Assessing broad life cycle impacts of daily onboard decision-making, annual strategic planning, and fisheries management in a northeast Atlantic trawl fishery
- 281 Downloads
Capture fisheries are the only industrial-scale harvesting of a wild resource for food. Temporal variability in environmental performance of fisheries has only recently begun to be explored, but only between years, not within a year. Our aim was to better understand the causes of temporal variability within and between years and to identify improvement options through management at a company level and in fisheries management.
We analyzed the variability in broad environmental impacts of a demersal freeze trawler targeting cod, haddock, saithe, and shrimp, mainly in the Norwegian Sea and in the Barents Sea. The analysis was based on daily data for fishing activities between 2011 and 2014 and the functional unit was a kilo of landing from one fishing trip. We used biological indicators in a novel hierarchic approach, depending on data availability, to quantify biotic impacts. Landings were categorized as target (having defined target reference points) or bycatch species (classified as threatened or as data-limited). Indicators for target and bycatch impacts were quantified for each fishing trip, as was the seafloor area swept.
Results and discussion
No significant difference in fuel use was found between years, but variability was considerable within a year, i.e., between fishing trips. Trips targeting shrimp were more fuel intensive than those targeting fish, due to a lower catch rate. Steaming to and from port was less important for fuel efficiency than steaming between fishing locations. A tradeoff was identified between biotic and abiotic impacts. Landings classified as main target species generally followed the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, and proportions of threatened species were low, while proportions of data-limited bycatch were larger. This improved considerably when reference points were defined for saithe in 2014.
The variability between fishing trips shows that there is room for improvement through management. Fuel use per landing was strongly influenced by target species, fishing pattern, and fisheries management. Increased awareness about the importance of onboard decision-making can lead to improved performance. This approach could serve to document performance over time helping fishing companies to better understand the effect of their daily and more long-term decision-making on the environmental performance of their products.
Fishing companies should document their resource use and production on a detailed level. Fuel use should be monitored as part of the management system. Managing authorities should ensure that sufficient data is available to evaluate the sustainability of exploitation levels of all harvested species.
KeywordsBycatch Cod Fuel Haddock LCA Fisheries management Shrimp Trawling
We are most grateful to Jan-Roger Lerbukt and Håvard Sigvaldsen for opening up the “environmental accounting system” of the trawler Hermes for us and for taking the time to explain their fishery to us. The work was funded by EU FP7 project WhiteFish (Grant agreement 286141).
- Asche F, Chen Y, Smith MD (2015) Economic incentives to target species and fish size: prices and fine-scale product attributes in Norwegian fisheries. ICES JMS 73(3):733–740Google Scholar
- BSI (2012) Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Supplementary requirements for the application of PAS 2050:2011 to seafood and other aquatic food products PAS 2050–02:2012 Available online at: http://www.bsigroup.es/upload/Documentacion-corporativa/PAS-2050-22012-Huella-de-Carbono-productos-acuaticos.pdf
- Emanuelsson A, Ziegler F, Pihl L, Sköld M, Sonesson U (2014) Accounting for overfishing in life cycle assessment: new impact categories for biotic resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(5):1156–1168Google Scholar
- Fiskeridirektoratet (2004) Kommisjonen for tiltak mot utkast av fisk. Rapport med anbefalningar 28.04.2004. Utkastkommisjonen. (Commission for measures against discarding of fish. Report with recommendations, in Norwegian), 88 ppGoogle Scholar
- Fréon P, Avadí A, Vinatea Chavez RA, Iriarte Ahón F (2014) Life cycle assessment of the Peruvian industrial anchoveta fleet: boundary setting in life cycle inventory analyses of complex and plural means of production. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/998/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11367-014-0716-3.pdf?auth66=1396095558_60b9716410d3eb8e59979b958f01ce3a&ext=.pdf
- Gullstad P, Blom G, Bakke G, Bogstad B (2015) The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries. Mar Pol 54:1–9Google Scholar
- Hornborg S (2014) Broadening the perspective on seafood production. Life cycle thinking and fisheries management. PhD thesis University of Gothenburg, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences/SIK ISBN: 91-89677-60-9Google Scholar
- ICES (2014) ICES advice book 1. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/1.2_Advice_basis_2014.pdf
- Isaksen JR, Hermansen Ø, Flaaten O (2015) Stubborn fuel tax concessions: The case of fisheries in Norway. Mar Pol 52:85–92Google Scholar
- Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470. Food and Agricultural Organisation, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Kålås JA, Viken Å, Henriksen S, Skjelseth S (2010) The 2010 Norwegian Red List for species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Magerholm Fet A, Schau E, Haskins C (2009) A framework for environmental analyses of fish food production systems based on systems engineering principles. Syst Eng 13:109–118Google Scholar
- Parker R (2012) Review of life cycle assessment research on products derived from fisheries and aquaculture: a report for Seafish as part of the collective action to address greenhouse gas emissions in seafood. Online on Seafish website: http://www.seafish.org/media/583639/seafish_lca_review_report_final.pdf
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry: principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman & Co. Ltd, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Standard Norway (2013) NS 9418:2013 Klimaspor for sjømat-Produktkategoriregler (CFP-PCR) (in Norwegian) For sale at: http://www.standard.no/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv/fiskeri-akvakultur-og-mat/2013/ns-9418-klimaspor-for-sjomat/
- STECF (2013) Anderson J, Carvalho N (ed) The 2013 annual economic report of the EU fishing fleet. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of the European Commission. Available online and from: firstname.lastname@example.orgGoogle Scholar
- Winther U, Ziegler F, Skontorp Hognes E, Emanuelsson A, Sund V, Ellingsen H (2009) Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products. SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture report: SFH80 A096068Google Scholar
- Wolf M-A, Pant R, Chomkhamsri K, Sala S, Pennington D (2012) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. Towards more sustainable production and consumption for a resource-efficient Europe. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy. Reference report EUR 24982 EN, available online: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/25589/1/lbna24982enn.pdf
- Ziegler F, Veldhuizen L, Hornborg S, Groen E, Vidarsson J, Bokkers E, Berentsen P, de Boer I, Krewer C, Sund V, Karlsen K M, Donnelly K, Olsen P (2014) D4.2 Second run impact assessment from all cases. Project report from EU project WhiteFish (Project No. 286141)Google Scholar