Reducing our carbon footprint What role for fisheries and aquaculture?

Simon Funge-Smith FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Frank Chopin, Doris Soto, Cassandra DeYoung FAO Fisheries Department

Introduction

Shifting global economy and perceptions

fuel prices increasing, concern over long-term energy availability and climate change

Cannot be complacent

pressure is mounting for all sectors to act on emissions

conserve energy across the fisheries and aquaculture supply chain

Can climate change mitigation complement fisheries and aquaculture sustainability?

Potential benefits!

provide extra push to move toward more efficient systems

improved management, energy efficiency economic performance, GHG sequestration

Contribution of aquaculture & fisheries to Carbon emissions

GHG contribution of fisheries, aquaculture and related supply chain features are poorly studied

relatively small in global terms

Fuel use alone in global capture fisheries generates 90-120 million tonnes of CO2

global aquaculture recently estimated at 385 million tonnes

Estimates vary a great deal

cover different parts of supply chain

may not be directly comparable

million tonnes CO2

equivalent

Global emissions 30,824

Global agriculture 4,650

Capture fishery from fuel use

90-120

Aquaculture 351�

Sources:

Fishery:

Cochrane, K.; De Young, C.; Soto, D.; Bahri, T. (eds).

Climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture:

overview of current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and

Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 530. Rome, FAO. 2009.

212p.

Aquaculture: Hall, S.J., et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers:

Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The

WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.

Use of old systems

HCFC strongly impacts ozone

On-board refrigerant leakage is ~ half the CO2 emission equivalents of Norwegian cod

GHG emissions is more than CO2

Need holistic view of GHG in production systems

A supply china approach can identify hotspots for GHG emissions

Likely that fishing vessels are the largest GHG emitters in the sector

followed by processing plants

Aquaculture seems relatively lower than fisheries

main GHG emission from feed production & transport

Different transportation methods

air shipping of fresh tuna may be an anomaly

Fishing vessels

All vessels not the same GHG emissions

Capture fisheries

Global Fisheries

Marine global capture production in 2008 reached 80 million tonnes

Estimated value of total capture fisheries production US$94 billion

But…….Global catch is not increasing

Overcapacity

Overfishing 25% stocks are over-exploited, depleted and offer no room

for further expansion 52% of the world stocks are fully exploited

Where are the emissions occurring? A supply chain approach

Taking a supply chain approach will identify where energy is consumed and the type of intervention needed

Data poor for many parts of the chain

Can be very complex!

Transport Production Retail? Processing

Consumption & disposal Waste disposal Recycling

Where can we reduce emissions?

Catching /

Fisheries Fuel for fishing Onboard refrigeration Trans-shipping Transportation

Suppliers transport Reefers International freight

Processing Refrigeration Packaging/processing Factory energy Non-refrigeration

“Pond to farm gate” “boat to port”

Retailing & food outlets Retail outlet energy

Packaging Retail distribution

Delivery Customer transport

Fish farms Pumping & aeration Energy feeds Feed transport

“boat to plate

“Cradle to grave”

“B2B”

“farm gate to factory gate”

“farm to fork”

Fuel use in fisheries is a major challenge

Fuel main source of fishery GHG emission

only one part of a complex problem

Big differences between fisheries

vessel size and gear type

fishing voyage profile (steaming/fishing; calm/rough seas)

human behavior “speed!”

lack of data to support improvement

Developing countries fuel consumption is relatively higher

Savings of up to 30% might be possible

improved technologies and practices

2005 Fuel cost

as % of revenue

Developing countries 43 %

Developed countries 20 %

Global average 37 %

2005 Fuel cost as %

of revenue

GEAR Developing countries

Developed countries

Active demersal 52 % 29 %

Active pelagic 33 % 11 %

Passive gear 39 % 9 %

Operating costs & earnings of the global fishing fleet

Catches are not increasing but operating costs soaring

driven by fuel price

Government responses often prevent necessary efficiency changes

Subsidies, support

Will have impacts on safety, risk-taking & governance…….

reduce maintenance & gear costs replace experienced crews with low cost labour

longer hours and increased risk taking

illegal landings (IUU fishing)

encourage transhipping, mother ships

Can capture fisheries become more fuel efficient…. and contribute to lower GHG emissions ?

Capture fisheries have a challenge to become more fuel efficient

Vessel designs originated pre-motorization, pre-diesel

Not designed for fuel efficiency

Many capture techniques have their origin when oil was <$20 per barrel

Reluctance to change

Costs to upgrade

Transition from active to passive fishing not always possible

Design constraints

Difficult to assess benefits

1860s

2000

Diversity of fishing gears

Fishing Gear

Hook & Lines

Pots & Traps

Gillnets & entangling nets

Towed Fishing Gear

Surrounding Fishing Gear

Trawl Nets

Midwater Trawls

Beam Trawl

Dredge Purse seines

Beach seines

Light jigging

Seine Nets

Bottom Trawls

Drift Longlines

Drifting Gillnets

Fixed Gillnets

Fixed longlines

Scottish seines

Danish seines

Passive Active

(energy hungry?)

Shift from active to passive fishing fleets

Fuel costs as % of value of landings

Pots & Traps (UK) 7

Fixed and Drift nets (Spain)

7

Hook and line (Spain)

8

Fuel costs as % of value of landings

Beam trawl (UK) 50

Demersal trawl (UK) 17

Pelagic trawl and Seine (Spain)

10

Pelagic trawl and Seine (Spain)

12

Passive Fishing gears Lower fuel costs Reduced bottom impacts1

More selective

Active Fishing Gears High Fuel costs Bottom impacts

Poorly selective

1Some passive gears may impact the environment (e.g. ghost fishing)

Additional benefits moving away from energy hungry gears

Transitioning away from energy-hungry capture techniques….

……. may provide an opportunity to reduce other environmental impacts.

Especially if gears are being used inappropriately

wrong areas

bycatch

wrong substrates

Mitigation in fisheries reduce fishing capacity

“there is a need to decrease excess fishing capacity through deleting perverse incentives by putting into appropriate tenure and property rights systems and phasing out subsidies that enhance fishing effort and fishing capacity”

“At the global level, each tonne of fish caught uses almost half a tonne of fuel – much of it wasted in redundant harvesting effort”

From: The Sunken Billions. The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. FAO and The World Bank. 2009.

The Net Benefits of Marine Fisheries Reform – World Bank Draft Report

Value of catch $Billion

78.8

Weight catch million tonnes

80

Fuel amount million tonnes

41

Fuel cost $Billion 22.5

Knowledge & policy in support of mitigation

Knowledge/analysis baseline studies using supply chain and Life

Cycle Assessment for GHG emission reduction analysis of gears/methods policy review on fuel support/subsidies LIFE methods a global research priority

Policy interventions

reduce or divert perverse incentives stock rebuilding reduce fleet capacity policy support to Low Impact Fuel Efficient

fishing (LIFE) robust enabling policy to facilitate transition to

alternative technologies encourage innovation and foster industry

partnerships

Focus on energy consumption efficiency

Technical support and backstopping to fishers rationalising fishing gear/fishing method

On-board “Best Practices” - vessel, gear, catch

vessel, engine, equipment maintenance and monitoring

fuel quality (including additives)

increasing Revenues

value-adding

waste minimization

In-port technical support to yards/builders vessel and propulsion system optimisation

new vessel design/new builds

Improve handling/refrigeration

targeted retrofit, Active to Passive

Aquaculture

Aquaculture contribution to GHG emissions

Farmed aquatic organisms do not emit methane

do not directly contributors to GHG

some farming systems can contribute to some methane emission.

globally aquaculture production direct energy use is relatively low

The sector can contribute to GHG emissions in an indirect way

major contribution associated with “embodied energy” inputs (feeds, inorganic fertilizers)

Land use/change can have some contribution

emissions from land conversion

as a result of soil, water and waste management.

Aquaculture products that involve transport (e.g. exports) contribute to emissions

How does aquaculture contribute to climate change?

Need to look at energy “footprint”

“lifecycle analysis”

Global total of CO2 from global aquaculture 385 million tonnes

~1% of global total

~6.3-7.5% of agriculture total

Some systems use significant amounts of energy

Eel aquaculture

warmwater recirculation

high energy feeds

Intensive shrimp

aeration, pumping, production intensive feeds

Source: Hall, S.J., et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the

Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center,

Penang, Malaysia.

0 10 20 30

Thousand tonnes CO2/tonne production

Relative value

Species group

Carps

Catfish

Tilapia

Eels

Salmonids

Other finfish

Bivalves

Gastropods

Crabs & lobsters

Shrimp & prawns

Other invertebrates

Seaweeds & aquatic plants

Mitigation in aquaculture - reducing the dependence upon marine feeds

Reduce “fed” aquaculture dependence upon marine fish meal and fish oil carnivorous species require more fishmeal/oil

than herbivorous or omnivorous species

adds the carbon footprint of fisheries to aquaculture

depends on fisheries (including fuel consumption), harvest process and transport

Reduction of fishmeal/fish oil content of diets is a trend already in place. % of fishmeal in salmon diets decreased from

60% to less than 40% in less than 10 years

but…..total aquaculture volume and demand for fishmeal is increasing

therefore measures and technologies are also needed

Biotechnology opportunities

Biotechnology offers some solutions improved breeds, specific pathogen free

Genetic modification technologies could have particular efficiency impacts Genetic modification for key feed ingredients,

omega3, fish oil replacements

Fermentation technology for microalgal feeds/micronutrients

Many possible right now, but price is not right

Technology driven approaches may be inaccessible Risk that these advances are not going to be

available to the developing world

Home to most aquaculture

Technologies and management approaches should be accessible to small and rural farmers.

Increase energy efficiency in aquaculture production

Aeration

More efficient aeration systems to cope with low dissolved oxygen

Pumping

Low head (energy) water pumping systems

Recirculation to reduce water demand

Already being used

May increase energy efficiency (reduced pumping/water-lifting costs

Avoiding/displacing emissions alternative energy Aquatic renewable energy potential

tides, currents, waves, wind, hydropower,

Non-fossil fuels Marine biofuels, fishwastes, macroalgae

new technology, undeveloped markets

Major research challenge

Promote less intensive aquaculture systems (where appropriate)

Technological innovations may be inaccessible to developing countries expensive, complex, uneconomic, require infrastructure

Good prospect to promote systems that have lower carbon footprints advantage of natural oxygenation, reduced water

exchange

species feeding low in the food chain, less feed energy

>100% return on protein output to energy input

High relative economic returns from omnivorous finfish, mussels & seaweeds far better than those from carnivorous finfish

most livestock

Reduce feed conversion factors to decrease fish meal per kg of fish harvested Greater efforts need to be done to improve feeding

technologies

especially for omnivorous and herbivorous species

Carbon capture and storage

Aquaculture of molluscs seaweed culture could contribute significantly to carbon absorption

questionable if this is true sequestration

Seaweed culture ~ three months per crop (in the tropics), yields > 2

500 tonnes per ha

could be potential for carbon credits

technological constraints, potential area maybe limited

Take advantage of other sector mitigation activities

minimizing the use or impact on low-lying, wetland areas, mangroves, reefs, seagrasses

incorporate mangroves and floodplain forests in REDD+ and develop blue carbon funds

good for environment & protection, also enhances fisheries so win-win

Photo: Matt Kiefer

Increase energy efficiency in transport & processing

Innovations in processing/transport

improvements in transportation of fish to markets

improved building design and handling practices to reduce energy requirements

increase energy efficiency through better insulation in ice plants, freezing plants, cold stores and chill stores.

Improved infrastructures and market communication

optimize supply to consumption linkages

Measures to increase local availability of aquatic products

reduce overall transport energy requirements

need to balance against negative impacts on trade and economic opportunities for poorer groups

Savings would need to be made across the supply chain

no point in saving fuel in capture if other parts of the chain are wasting energy

Economic incentives for mitigation of aquaculture contributions to CO2 production

Supportive government policy at sector level to promote action

Financial incentives

encourage adoption of mitigation and adaptation strategies in the aquaculture sector

redistribution of support payments

subsidies and tax credits to responsible producers

Insurance for the sector

may reduce high risk management strategies

enables longer term outlook and may encourage investment in farm modifications

Improved marketing of products that have made a positive impact to reduce GHG emission (energy use)

branding and certification initiatives to promote energy efficient products

What FAO is doing

Working to provide information on: fishing/aquaculture’s contribution to climate

change

technologies and ways to reduce the sector’s reliance on, and consumption of, fossil fuels

Working with industry, academics and governments to: standardize methods fro calculating energy and

emissions throughout the food chain

promote the collection of data within this framework

promote awareness on Low Impact Fuel Efficient (LIFE) capture techniques

develop policy and technologies to support the transition to energy-efficient and low foot print aquatic food production systems

Identify regional priorities for policy to address climate change mitigation & adaptation

Can we improve?

Sector goals decrease the sectors’ CO2 emissions

improve the aquatic ecosystems’ ability to respond (assimilative capacity and ecosystem resilience) to external shocks

Address management by application of the ecosystem approach improving our understanding of emissions and

mitigation potential

increase awareness among industry, producers & consumers, advocates

need for policy coherence across sectors and the mutual dependence between adaptation and mitigation

integrate climate change concerns into food security and development planning

reducing post harvest losses/increasing waste recycling

Key messages

Sector footprint is relatively small, but still need to act

Transition to energy efficient fisheries and aquaculture systems

Fisheries will remain reliant on fuel

Transition inefficient fleet structures (e.g. excessive capacity, overfishing)

Promote integrated aquaculture systems, improve feeds

Eliminate fishing and farming practices that reduce ecosystem sequestration potential

Energy efficiency in processing, packaging and distribution sub-sectors, especially in the face of globalization of fish and fish products

Look for synergies with other sectors

Government policy and sector buy-in are key

Thank you