18 SEAFOOD NEW ZEALAND February 2012

The New Zealand seafood industry is one that appears to be held to a higher standard than other protein producers when it comes to environmental impacts – is this fair? We examine a new report, The

Environmental Cost of New Zealand

Food Production that puts fi sheries ahead of dairy and meat in terms environmental impact.

The results are readily apparent, says Professor

Ray Hilborn, author of the report published in

February. “Wild fisheries simply do not impact

the environment in the many ways that dairy and

meat production do.”

You would be forgiven for doing a double

take at that statement says Peter Bodeker,

chief executive of the New Zealand Seafood

Industry Council. “If you believe anything the

environmental groups say a report giving fish

the green tick is likely to seem a bit out of left-

field.”

But the science says it all. When

considering its lower environmental impacts

and pairing that with fisheries which

are managed sustainably and harvested

responsibly, New Zealand fish is the ‘green’

protein choice.

Hilborn started thinking about the

environmental cost of production around

two years ago.

“Must I stop eating fish?” asked an

anguished friend after reading yet another

article about the sustainability of seafood.

Inquiries as to what he would eat instead

elicited the expected response: beef,

chicken and pork, his usual ‘guilt-free dinner

choices.” This is the opening paragraph of

Hilborn’s report which posed the question – is

meat indeed a ‘better’ choice than fish?

The Neis one to a hiproteito envfair? WEnviro

Food P

aheadenviro

The

Ray Hilb

Februar

the env

meat p

Yo

take at

chief e

Indus

enviro

the g

field

cons

and

are

res

pro

en

tw

a

a

I

chicken a

choices.”

THE ENVIRONMENTAL

COST OF NEW ZEALAND

FOOD PRODUCTION

Report confi rms fi sh as ‘green’ protein

February 2012 SEAFOOD NEW ZEALAND 19

Measuring environmental impacts

For this report Hilborn looked at the components that make up

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) – a process widely used in science to

determine what is required to produce, and the environmental impacts

of specific products – in this case 40 g of protein from fish, meat or

dairy.

LCAs measure inputs and outputs. Inputs include energy, fresh

water, fertiliser, pesticides, antibiotics, surface area impacted and

antifouling paints on fishing vessels. From the outset it is clear that

few inputs are used in the harvesting of fish. Outputs measured are

greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication potential - this is the level

of excessive nutrients in the environment - acidification potential (this

can present as acid rain or soil acidification, for example), soil erosion,

biodiversity impacts and solid waste and debris.

“Most of the available LCA data on farming stop at the farm gate

and similarly for fishing, the available data stop at the dock,” said

Hilborn.

In fisheries the calculation of inputs and outputs relates to the

process of the catching the fish, dominated by the use of fuel.

“None of the dynamics of the marine ecosystem are part of the

calculation because the ecosystem would be there in the absence of

fishing. In contrast, on a farm the environmental impacts include all the

actions of the farm animals, and all the inputs into the farm, such as

irrigation, animal husbandry and fertiliser application.”

The biodiversity argument

When it comes to biodiversity loss New Zealand fisheries get a bad

rap. The Environmental Cost of New Zealand Food Production puts this

assumption to the test. Hilborn says there is a fundamental difference

in how fisheries affect biodiversity as opposed to dairy and meat

production.

“Fisheries rely on maintaining naturally functioning ecosystems and

seek to harvest surplus biomass in a sustainable fashion.”

Dairy and meat production replaces natural with exotic ecosystems.

Hilborn experienced this first-hand working his own land as a farmer.

“Any agricultural area that is subject to ploughing suffers, in

essence, at first 100 per cent loss of native vegetation abundance and

diversity and vey high losses of dependent fauna. Where agriculture is

mixed in a mosaic of farmed and more natural habitat, the change is

less than 100 per cent, but for each hectare that is farmed, it is safe to

assume there is very high loss most native abundance and biodiversity.”

Why then, is the New Zealand seafood industry held to a higher

standard than other protein producers? In the media recently,

environmental organisations have criticised the report as lacking

particularly around species by-catch.

Hilborn and Bodeker both have answers for this.

Hilborn says that yes, fishing does have biodiversity impacts but

this, including species by-catch, is around 30 per cent – far less than

agriculture.

Bodeker spells it out: “You wouldn’t plough down a kiwi bird

farming because there are no kiwis there – their native habitat is gone.”

INPUT OUTPUT

Energy Greenhouse gases

Fresh water Eutrophication potential

Fertiliser Acidifi cation potential

Pesticides Soil erosion

Antibiotics Biodiversity impacts

Surface impacted (land and sea fl oor)

Solid waste and debris including discarded

fi shing gear

Antifouling paints on fi shing vessels

5 5 - - 10 10 - - 5FERTILISER

20 SEAFOOD NEW ZEALAND February 2012

Countering the CriticsFollowing the release of the report Forest and Bird questioned its

credibility on some areas. Please find clarifications below –

Claim: The Environmental Cost of New 1. Zealand Food Production ignores the deaths of animals caught by the fishing industry:

FACT: This is incorrect. By-catch is accounted for in the

report as part of fishing’s biodiversity impact which sits at 30

per cent. (Section 5, page 14 of the report – “Halpern and

Warner showed that on average, areas closed to fishing had

2 -3 times higher species abundance and a 30% increase in

diversity.”)

Claim: Fishing uses eight times more 2. energy than any other industry sector.

FACT: This is incorrect and those claiming this have

misunderstood energy use – The report acknowledges greater

energy inputs per portion for fish. Fisheries score better on

green house gas emissions because of rumination.

Claim: The report is thin on science and 3. omits basic New Zealand references

FACT: All available studies on the environmental impacts of

New Zealand fish, dairy and meat production were considered for

this report. The report acknowledges that this is a first attempt

to synthesize a wide range of individual studies, many made

with differing methods. However, many of the results are readily

apparent in that wild fisheries do not impact the environment in

the many ways that dairy and meat production do.

Should an environmentalist stop eating fish?

Should an environmentalist stop eating fish? This is a question

Hilborn sought to answer in The Environmental Cost of New Zealand

Food Production.

“Within the range of foods we have examined, New Zealand

fisheries generally have lower environmental impacts than other forms

of protein production. So the simple answer is that if the alternative

to eating fish is to eat meat or dairy, someone concerned about the

environment should eat fish that are captured with low fuel use – for

example hoki and southern blue whiting. While we have not looked at

vegetarian diets, we must remember that vegetable production requires

water, fertiliser and pesticides, and causes soil erosion. Even totally

organic agriculture still requires the transformation of native habitat

into fields of crops, with the associated loss of biodiversity. Thus there

are almost certainly trade-offs and fisheries may have less environmental

impacts than a vegetarian diet.”

What about aquaculture?

Sufficient specific studies on the environmental impacts of New

Zealand aquaculture could not be found which was why it was not

specifically included in the report, says Hilborn. However, an extensive

analysis of the impacts of aquaculture was produced by the WorldFish

Centre (Hall et al. 2011). They found that the environmental costs

depended greatly upon the species and production technology. Species

that need to be fed agricultural products or fish meal generally looked

similar to more efficient livestock such as chickens and pigs. Bivalves

and seaweeds place low demands on the environment and may have

the lowest environmental impact of any form of food production.

The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council asked Professor Hilborn

to consider the environmental impacts of New Zealand fisheries.

The report can be downloaded at www.seafoodindustry.co.nz/

publications

February 2012 SEAFOOD NEW ZEALAND 21

ENER

GY

(MEG

AJO

ULE

S)

FRES

H W

ATER

(LIT

RES

)

FER

TILI

SER

(g)

PES

TIC

IDES

(m

g)

AN

TIB

IOTI

CS

(mg)

SU

RFA

CE

AR

EA

IMPA

CTE

D (

m2)

GR

EEN

HO

US

E

GA

SES

(kg)

EUTR

OP

HIC

ATIO

N

PO

TEN

TIA

L (g

)

AC

IDIF

ICAT

ION

PO

TEN

TIA

L (g

)

1.56 171 26 24 1.17 1.24 0.86 3.0 8.4

4.90 262 188 129 1.17 18.14 3.70 13.3 36.8

3.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.63 1.26 6.0 15.6

10.86 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.35 5.97 67.6 196.4

7.11 0 0 n/a 0 17 0.62 1.7 3.9

7.11 0 0 n/a 0 100 0.64 1.7 4.0

7.69 0 0 n/a 0 57 0.68 1.8 4.3

99.53 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 8.75 23.6 55.1

14.40 0 0 n/a 0 104 1.27 3.4 8.0

5.55 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0.49 1.3 3.1

5.88 0 0 n/a 0 24 0.52 1.4 3.3

7.26 0 0 n/a 0 36 0.64 1.7 4.0

12.6 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 1.11 3.0 7.0

NEW ZEALAND DAIRY

NEW ZEALAND MEAT

INTERNATIONALDAIRY

INTERNATIONAL BEEF

SQUID

HOKI

JACK MACKEREL

ROCK LOBSTER

ORANGE ROUGHY

BARRACOUTA

SOUTHERN BLUE WHITING

LING

SNAPPER

This table summarises the results per 40 g protein portion across all studies.