
Indicator: Feed Fish Equivalence Ratio (FFER). See Appendix IV for feed
calculations.
5.1.1
a. Prepare a list of all predator control devices and their locations.
Requirement: ≤ 0.8
Only Japfa feed supplier. The signed letter from feed manufacture was obtained, The percentage of fish meal is 5%, fish oil is
1.5%.
1
b. For FFER calculations, exclude fish meal and fish oil derived from rendering of seafood byB. Verify client excludes rendered seafood byproducts from calculation of FFER.
products (e.g. the 'trimmings' from a human consumption fishery).
There is confirmation about fishes used in fishmeal are byproduct.
1
c. Calculate FFER using equations in Audit Reference 6 (also Appendix IV of Standard).
C. Verify that FFER calculations were done correctly.
See 5.1.1 b
FFER of fishoil were done correctly.
1
-
D. Confirm that FFER complies with the Requirement
Max FFER was 0.97 , min FFER was 0.53. Average FFER is 0.66. Compliance
1
A. Verify that values are stated in a letter from the feed manufacturer.
Audit Manual
10 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
a. Obtain a signed letter from feed manufacturer identifying the origin (genus, species and
region harvested) of fish used in fish meal/oil (Audit Reference 9).
5.1.2
A. Verify that species used in fishmeal are identifed in a letter from the feed manufacturer.
Indicator: Allowance for the use of fishmeal and fish oil in tilapia feed
containing products from fisheries that are listed on the IUCN’s Red List or
the species list maintained by the Convention on the International Trade of
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Requirement: None
b. Determine if any of the species used in fish feed are on the IUCN's Red List following the
B. Repeat search of IUCN database to verify that client obtained an accurate result.
instructions given for Indicator 4.4.2.
The signed letter from feed manufacture was obtained showing the origin of fish used in fish meal and fish oil.
Fishes used from fish meal: Thunnus Alalunga and Thunnus Albacares, harvested fromPacific Ocean area of Fiji and
American Samoa. Byproduct is used.
Fish used in Fish oil is Orcorhynchus gorbuscha caudght in Sand Point, Alaska area.
1
Repeated search of IUCN database. Client obtained an accurate result.
Thunnus Alalunga and Thunnus Albacares are categorized in the IUCN's Red list as "Near Threatened". However, fishmeal in
feed is by-products of these processed fishes, It does not come from direct fisheries. Orcorhynchus gorbuscha used in fishoil
is not in the IUCN Red list. Pending for the suggestion decision from ASC.
1
c. Determine if any of the species used in fish feed are listed by CITES as follows:
- go to http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html
- select option "Species" and click "find it"
Indicator: Timeframe for producers to source feed containing fishmeal or fish
oil originating from fisheries deemed sustainable by an ISEAL member’s
accredited certification scheme
5.1.3
Requirement: 5 years following the date of ISRTA publication
C. Repeat search of CITES database to verify that client obtained an accurate result.
Repeated search of CITES databased. Client obtained an accurate result.
1
a. Prepare a policy stating the organization's support of efforts to shift feed manufacturers A. Verify that the client's policy supports sustainable feed sourcing (e.g. programs at
to an ISEAL-accredited certification scheme for fish meal/oil origins.
http://www.isealalliance.org/portrait/full%20member).
The policy stating the organization's support of effores to shift feed manufactures to an ISEAL-accredited certification
scheme for fish meal and fish oil was available. Date of issue is the first of April 2014.
1
b. Prepare a letter stating the organization's intent to source feed containing fishmeal or
fish oil originating from fisheries deemed sustainable by an ISEAL member’s accredited
certification scheme by 19 December 2014.
B. Obtain a copy of client's letter of intent.
The policy stating the organization's intent to source feed containing fish meal and fish oil originating from fisheries deemed
sustainable by an ISEAL member's accredited certification scheme by 19 December 2014 was issued in the first of April
2014.
1
c. Affirm support of the process through internal and external communications (e.g.
correspondence with feed manufacturers).
C. Confirm client's support with documented evidence (letters, communications).
NA. Feed supplier used now is in their own one.
1
Instructions to Clients for Indicator 5.1.4 - FishSource Scores of Feed Species
For species from which fishmeal or fish oil is derived, determine FishSource scores as follows:
- go to http://www.fishsource.org/
- select "Species" drop down tab to the left and enter relevant species
- select the top tab that reads "Scores"
Indicator: Prior to achievement of 5.1.3, the average FishSource score
characterizing the fishery(ies) from which the fishmeal or fish oil is derived.
See Appendix V for explanation of FishSource scoring.
5.1.4
a. Record FishSource scores for each species from which fishmeal or fish oil is derived.
A. Confirm that client has recorded scores for each species. Repeat FishSource analysis to
verify that client obtained an accurate result.
b. Confirm that average score is ≥ 6.0 with no individual score < 6.0.
B. If any scores is < 6.0 then the feed does not comply with the Requirement. If the average
Scores are above 6.
score is < 6.0 then the feed does not comply with the Requirement.
1
c. Confirm that there is no 'N/A' in a stock assessment category.
C. If an 'N/A' appears in the sock assessment category then the feed does not comply with
the Requirement.
NA. Scores are available.
1
d. If the species is not on the website it means that a FishSource assessment is not
available. Contact FishSource via Sustainable Fisheries Partnerships to identify the species
as a priority for assessment.
D. If the species does not have a FishSource score then the fish feed does not comply with
the Requirement.
1
1
Requirement: ≥ 6.0 with no individual score < 6.0 or an N/A in the stock
assessment category
Client did record the scores for fish used in fishmeal and fish oil.
Thunnus Alalunga is Latin name of Albacares and found the scores with above 6 in the fishsource.org.
Thunnus Albacares is Latin name of Yellowfin tuna and found the scores with above 6 in the fishsource.org.
1
e. In lieu of FishSource scores, a farm undergoing a first audit may substitute a signed letter
of intent from their feed manufacturer stating commitment to provide feed complying with E. Verify that client has manufacturer's letter of intent as applicable to first audits.
FishSource scoring requirements. However at the second audit, all farms shall demonstrate Thereafter, client must demonstrate that all feeds used are in compliance with the
that they have used feed that complies with the FishSource scoring requirements for a
Requirement.
minimum of 6 months.
Audit Manual
11 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Criteria 5.2 Criteria: Preference for better feed manufacturers
A. Review feed supplier list and cross-check against feed purchases.
Only one feed supplier is Japfa. The contact information were reviewed.
1
b. Prepare a letter of intent to preferentially source feed from suppliers who have a
traceability and sustainability policy by 19 December 2011 (Audit Reference 9; also see
Indicator 5.1.3B).
B. Verify that client has prepared the letter (it must cover traceability; see Indicator
5.1.3B).
The letter of intent to preferentially source from supplier who have a traceability and sustainability was made in 21stApril
2014
1
Requirement: 2 years following the date that the ISRTA are published
c. Communicate your oganization's policy to each feed supplier.
C. Verify that client communicated policy to feed supplier.
1
d. Request a traceability policy from each feed supplier (or letter of intent to establish one)
D. Verify client requested documents from each supplier.
before 19 December 2011.
1
Indicator: Timeframe for producers to provide evidence of preferential
sourcing of feed products from feed manufacturers that have a sustainable
sourcing policy for feed ingredients, and traceability of feed ingredients
5.2.1
a. Compile a list of all feed suppliers with contact information.
E. Verify client requested documents from each supplier. Auditors shall allow clients one
e.Request sustainability policy from each feed supplier (or letter of intent to establish one)
year (until 19 December 2012) to demonstrate full compliance with 5.2.1c-e in accordance NA. Feed supplier used now is in their own one. See 5.2.1
before 19 December 2011.
with forthcoming ASC guidelines.
5.3 Criteria: Energy use
Indicator: Identification of the energy sources and calculation and
verification of total energy used at the culture facility
5.3.1
Requirement: Measured in kilojoules/mt fish/year
1
Instructions to Clients for Indicator 5.3.1 - Calculating Total Energy used by Farm
Calculate the total energy consumption of the farm over the prior 12-month period by completing the Energy Budget Worksheet (Audit Reference 10). Include all sources of energy
consumption on the farm site such as aeration, boat engines, electricity for housing, etc. Do not include off-site energy consumption such as transport of personnel to or from the farm,
or transport of fish to or from the farm. Report energy consumption in kilojoules (Note: 1 megajoule = 1,000 kiojoules). The different energy units can be converted to kilojoules using
the following website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=about). Report the grand total energy used as kilojoules/mt fish produced/year.
a. Complete the Energy Budget Worksheet (Audit Reference 10).
A. Verify that client completed the Energy Budget Worksheet.
There are three kinds of enegry used in the farm: electricity, fuel and gas. The grand total energy used as kilojoules/mtfish
producted/year are 2,396,943
1
PRINCIPLE 6. MANAGE FISH HEALTH AND WELFARE IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER
6.1 Criteria: Stocked tilapia recovery
Indicator: Percent recovery of fish stocked in production stages after they
have attained a size of 100 grams
6.1.1
Requirement: ≥ 65
Instructions to Clients for Indicator 6.1.1 - Calculating Percent Recovery of Production Stages
Calculate the annual percent recovery of fish stocked in production stages after they have attained a size of 100 grams. All steps refer to quantities for the entire preceding 12-month
period.
1) Stage of production where fish attain an average weight of 100 g (estimated) identified.
2) Estimated loss of fish (#) prior to average size of 100 g being achieved for all production cycles (in ponds, cages, tanks, etc.) for the prior 12-month period.
3) Standing stock of fish (#) after average size of 100 g achieved.
4) The number of fish harvested to market for the 12 month period divided by (#3 above) multiplied by 100 is equal to the percent recovery after 100 g.
5) Average percent recovery for prior 12-month period at grow-out site and verification of calculations from farm records.
Note 1: The method presented above is the required formula for calculating annual percent recovery of fish stocked in production stages. It is acknowledged that some farms may have
production cycles which make it difficult to accurately collect the information needed to complete this calculation. In such cases, the client may propose to modify the abovementioned
formula provided that the client can show such change is justified. Written justification shall be submitted to the CB together with a detailed description of farm production cycles and a
complete explanation showing how a modified formula will yield a more accurate calculation of annual percent recovery of fish stocked in production stages. Proposals must be
reviewed and approved by the CB before the audit.
Note 2: Recovery does not include recruitment of tilapia resulting from reproduction within the culture system.
Audit Manual
12 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
6.1.1
Requirement: ≥ 65
6.2 Criteria: Chemicals
6.2.1
a. Collect 12 months of data on recovery before the first audit.
A. Make sure client has collected 12 months of data on recovery before first audit.
Data on recovery rate has been collected since Dec 2012.
1
b. If the farm proposes to modify the formula for calculating percent recovery, submit
written justification to the CB before the first audit.
B. Review justification for using an alternate calculation if applicable.
The farm does not propose to modify the formular for calculating.
1
c. Calculate percent recovery according to the instructions above.
C. Review calculations and verify that client's production records support the conclusions.
Calculation were correct during the audit. Twice a month, the farm will weight to know kg of the fish. When the fishes
reach 100gram, the farm uses this data to count recovery rate.
1
-
D. Verify that percent recovery complies with Requirement.
There were 42 harvested time since Jan 2013. There was 9 harvested time with compliant recovery rate. The rest was non
compliant. Average recovery rate was 65.71%. Compliance.
1
a. Prepare a list of all chemicals used on the farm in the previous 12 months. [Note: The
TAD considers any substance added by the producer to culture system - aside from water
and feed - to be a chemical.]
A. Review list. Cross-check against purchases (6.2.2) and health events (6.2.4).
NA. No chemical used in the farm
1
Indicator: Allowance for the use of chemicals and therapeutants for disease
and pest control that are banned in the importing or producing country
b. Prepare a list of suppliers of all chemicals or therapeutants used.
B. Review supplier list to identify the country of origin for each chemical.
1
Requirement: None
c. Prepare a list of all the countries where the product has been exported to in the prior 12C. Review list and cross-check against documentary evidence (e.g. sales documents).
month period.
1
d. Prepare a list of banned substances for the producing and exporting country and the
national authority or regulating body in producing country (contact information required).
D. Review evidence and cross-check against published information.
1
e. Maintain records of voluntary and/or mandatory chemical residue testing conducted or
commissioned by the farm from prior 12-month period.
E. Verify records.
1
Indicator: Allowance for the prophylactic use of antibiotics, prior to any
evidence of a disease problem
a. Maintain records for all purchases of antibiotics (invoices, prescriptions) .
A. Review purchase records and calculate total amount procured by client. Inspect storage
area to verify quantities on site.
NA. No antibiotics used.
1
Requirement: None
b. Maintain a log of all health related events. For each event record the duration and the
requirements for use of antibiotics or therapeutants (see also 6.2.4).
B. Review log of health events to verify that the quantity of antibiotic applied by the client
does not suggest prophylactic use.
1
c. Determine the total amount of antibiotics used in prior 12-month period.
C. Verify total amount of antibiotics used is equal to total amount prescribed.
1
6.2.2
Audit Manual
13 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Minimum hold time required before any water in which fish have
been fed with feed containing methyl or ethyl testosterone can be released
6.2.3
Requirement: ≥ 48 hours
a. Hatchery facility must have the capacity to retain any water that contains hormones for
sex reversal for a period of ≥ 48 hours .
A. Inspect hatchery to verify effectiveness of the systems to retain any water that contains
NA. No hatchery is located at the grow-out site.
hormones for sex reversal.
a. Keep a record of all therapeutants used for prior 12-month period.
A. Review record of therapeutant usage.
NA. No therapeutant usage
1
b. Maintain all prescriptions for therapeutants for prior 12-month period.
B. Verify that therapeutants were used only under prescription.
1
c. If prescriptions are made by health professionals who are not veterinarians, obtain
evidence of competency (e.g. accreditation) in the diagnosis of fish disease and drug
therapy.
C. If a non-vetrenarian wrote prescriptions, confirm that the individual is qualified as an
accredited fish health professional.
1
Indicator: Calculation and verification of the total amount of each antibiotic
(active ingredient) used per mt fish produced per year.
a. Determine total amount of antibiotic used for prior 12-month period.
A. Verify against record of antibiotic use (see 6.2.2C).
1
Requirement: Measured in kilograms of active ingredient of individual
antibiotic/mt of fish produced/year
b. Adjust total weight of antibiotic by the fraction of active ingrediant.
B. Verify fraction of active ingredient in antibiotic with manufacturer's data.
1
c. Determine total weight of fish produced for prior 12-month period. Calculate kg active
ingredient/mt of fish produced/year.
C. Verify that calculations are accurate.
1
Indicator: Health records proving all therapeutants were used or are being
used as prescribed by a veterinary or accredited fish health professional
6.2.4
6.3 Criteria: Mortalities
Indicator: Presence of records demonstrating that fish mortalities are
removed consistently on a minimum daily basis
6.3.1
1
Requirement: Yes
6.2.5
This indicator applies only to farms where the hatchery is located at the grow-out site (e.g. the grow-out facility owns and operates the hatchery) and where the hatchery discharges
into the receiving waters. During the holding period, there shall be no risk of exposure of humans or livestock to methyl or ethyl testosterone.
a. Ensure that fish mortalities are removed from cultures on a daily basis.
A. Do site inspection to confirm there are no dead fish in cultures whose advanced state of
Deadfish is collected everyday.
decomposition would suggest mortality is > 1 day.
1
b. Maintain records of daily removals of fish mortalities.
B. Verify client's records show daily removals of fish mortality for prior 12-month period.
Record of sanitation shows the number of deadfish. Records have kept since May 2013. The record time is not compliant.
1
A. Review policy to verify it addresses all requirements of 6.3.2 of the Standard.
Deadfish are buried in the fixed place.
1
B. Review disposal records to verify compliance.
Record of sanitation shows the number of deadfish. Records have kept since May 2013.
1
C. Do site inspection to confirm that farm policy towards mortality is implemented and
mortality records are accurate.
Site inspection. The farm policy towards mortality is implemented. Records are accurate.
1
Requirement: Yes
6.3.2
a. Prepare a farm policy that addresses all requirements of the Standard in regards to the
Indicator: Evidence proving acceptable disposal of dead fish, (i.e., landfill
acceptable disposal of dead fish.
receiving receipts, sales receipts, permits or approvals for onsite burial, and
assurance if converted to animal meals not destined for the culture of tilapia)
b. Maintain records of mortality disposals as evidence of compliance.
Requirement: Yes
-
Audit Manual
14 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
6.4 Criteria: Fish health management
6.4.1
Indicator: Presence and evidence of implementation of a fish health plan that
is site-specific and contains effective methods for 1) Protecting the farm from
introduction of pathogens, 2) Preventing the spread of pathogens within the
farm and to the receiving waters and 3) Reducing the potential for
development of disease resistance by ensuring responsible therapeutant use
Requirement: Yes
a. Prepare a fish health plan that addresses all requirements of the Standard, including:
1) Protecting the farm from introduction of pathogens,
2) Preventing the spread of pathogens within the farm and to the receiving waters, and
3) Reducing the potential for development of disease resistance by ensuring responsible
therapeutant use
A. Review fish health plan to verify it addresses all requirements of Indicator 6.4.1 of the
Standard and that the plan is site-specific.
Fish health plan is reviewed and show that all requirment of Indicator 6.4.1 are addressed. This plan is SOP, version 2 2013
1
b. Obtain review and written approval of the fish health plan by the farm's veterinarian or
health professional.
B. Confirm that the farm's veterinarian or health professional has reviewed and approved
the fish health plan.
The health plan was complied by management and has not yet been reviewed and approved by the health professional, Ms.
Hanna Sulaiman Harun. - VET. Her certificate was reviewed.
1
-
C. Do site inspection to verify that fish health plan is effectively implemented and
understood by farm staff.
Site inspection. Fish health plan is effectively implemented and undestood by the staff.
Total
1
146
2
0
Total should amount to 44
Audit Manual
15 / 15
Version 2
03.2014
Annex 2c
Tigaras/PT. Suri Tani Pemuka - Tilapia Farming JAPFA
Criteria
Date of
Findings
Recomendation
minor NC
major NC
NC
Action plan
Deadline
Action plan
approved by IMO
Status of implementation of action plan
initial 6 re-audit
surveillance I
surveillance II
2014
2015
2016
Root Cause: xxx
Corrective Action: xxx
Timeframe: xxx
1. Anti Child Labor Policy and Procedure are not
available.
7.1 Criteria: Child
labor
2013
1
1. Anti Forced Labor Policy is not available.
Root Cause: Actually Indonesian government already had a Law on Anti
Child Labor, so we thought we did not need to make any internal company
written policy about it, because it's already prohibited by law in Indonesia.
Corrective Action: Produce the Anti Child Labor Policy
Time frame: Before end of April 2014
IMO statement: approved from recommendation (as optional). Farm
submitted the action plan (submitted 21.04.14) and corrective actions.
Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.1.1_Anti Child Labor Policy
Root Cause: Actually Indonesian government already had a Law on Forced
Bonded and Compulsary Labor, so we thought we did not need to make
any internal company written policy about it, because it's already
arranged by law in Indonesia.
Corrective Action: Produce Anti Forced Labor Policy
IMO statement: approved. Farm submitted the action plan (submitted
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to:
Social Audit_NC 7.2.1_Anti Forced Labor Policy.jpg
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
2. Overtime voluntary form can not be verified since Root Cause: Actually we've had Overtime Voluntary Form, but it was kept
Management can not show any supporting
in Payroll department, and we did not anticipate to bring the documents
documents to auditor.
to the site for auditor verification purposes.
Corrective Action: Maintain Overtime Voluntary Form to be kept updated.
To be verified
during next
audit
IMO statement initial audit December 2013:
Farm submitted the action plan (submitted 21.04.14) and corrective
actions. Refer to: Form submitted only as in file: Social Audit_NC
7.2.1_Overtime Voluntary Form.jpg and Social Audit_NC
7.2_Permission of Working Hours and Resting Time Deviation for
certain Jobs 9 (submitted 25.04.14). The updated records in voluntary
form will be verified.
approved
Partially done (to be verified during next audit)
IMO statement re-audit May 2014:
Form complied in April 2014. Checked one form in 18 April 2014 Worker name: Abdul Muis Sihaloho.
DONE
3. Employee file is not available for 1 of 9 workers
interviewed.
7.2 Criteria: Forced,
bonded,
compulsory labor
2013
Root Cause: Some documents were kept in Head Office and we did not
anticipate to bring the documents to the site, for auditor verification
purposes.
Corrective Action: Completing the file of the mentioned worker (Efran).
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.2_Efran's
file.zip
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
1
14 A ASC Annex 2c (1)_Tigaras (PT Suri Tani Pemuka) JAPFA_33.3.2c
1 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
4. 4 of 9 workers interviewed did not receive Letter
of Appointment to become permanent employees.
7.2 Criteria: Forced,
bonded,
compulsory labor
2013
1
Root Cause: Some documents were kept in the Head Office and we did not
anticipate to bring the documents to the site, for auditor verification
purposes.
Corrective Action: Ensure that Appointmet Letter for the permanent
employees are always updated and distributed to the worker.
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.2_Permanent
Employees Appointment.zip
5. Employment contracts for temporary employees Root Cause: Some contracts were kept in the Head Office and we did not
have already expired for 5 of 9 employees
anticipate to bring the documents on site for auditor verification
interviewed and they do not have a new contract.
purposes.
Corrective Action: Ensure that the new employment contract are available
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_7.2_New Contracts
for Temporary Workers.zip
6. Temporary Contract Agreements are not legalized Root Cause: The application for legalization to Local Labor Agency was
by Local Labor Depatment.
under process by the time auditor came.
Corrective Action: Apply and get the legalization from the Local Labor
department for the Temporary Contract Agreements
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_7.2_Application
Letter for Temporary Contract Agreements Legalization.zip and Social
Audit_NC 7.2_Legalization of Temporary Contract Agreement.jpg
7. 9 of 9 workers interviewed did not received copy Root Cause: The copy of contract agreement/ appointment letter is not
of contract agreement / appointment Letter.
timely distributed and documented.
Corrective Action: We will make sure these employees get the copy of
contract agreement/ appointment letter, and will make a receiving
evidence from every worker, as our evidence.
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
To be verified
during next
audit
Farm submitted the action plan (submitted 21.04.14) and corrective
actions refer to 7.2.4-7.2.6. However, the evidence of receiving the
copy of the contract will be verified.
approved
Contract agreement receiving list was checked. Wokers signs when they
receiving the contract agrrement.
DONE
7.3 Criteria:
Discrimination in
the work
environment
2013
1
1. Anti Discrimination Policy and Procedures not
available.
2. No policy and porcedure in place for protecting
pregnant and lactating mothers.
3. No policy and procedure against HIV
discrimination in place.
Root Cause: Negligence against the ASC audit manual.
Corrective Action: Produce Anti Discrimination Policy
Social Audit_NC 7.3.1_Anti Discrimination Policy.jpg
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.3.1_Anti
Discrimination Policy.jpg
2 / 10
NCs
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
Version 2
03.2014
1. No Risk Assessment Analysis in place.
2. No Evacuation Training for all employees during
year 2013.
3. No Fire Drill Training for all employees during
year 2013.
4. No PPE Awareness and MSDS Training for all
employees during year 2013.
5. No early warning alarm system at office and
farming area.
6. MSDS for all chemicals used are not posted at
Chemical ware house.
7. Factory should provide 1 fire extinguisher at
Generator Room.
8. Factory should provide permit for genarator
machine.
9. Factory should provide ear plugs at Generator
Room.
10. Factory should install inside cover for every
electrical panel boxes.
11. Found instalation electrical cabling are not
covered properly in generator room.
7.4.1 Criteria:
Health and safety of
workers
2013
Root Cause: Negligence against ASC audit manual.
Corrective Action:
1. Conduct Risk Assessment Analysis (Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Risk
Assessment Analysis.jpg)
2. Conduct Evacuation Training for all employees (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Attendance Record of Evacuation Training.zip)
3. Conduct Fire Drill Training for all employees (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Attendance Record of Fire Drill.zip)
4. Conduct PPE and MSDS Awareness for all employees (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Attendance Record of PPE & MSDS Training.zip)
IMO statement: approved action plan. Farm submitted the action plan
(submitted 21.04.14) and corrective actions.
Root Cause: Negligence against ASC audit manual as opptional
requirement.
Corrective Action: Provide Early Warning alarm system at office and
farming (Refer to:
IMO statement: approved. To be verified (if needed) with social auditor
during next audit as optional requirement.
Root Cause: We already briefed the personnel regarding the chemical, so
we thought no need to post MSDS at Chemical warehouse.
Corrective Action: Posted MSDS at chemical warehouse
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_MSDS.zip
and Social Audit_NC 7.4_MSDS posted at Chemical warehouse.zip
Corrective Action:
7. Provide 1 fire extinguisher at generator room (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Fire Extinguisher at Generator room.pdf)
8. Get the permit for the generator machine (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Attestation letter for generator machine.jpg)
9. Provide ear plugs for worker at generator room (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Earplug at Generator room.pdf)
10. Provide inside cover for every electrical panel boxes (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Inside cover for electrical panel boxes.jpg&pdf)
(submitted 21.04.14) and corrective actions.
Root Cause: Human Error
Corrective Action: Cover the electrical cabling in generator room
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Cover of
the electrical cabling in generator room.pdf
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
(optinal requirement)
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
1
3 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
7.4.1 Criteria:
workers
2013
1
12. There are no permanent fences around the
factory area to maintain security in the area of the
factory.
13. There are no hand rails along the road to the
office and warehouse.
14. There are no hand rails / barrier at mechanic
room.
15. There are no exit signs at logistic warehouse and
feed warehouse.
16. There are no Emergency Lamps at logistic and
house and feed warehouse.
17. There are no Evacuation Maps at logistic
warehouse, feed warehouse, office and farming
area.
18. Factory should provide Assembly Area for
evacuation meeting point.
19. Factory should provide 1 boat standby at
farming area.
20. There are no smoke detector alarms at logistic
and house and feed warehouse.
21. Factory should provide permit for electricity
instalation.
22. Factory should provide permit for surge arrester
instalation.
Root Cause: So far there is no security problem between company and
local community, so we thought did not need to provide a permanent
fence
Corrective Action: Made permanent fences around the factory area
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Fence.pdf
Corrective Action:
13. Provide hand rails along the ladder (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Handrails.pdf)
14. Provide handrails in mechanic room (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Handrails barrier in mechanic room.pdf)
15. Provide EXIT/ EMERGENCY EXIT sign at logistic warehose and feed
warehouse (Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Exit sign.pdf)
16. Provide Emergency Lamps at Logistic, house and Feed warehouse.
(Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Emergency Lamps.jpg)
(submitted 21&25.04.14) and corrective actions.
Corrective Action:
17. Provide and maintain Evacuation Maps at Logistic warehouse, Feed
Warehouse, Office and Farming area (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Evacuation Map.zip)
18. Provide Assembly Area for Evacuation Meeting Point (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Assembly Area for Evacuation Meeting Point.pdf)
19. Provide 1 boat to be always standby at the farming area (Refer to:
Social Audit_NC 7.4_Boat standby at farming area.pdf)
Corrective Action:
20. Provide smoke detector alarms at logistic, house and feed warehouse.
(Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Smoke Detectors.pdf)
21. Get the permit for the electricity installation (Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Attestation letter for electricity installation.jpg)
22. Apply and get the permit for the surge arrester (Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Permit Application of Surge Arrester Installation.jpg and
Social Audit_NC 7.4_Attestation Use of Surge Arrester Installation.jpg)
4 / 10
NCs
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
Version 2
03.2014
1. No First Aider at this factory.
2. Factory did not have Safety Committee Team /
Tim P2K3.
3. Factory should post person who responsibility at
every first aid boxes and ensure that all first aid
boxes are always in complete and clean condition.
7.4.1&2 Criteria:
workers
2013
Root Cause: Negligence against ASC audit manual
Corrective Actions:
1. Establish the First Aid Team (Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_The First Aid
Team.jpg)
2. We already engaged 2 personnels for Health and Safety Training which
is held by Local Labor Department, and Establish the Safety Committee
team (Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Safety Committee.jpg and Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Legalization of Safety Committee.zip)
3. Provide the information about the person who responsible to that First
Aid Box and ensure that all First Aid Boxes are always complete and clean
(Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_First Aid Boxes.jpg)
1. Social Insurance Program can not be verified
since Management can not show any supporting
Root Cause: Actually every safety equipment are monitored but there is
no record about it
Corrective Actions:
Provide and maintain Maintenance Card at every safety equipment
21.04.14) and corrective actions (submitted 01.05.14). Refer to: Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Maintenance cards of safety equipments.zip
Root Cause: The detail of Social Insurance Program are kept in the Payroll
Department in Head Office. We didn't anticipate that the auditor was
willing to verify it
Corrective Action: Send the list of Social Insurance Program
Audit_NC 7.4_Government Insurance Program.jpg
2. Based on workers interview, health care program Root Cause: So far we only cover the temporary contract workers as
for temporary contract workers are not covered
single, for Health Care Program.
with spouse and maximum 3 childrens.
Corrective Action: For the temporary contract workers who has spouse
and children will be covered with Health Care Program, including for the
family.
Time frame: Before end of May 2014
IMO statement: approved. Action plan IMo recieved (submitted 21.04.14)
and corrective actions submitted on 01.05.14 with notes: "Since January
1st, 2014, Indonesian Government already implemented BPJS
(Government Insurance Program). Every company should register their
workers to be the participants of Government Insurance Program) and the
coverage is not only for the workers, but for the family also. Please refer
to http://www.bpjs-kesehatan.go.id/statis-12-peserta.html' . Refer files
are : Social Audit_NC 7.4_Government Insurance Program.jpg and Social
Audit_NC 7.4_Registered employees in the Government Insurance
Program, April 2014.jpg and Social Audit_NC 7.4_Payment evidence of
Insurance Premium to the Government, Jan-Mar 2014.zip
2013
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
31-May-14
approved
DONE
1
4. Factory should provide maintenance card at
every safety equipment.
7.4.3 Criteria:
workers
30-Apr-14
1
5 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
7.4.3 Criteria:
workers
2013
1
3. Based on workers interview, health care program Root Cause: Our internal Health Care Program, which using
for permanent workers is using reimburstment
reimbursement system is consider as better than the Insurance Program
system.
which is conducted by government.
Corrective Action: Submit the application to the Local Labor Agency about
our Health Care Program recommendation.
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.4_Application
Letter for Health Care Program Recomendation.jpg
4. Factory should provide recommendation from
Local Labor Department for health care program
since the factory manage health care program for
permanent workers themselves.
Root Cause: Application for Health Care Program Recomendation was
under process by the time auditor came
Corrective Action: Submit the application to the Local Labor Agency for
Health Care Program Recommendation
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.4_Recommendation for Internal Health Care Program.jpg
5. Factory need to report regarding their health care Root Cause: We just applied to get approval to conduct Internal Health
program to Local Labor Department every 3
Care Program from the Local Labor Department, and just approved in
months.
April 24th 2014. So, we haven't reported any Internal Health Care Program
to the Local Labor Department previously.
Corrective
action: We will report regarding our Internal Health Care Program to the
Local Labor Department every 3 months, start from July 2014
Time frame: Start from 3 months after getting the Recommedation Letter
from the Local Labor Department
1. Employees Wages can not be verified since
Root Cause: The documents were confidential and kept in the Payroll
department of our Head Office, and we did not anticipate that the auditor
will ask us about this documents during the audit.
Corrective Action: The list of Employee Wages which signed by our Head
of PGA and will be given to the auditor in sealed envelope or send by email to the auditor (directly from our Payroll Department).
Audit_NC 7.5_Receiving evidence of Wage Slips.zip
6 / 10
NCs
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
Version 2
03.2014
2. Working hours can not be verified since
Root Cause: The documents were kept in Payroll of our Head Office and
we did not anticipate that the auditor will ask us about the documents
during the audit.
Corrective Action: The list of working hours of each employee will be given
to the Auditor by our Payroll Department.
To be verified
during next
audit
Farm submitted the action plan (submitted 21.04.14). Working hours
and over times policy is submitted refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.5_Working Hours and Overtime Policy and 1 (one) sealed envelope or
e-mail from our Payroll Department will be given to the auditor during
the next audit.
approved
Working hours form were verified. Take the file of working hours of Mr.
Hottua Silalahi and checked.
DONE
3. Overtime hours and overtime wages can not be
verified since Management can not show any
supporting documents to auditor.
Root Cause: The documents were kept in Payroll of our Head Office and
we did not anticipate that the auditor will ask us about the documents
during the audit.
Corrective Action: The list of Overtime hours and overtime wages will be
sent directly from our Payroll Department to the Auditor (in sealed
envelope or e-mail).
To be verified
during next
audit
the next audit.
approved Partially done (to be verified during next audit)
DONE
4. Based on management interview, attendance
records are written by hand.
7.5 Criteria: Wages,
overtime and
working hours
2013
1
Root Cause: We ever used the digital systems for attendance record by
using fingerprint scan, but it was broken up twice, finally we returned to
the manual attendance system.
Corrective Action: Will buy and implement Time Recorder tools instead of
written by hand.
30-May-14
1. Wage slip can not be verified since Management Root Cause: The original Wage slips were given to the employee and
can not show any supporting documents to auditor company do not hold any wage slip on paper.
Corrective Action: The list of Wages will be given to the Auditor by our
Payroll department directly (in a sealed envelope or e-mail)
To be verified
during next
audit
approved
DONE
the next audit.
approved Partially done (to be verified during next audit)
DONE
7 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
Root Cause: Lack of understanding from the workers, because actually
2. Based on workers interview, some of them do not we've informed their salary and how to calculate the overtime
know how much their salary is and how to calculate Corrective Action: Will manage the Wage slips receiving evidence, to make
overtime.
sure every worker really understand about how much their salary is and
the overtime calculation formula has publised/ posted at the Information
Board
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.5_Overtime
Calculation Formula at the Information Board.jpg
3. Based on interviews with workers, they have
worked on Sunday / holidayfor the last 3 months
(Oct, Nov, Dec. 2013).
Root Cause: All the workers are not force to do work on Sunday/ holiday
due to the business nature. We grow fish and if there is any force
majeure, we need to fix the problem, such as broken net etc, urgently.
And for that, our workers are voluntarily overtime to fix the problem.
Corrective Action: Announce the company policy regarding Working Hours
policy and make sure no violation against it after this announcement. And
for certain jobs which have to have long working hours, we will apply to
get Special Permission from the Local Labor Department.
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
(submitted 21&25.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.5_Working Hours and Overtime Policy.jpg and Social Audit_NC
7.5_Permission of Long Working Hours and Resting Time Deviation for
certain jobs.zip
1. There is no LKS Bipartite Body.
7.6 Criteria:
Freedom of
association and
right to collective
bargaining
2013
1
2. No policy and pocedure in place for handling
suggestion / grievance box.
1. Factory need to provide Information board.
2. Factory need to post Company Regulation include
all Policies, Procedures and Diciplinary action at
information board.
3. Factory need to post Overtime Calculation
method at information board.
7.7 Criteria:
Disciplinary Actions
2013
Root Cause: The application to Local Labor Agency was under process by
the time auditor came.
Corrective Action: Establish the LKS Bipartite Body and submit LKS
Bipartite Body to Local Labor Agency for Registration
21&25.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.6_Registration Letter of LKS Bipartite Body.zip
Root Cause: So far all employee have the widest freedom to give the
suggestion, input, or grievance to the company, so we never made the
written procedure about it.
Corrective Action: Provide suggestion/ grievance box and procedure for
handling it.
21&25.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC
7.6_Suggestion box.pdf and Social Audit_NC 7.6_Procedure to handle
suggestion.pdf
Root Cause: Negligence against the standard.
Corrective Action: Provide Information board and post the company
regulation and overtime calculation
7.7_Information Board.jpg
1
8 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
7.7 Criteria:
Disciplinary Actions
2013
1
1. Anti Abuse and Harassment policy and procedure Root Cause: Actually Indonesia Government already had a Law on Anti
is not available.
Abuse and Harassment, so we thought we did not need to make any
internal written policy about it because the government already controled
this issue.
Corrective Action: Produce Disciplinary, Anti Abuse and Harassment Policy
7.7_Disciplinary, Anti Abuse and Harassment Policy.jpg
1. Factory need to provide internal monitoring
regarding Social, Health and Safety requirement
every month.
7.8 Criteria: Action
response
plans/policies
2013
2. Factory should provide Sub-Contracting
Monitoring Procedure.
7.10 Criteria:
Community
relations and
interaction
2013
2013
approved
DONE
31-May-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
31-May-14
approved
DONE
1
1. Factory should provide Laboratory testing for
drinking water.
7.9 Criteria: Living
conditions for
employees
Root Cause: Lack of understanding about the standard.
Corrective Action: Conduct internal monitoring regarding Social, Health
and Safety requirement every month.
Audit_NC 7.8_Internal Monitoring of Social, Safety and Health
requirement monitoring form.zip. Farm informs they will implement this
form since May 2014.
30-Apr-14
1
1
Root Cause: The Sub-Contracting Monitoring procedure was written in the
contract agreement, and kept in our Head Office
Corrective Action: Submit Sub-Contracting Monitoring Procedure.
Audit_NC 7.8_Sub-contracting Monitoring procedure.jpg and Social
Audit_NC 7.8_Agreement Letter of Sub-contracting.zip
Root Cause: We use bottled water and we thought the quality should be
safe and no need to conduct laboratory test of it.
Corrective Action: Conduct Laboratory testing for the drinking water.
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 7.9_Matrix of
Drinking Water Quality Monitoring.pdf
1. Factory should submit Environment Management Root Cause: Negligance against Environmental Monitoring
& Monitoring Report (UKL/UPL) for 2nd period (July - Corrective Action: Submit Environment Management & Monitoring Report
December 2013) on time to government.
(UKL/UPL) of the 2nd semester of 2013 to the Government
21.04.14) and corrective actions (15.05.14) prior the 2nd audit schedule
9 / 10
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
1. Tax ID Number at Company Registered Letter
(TDP) is different with Tax ID Number at Tax Office
Information / Tax ID Card.
1.1 Criteria:
Evidence of legal
compliance
2013
1
2
9
Root Cause: Human Error
Corrective Action: Make sure we have the same Tax ID number in our
Company Registered Letter (TDP) as written in the Tax ID Card.
21.04.14) and corrective actions. Refer to: Social Audit_NC 1.1_Company
Registered Letter.jpg and Social Audit_NC 1.1_Tax ID Card.jpg
30-Apr-14
approved
DONE
3
Auditor Signature
10 / 10
Company Representative
NCs
Version 2
03.2014
AUDIT MANUAL - ASC TILAPIA STANDARD
Created by the Tilapia Aquaculture Dialogue
Scope: Species of the Family Cichlidae commonly referred as Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, O. mossambica, O. aureus and O. hybrids)
**********
Social requirements of this Standard shall be audited by an individual who is a lead auditor in conformity with SAAS Procedure 200 section 3.1.
(See ASC Farm Certification and Accreditation Requirements)
**********
PRINCIPLE 7. BE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE
7.1 Criteria: Child labor
Indicator: Number of incidences of child[8] labor[9]
7.1.1
Compliance Criteria:
a. Minimum age of permanent workers is 15 or older (per national legal minimum age).
b. System exists to monitor hours and conditions of young workers and light work by
children.
c. Young workers (from 15 to less than 18): have no conflicts between work and schooling;
do not spend more than 10 hours/day on transportation time, school and work; do not
perform hazardous work.
d. Equal treatment for children of migrant workers.
add "1" per criteria in
applicable column
below
Evaluation results
Description
1. Anti Child Labor Policy and Procedure are not available.
ok
minor
major
Description
1
[8]
A “child” is defined as any person less than 15 years of age. A higher age
would apply if the minimum age law stipulates a higher age for work or
mandatory schooling. If, however, the local minimum age law is set at 14, in
[9]
Footnote 10
“Child labor” is defined as any work by a child younger than the age specified in the definition of a child, except for light work as provided for by ILO Convention 138, article 7.
7.2 Criteria: Forced, bonded, compulsory labor
Footnote
Indicator: Number of incidences of forced[10] , bonded[11] or compulsory
labor
7.2.1
a. Contracts clearly stated and understood by employees, no ‘pay to work’ schemes
through labor contractors or training credit programs.
b. Employees free to leave workplace and manage their own time.
c. Employer does not withhold employee’s original identity papers.
d. Employer shall not withhold any part of workers’ salaries, benefits, property or
documents in order to oblige them to continue working for employer.
e. Employees not to be obligated to stay in job to repay debt.
1. Anti Forced Labor Policy is not available.
2. Overtime voluntary form can not be verified since Management can not show any supporting
3. Employee file is not available for 1 of 9 workers interviewed.
4. 4 of 9 workers interviewed did not receive Letter of Appointment become permanent employees.
5. Employment contracts for temporary employees has already expired for 5 of 9 employees
interviewed and they do not have a new contract.
6. Temporary Contract Agreement are not legalized by Local Labor Depatment.
7. 9 of 9 workers interviwed did not received copy of contract agreement / appointment Letter.
1
[10]
“Forced (compulsory) labor” is defined as all work or service that is
extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty for which a
person
has not offered him/ herself voluntarily or for which such work or
[11]
“Bonded labor” is defined as when a person is forced by the employer or
Footnote
creditor to work to repay a financial debt to the crediting agency.
7.3 Criteria: Discrimination in the work environment
Footnote
Indicator: Number of incidences of discrimination[12]
7.3.1
a. Written anti-discrimination policies in place, stating that the company does not
engage/support in discrimination in hiring, remuneration, access to training, promotion,
termination or retirement based on race, caste, national origin, religion, disability, gender,
sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation, age or any other condition that
may give rise to discrimination.
b. Worker testimony supports that the company does not interfere with the rights of
personnel to observe tenets or practices, or to meet needs related to race, caste, national
origin, religion, disability, gender sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation
or any other condition that may give rise to discrimination. Records indicate objective
mechanisms for employee reviews and the offering of promotion and training
opportunities.
c. Company has a policy in place protecting pregnant and lactating mothers.
d. Company has a policy in place against HIV discrimination.
1. Anti Discrimination Policy and procedure is not available.
2. No policy and procedure in place for protecting pregnant and lactating mothers.
3. No policy and procedure against HIV discrimination in place.
1
[12]
Footnote
“Discrimination” is defined as any distinction, exclusion, or preferences, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment. Not all distinction, exclusion, or preference constitutes discrimination. For instance, a merit- or
performance-based pay increase or bonus is not by itself discriminatory. Positive discrimination in favor of people from certain underrepresented groups may be legal in some countries.
Indicator: Evidence of proactive anti-discrimination practice
7.3.2
Requirement: Yes
7.4 Criteria: Health and safety of workers
a. Verification of clear and transparent company procedures are outlined to raise, file, and respond to discrimination complaints.
b. All managers and supervisors receive training on diversity and non-discrimination. All personnel receive non-discrimination training. Internal or external training acceptable if
proven effective.
c. Comparison of workforce diversity with demographics of host community updated regularly by management.
Noted from the documents review, managemnt & workers interview that a) Factory have procedure for
dicrimination. B) Updated training records to all employees and management on discrimation complaint
procedure. C) Updated legal requirement shared with all employees periodically.
1
Copyright © 2012 Aquaculture Stewardship Council. All rights reserved by
Audit Manual
Aquaculture Stewardship Council
1/4
Version 2
03.2014
Indicator: Percentage of workers trained in health and safety practices/
procedures/ policies
7.4.1
Requirement: 100 %
Indicator: Percentage of health- and safety-related accidents and violations
recorded and mitigated through corrective actions
7.4.2
Requirement: 100 %
a. Minimization of hazards/risks in the working environment, including documented systemic procedures and policies to prevent workplace hazards and their risks, shall exist and the
information shall be available to employees.
b. Emergency response procedures shall exist and be known by employees.
c. Health and safety training for all employees conducted on a regular basis (once a year and immediately for all new employees), including training on potential hazards and risk
minimization.
d. Potentially dangerous chemicals are stored properly and as prescribed.
a. Documentation is generated with regards to occupational health and safety violations.
b. Corrective action plan are implemented in response to accidents that have occurred. This should include: analysis of the root causes, address the root causes, remediate and
prevent future accidents of similar nature.
c. Workers involved in departments where accidents have occurred can explain what analysis has been done and what steps taken/improvements made.
1. No Risk Assessment Analysis in place.
2. No Evacuation Training for all employees during year 2013.
3. No Fire Drill Training for all employees during year 2013.
4. No PPE Awareness and MSDS Training for all employees during year 2013.
5. No early warning alarm system at office and farming area.
6. MSDS for all chemicals use are not posted at Chemical ware house.
7. Factory should provide 1 fire extinguisher at Generator Room.
8. Factory should provide permit for genarator machine.
9. Factory should provide ear plug at Generator Room.
10. Factory should install inside cover for every electrical panel boxes.
11. Found instalation electrical cabling are not covered properly at generator room.
12. There are no permanent fence around the factory area to maintain security in the area of the
factory.
13. There are no hand rails along the road to the office and warehouse.
14. There are no hand rails / barrier at mechanic room.
15. There are no exit sign at logistic ware house and feed ware house.
16. There are no Emergency Lamp at logistic and house and feed ware house.
17. There are no Evacuation Map at logistic ware house, feed ware house, office and farming area.
18. Factory should provide Assembly Area for evacuation meeting point.
19. Factory should provide 1 boat standby at farming area.
20. There are no smoke detector alarm at logistic and house and feed ware house.
21. Factory should provide permit for electricity instalation.
22. Factory should provide permit for surge arrester instalation.
1. No First Aider at this factory.
2. Factory did not have Safety Committee Team / Tim P2K3.
3. Factory should post person who responsibility at every first aid boxes and ensure that all first aid
boxes are always in complete and clean condition.
4. Factory should provide maintenance card at every safety equipment.
1
1
Indicator: Employer responsibility and proof of insurance (accident/ injury)
for employee costs in a job-related accident or injury when not covered under
national law
7.4.3
Requirement: 100 %
a. Documentation maintained by management confirms that all personnel are provided sufficient insurance to cover annual check-ups and costs related to occupational accidents or
injuries. Equal insurance coverage must include temporary, migrant or foreign workers.
7.5 Criteria: Wages, overtime and working hours
Indicator: The percentage of employees who are paid fair and decent wages
7.5.1
Requirement: 100 %
Indicator: Incidences of abuse of working hours and/or overtime laws
7.5.2
[13]
Footnote
Applicable to employees, workers and contractors
a. Employers/Managers understand and have policies to ensure the principle of equal pay for equal work.
b. Employers ensure wages paid for a standard working week (no more than 48 hours) always meet, at least, legal/industry minimum standards, cover basic needs of personnel and
provide some discretionary income.
c. Labor conflict resolution policy in place to track conflicts & complaints raised, and responses to conflicts & complaints.
d. Ratio of lowest wage rate to basic needs wage always exceeds 100%.
e. Proof of employer engagement with workers and their representative organizations, and use of cost of living assessments from credible sources to assess basic needs wages.
1. Social Insurance Program can not be verified since Management can not show any supporting
2. Based on workers interview, health care program for temporary contact workers are not covered
with spouse and maximum 3 childrens.
3. Based on workers interview, health care program for permanent workers is using reimbursement
system.
4. Factory should provide recommendation from Local Labor Department for health care program since
the factory manage health care program for permanent workers by them self.
5. Factory need to report regarding they health care program to Local Labor Department every 3
1
1. Employees Wage can not be verified since Management can not show any supporting documents to
auditor.
2. Working hour can not be verified since Management can not show any supporting documents to
auditor.
3. Overtime hour and overtime wage can not be verified since Management can not show any
supporting documents to auditor.
4. Based on management interview, attendance record written by hand.
1
1. Wage slip can not be verified since Management can not show any supporting documents to auditor.
2. Based on workers interview, some of them do not know clearly regarding how much they salary and
a. No deductions in pay for disciplinary actions.
how to calculate overtime.
b. Wage and benefits are clearly articulated to employees and rendered to employees in a convenient manner; e.g. no need to travel to collect benefits, no promissory notes, coupons
3. Based on interviews with workers, they have been working on Sunday / holiday for the last 3 months
or merchandise; payment in cash or check.
(Oct, Nov, Dec 2013).
[13]
[14]
c. Labor-only contracting or false apprenticeship schemes are not accepted, including: revolving/consecutive labor contracts used to deny benefit accrual.
d. Clear, transparent mechanism for wage setting known to employees.
e. Employer shall comply with applicable laws and industry standards related to working hours. “Normal workweek” can be defined by law but shall not on a regular basis (constantly
of majority of the time) exceed 48 hours. Only if allowed by law, variations (to the 48-hour regular work week) based on seasonality may apply.
f. Personnel shall be provided with at least on day off in every seven day period.
g. All overtime shall be paid at a premium and should not exceed 12 hours per week.
h. Overtime work shall always be voluntary.
1
Labor-only contracting arrangement: The practice of hiring workers without establishing a formal employment relationship for the purpose of avoiding payment of regular wages or the provision of legally required benefits, such as health and safety protections
[14]
Footnote
False Apprenticeship Scheme: The practice of hiring workers under apprenticeship terms without stipulating terms of the apprenticeship or wages under contract. It is a “false” apprenticeship if its purpose is to underpay people, avoid legal obligations, or
employ children.
7.6 Criteria: Freedom of association and right to collective bargaining
Indicator: Incidences of employees denied freedom to associate, ability to
bargain collectively[15] or denied access to representative(s) chosen by
workers
7.6.1
a. Workers have the freedom to form and join any trade union, free of any form of interference from employers or competing organizations set up or backed by the employer. ILO
specifically prohibits “acts which are designated to promote the establishment of worker organizations or to support worker organizations under the control or employers or
employers’ organizations.
b. Local trade union, or where none exists a reputable civil-society organization, confirms no outstanding cases against the employer for violations of employees’ freedom of
association and collective bargaining rights.
c. Trade union representatives have access to their members in the workplace at reasonable times on the premises.
d. Explicit communications from the employer about their commitment to freedom of association and collective bargaining rights of all.
e. If trade unions exist, they are able to access/inform all workers directly (posters, pamphlets, visits).
1. There is no LKS Bipartite Body.
2. No policy and procedure in place for handling suggestion / grievance box.
Audit Manual
2/4
1
Version 2
03.2014
Footnote
[15]
“Bargain collectively” is defined as a voluntary negotiation between employers and organizations of workers in order to establish the terms and conditions of employment by means of collective (written) agreements.
7.7 Criteria: Disciplinary Actions
Indicator: Incidences of abusive disciplinary actions
7.7.1
a. There is never any use of or support for (e.g. subcontractors using) corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion, or verbal abuse.
b. Fines or wage deductions shall not be acceptable as a method for disciplining workers (indicated by policy statements, as well as evidence from worker testimony).
1. Factory need to provide Information board.
2. Factory need to post Company Regulation include all Policies, Procedures and Diciplinary action at
information board.
3. Factory need to post Overtime Calculation method at information board.
1
1. Anti Abuse and Harassment policy and procedure is not available.
Indicator: Evidence of non-abusive disciplinary policies and procedures
7.7.2
Requirement: Yes
a. Procedures exist for situations in which disciplinary action is required, and they establish the use of progressive verbal and written warnings. Aim should always be to improve the
worker before letting him/her go (indicated by policy statements as well as evidence from worker testimony).
1
7.8 Criteria: Action response plans/policies
Indicator: Evidence of implementation of a corrective action plan (updated
annually) that addresses unintended problems associated with labor relations
and internal monitoring of labor activities
7.8.1
Requirement: Yes
1. Factory need to provide Internal monitoring regarding Social, Health and Safety requirements in
every months.
2. Factory should provide Sub-Contracting Monitoring Procedure.
a. Copy of corrective action plan for prior 12-month period (first audit requires previous 3-month period) and employer testimonial that these plans have been implemented.
b. Workers are aware of the action plans and their results.
1
Indicator: Evidence of implementation of an emergency action plan and
annual (or more frequent) internal monitoring activities
7.8.2
Requirement: Yes
Noted during plant tour that a) Emergency action plan on fire accident, Earth quakes and storm was
posted in the visible location in workers local language. B) From the workers interview noted that
workers were trained on appropriate action during emergency period. Workers were found with
a. Copy of emergency (examples include earthquakes, fires, storms, etc.) action plan for prior 12-month period (first audit requires previous 3-month period) and employer testimonial
appropriate PPE and well aware about their responsibility during emergency.
that these plans have been implemented.
b. Worker competency in the appropriate actions required during an emergency response.
1
7.8.3
Indicator: Evidence of implementation of a verifiable conflict resolution policy
for conflicts and complaints tracked transparently, and proof that conflicts
and complaints from employees are responded to within three months after a. Copy of conflict resolution policy for prior 12-month period (first audit requires previous 3-month period) and employer testimonial that this plan has been implemented.
b. Three month time-frame from employee conflict filing and response upheld.
being received
c. Records of complaint cases, related actions and resolution maintained as well as worker evaluation of the resolution.
d. Worker actions and testimony confirms they understand this process and are comfortable raising complaints.
Requirement: Yes
Noted from the documents review and workers interview noted that a) Factory estublish written
procedure for complaint resolution. B) Workers stated that management is positive to resolve any
conflict within 7 days. C) Workers can drop their suggestion or confidential complain through the
suggestion box which installed in security gate and in toilet. d) Workers were found aware about
complaint mechanism.
1
7.9 Criteria: Living conditions for employees
Indicator: Evidence that living conditions are clean, sanitary and safe for
habitation
7.9.1
Requirement: Yes
1. Factory should provide Laboratory testing for drinking water.
a. Evidence that potable/safe drinking water available.
b. Evidence that sanitary conditions for disposal of human waste are in practice.
c. Evidence that human waste is not discharged into the environment.
d. Employee housing is constructed of material to sustain local conditions in the event of storms or other natural events that could endanger lives.
1
Audit Manual
3/4
Version 2
03.2014
7.10 Criteria: Community relations and interaction
Factory have taken appropriate license from the concern authourity to estublish the farm and all legal
procedure done prior to start it. No objection letter they received from local community representative.
Indicator: Evidence that farms are not inhibiting or restricting local
community access to public land, freshwater resources or public fishing
grounds
a. Testimonials from surrounding community members that farms have not blocked access to public property or public natural resources.
7.10.1
1
Requirement: Yes
1. Factory should submit Environment Management & Monitoring Report (UKL/UPL) for 2nd period
(July - December 2013) on time to government.
Indicator: Evidence of implementation of a verifiable conflict resolution policy
a. Verification of community conflict resolution policy and actions for prior 12-month period (first audit requires previous 3-month period) and community testimonials that this plan
for conflicts and complaints tracked transparently, and proof that conflicts
has been implemented and there is a shared understanding of procedures for filing complaints.
and complaints from communities are responded to within three months
b. Three month time-frame from community member conflict filing and response evidenced by community testimonials.
after being received
c. Verification that farm management communicates with the community on the impact of its activities.
d. If environmental impact assessment has been performed, it is made easily accessible to community members.
Requirement: Yes
e. If a socio-economic impact assessment has been performed, it is made easily accessible to community members.
f. Economic impacts of the farm activities reported – at least annually – to the community.
7.10.2
1
Total
5
9
4
Total should amount to 18
summary
Summary of social audit
Please add a 10-20 sentence summary of the social audit which can be added to the main report (prosa text). Pleaes hightlight any aspects of major interest (social standards beyond the requirements of this standard, puculiarities of the communities, major non-conformities etc)
Audit Manual
4/4
Version 2
03.2014

14 A ASC Final Audit Report_ Tigaras (PT Suri Tani Pemuka

Transcription

Similar documents

maryland division of financial regulation

john fluevog shoes - Page One Publishing

Untitled - Caja Rural Granada

Z1000 LEAD AUDITOR 5 Days

4-D - Building an IA Function From The Ground-Up

Financial Strength - Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance

AGM Report

dry fish

The Poseidon Adventure: Humanity`s Experiment and Love Affair

How To Collate and Present Your Supporting Information