Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus
Goal, Scope and Background
In face of continued declines in global fisheries landings and concurrent rapid aquaculture development, the sustainability of seafood production is of increasing concern. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a convenient means of quantifying the impacts associated with many of the energetic and material inputs and outputs in these industries. However, the relevant but limited suite of impact categories currently used in most LCA research fails to capture a number of important environmental and social burdens unique to fisheries and aquaculture. This article reviews the impact categories used in published LCA research of seafood production to date, reports on a number of methodological innovations, and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for further impact category developments.
The range of environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with fisheries and aquaculture production are introduced, and both the commonly used and innovative impact categories employed in published LCA research of seafood production are discussed. Methodological innovations reported in agricultural LCAs are also reviewed for possible applications to seafood LCA research. Challenges and options for including additional environmental and socioeconomic impact categories are explored.
A review of published LCA research in fisheries and aquaculture indicates the frequent use of traditional environmental impact categories as well as a number of interesting departures from the standard suite of categories employed in LCA studies in other sectors. Notable examples include the modeling of benthic impacts, by-catch, emissions from anti-fouling paints, and the use of Net Primary Productivity appropriation to characterize biotic resource use. Socio-economic impacts have not been quantified, nor does a generally accepted methodology for their consideration exist. However, a number of potential frameworks for the integration of such impacts into LCA have been proposed.
LCA analyses of fisheries and aquaculture call attention to an important range of environmental interactions that are usually not considered in discussions of sustainability in the seafood sector. These include energy use, biotic resource use, and the toxicity of anti-fouling paints. However, certain important impacts are also currently overlooked in such research. While prospects clearly exist for improving and expanding on recent additions to environmental impact categories, the nature of the LCA framework may preclude treatment of some of these impacts. Socio-economic impact categories have only been described in a qualitative manner. Despite a number of challenges, significant opportunities exist to quantify several important socio-economic impacts.
The limited but increasing volume of LCA research of industrial fisheries and aquaculture indicates a growing interest in the use of LCA methodology to understand and improve the sustainability performance of seafood production systems. Recent impact category innovations, and the potential for further impact category developments that account for several of the unique interactions characteristic of fisheries and aquaculture will significantly improve the usefulness of LCA in this context, although quantitative analysis of certain types of impacts may remain beyond the scope of the LCA framework. The desirability of incorporating socio-economic impacts is clear, but such integration will require considerable methodological development.
Recommendations and Perspectives
While the quantity of published LCA research for seafood production systems is clearly increasing, the influence this research will have on the ground remains to be seen. In part, this will depend on the ability of LCA researchers to advance methodological innovations that enable consideration of a broader range of impacts specific to seafood production. It will also depend on the ability of researchers to communicate with a broader audience than the currently narrow LCA community.
KeywordsAquaculture fisheries impact categories LCA LCIA seafood
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alverson D, Freeberg M, Murawski S, Pope J (1994): A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper no. 339, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Anderson J, Fong Q (1997): Aquaculture and international trade. Aquaculture Econ Manage 1(1) 29–44Google Scholar
- Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1994): LCA of food products and production systems. Trends Food Sci Tech 134–138Google Scholar
- Andersson K (2000): LCA of food products and production systems. Int J LCA 5(4) 239–248Google Scholar
- Brentrup F, Kusters J, Lamel J, Kuhlmann H (2002): Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the Hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Ass 7(6) 339–348Google Scholar
- Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans J, Walters C, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2003): Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish Fish 4(1) 1–24Google Scholar
- Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen A, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Sequin J, Vignon B (1993): Guidelines for life cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels and PensacolaGoogle Scholar
- Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006): A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 11(2) 88–97Google Scholar
- Ellingsen H (2004): Working environment and LCA. Chapter 6 of Environmental Assessment of Seafood Products through LCA: Final report of a Nordic Network project. Mattsson B, Ziegler F (eds), Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Folke C, Kautsky N, Troell M (1992): The cost of eutrophication from salmon farming: Implications for policy. Environ Manage 40, 173–182Google Scholar
- Food and Agriculture Organization (2004): The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2004. FAO Fisheries Department, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Glass C (2000): Conservation of fish stocks through bycatch reduction: A review. Northeast Nat 7(4) 395–410Google Scholar
- Guinee J, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Weneger A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, de Bruin H, Duin R, Huijbregts M (2001): Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO Standards Part 2. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Hall S, Mainprize B (2005): Managing by-catch and discards: how much progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish Fish 6(2) 134–155Google Scholar
- Harrington J, Myers R, Rosenberg A (2005): Wasted fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish Fish 6(4) 350–361Google Scholar
- Hastein T (1995): Disease Problems, Use of Drugs, Resistance Problems and Preventive Measures in Fish Farming World Wide. In: Reinertsen H, Haaland H (eds), Sustainable Fish Farming: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Sustainable Fish Farming, Oslo, Norway, 28–31 August 1994, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 183–194Google Scholar
- Hayman B, Dogliani M, Kvale I, Fet A (2000): Technologies for reduced environmental impact from ships — Ship building, maintenance and dismantling aspects. ENSUS-2000, Newcastle upon Tyne, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
- International Organization for Standardization (2003): ISO 14041, Geneva, Switzerland. <http://www.iso.org> (accessed October 19, 2005)
- Jensen A, Hoffman L, Birgite T, Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Berendsen S, Elkington J, van Dijk F (1999): Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) — A guide to approaches, experiences, and information sources. Environmental Issue Report No. 6, European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Johnson K (2002): Review of National and International Literature on the Effects of Fishing on Benthic Habitats. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO, no. 57, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
- Karlsen H, Angelfoos A (2000): Transport of frozen fish between Ålensund and Paris — A case study. Technical report no. HiÅ 20 20/B101/R-00/020/00, Ålensund College, Ålensund, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Mattsson B, Ziegler F (2004): Environmental assessment of seafood products through LCA. Final Report of a Nordic Network Project 546. Environment and Fisheries, Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Mungkung R (2005): Shrimp aquaculture in Thailand: Application of life cycle assessment to support sustainable development. Ph.D. thesis. Center for Environmental Strategy, School of Engineering, University of Surrey, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
- Mungkung R, Udo de Haes H, Clift R (2006): Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting ecolabeling criteria: A case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product. Int J LCA 11(1) 55–59Google Scholar
- Nilsson P, Ziegler F (2006): Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats of the Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquat Conserve (in press)Google Scholar
- O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996): Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA): Approach and methodological development. Int J LCA 1(4) 231–237Google Scholar
- Papatryphon E, Petit J, Van der Werf H, Kaushik S (2003): Life Cycle Assessment of trout farming in France: A farm level approach. Life Cycle Assessment in the agrifood sector. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference Dias Report 61, 71–77Google Scholar
- Sabatella E, Franquesa R (2004): Manual of Fisheries Sampling Surveys: Methodologies for Estimations of Socio-Economic Indicators in the Mediterranean Sea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Seppala J, Silvenius F, Gronroos J, Makinen T, Silvo K, Storhammar E (2001): Rainbow trout production and the environment. The Finnish Environment Institute, Suomen ymparisto 529. Technical Report, Helsinki (in Finnish)Google Scholar
- Thrane M (2004a): Environmental Impacts from Danish Fish Products — Hot spots and environmental policies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Tyedmers P (2000): Salmon and sustainability: The biophysical cost of producing salmon through the commercial salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry. PhD. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Tyedmers P (2004): Fisheries and Energy Use. In: Cleveland C (ed), Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier Science 2, 683–693Google Scholar
- Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Muller-Wenk R (1999): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 4(2) 66–74Google Scholar
- Watanabe H, Okubo M (1989): Energy Input in Marine Fisheries of Japan. B Jpn Soc Sci Fish 53(9) 1525–1531Google Scholar
- Weidema B (2002): Quantifying Corporate Social Responsibility in the Value Chain. Presentation for the Life Cycle Management Workshop of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative at the ISO TC207 meeting, Johannesburg, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
- Ziegler F, Nilsson P, Mattsson B, Walther Y (2003): Life Cycle Assessment of frozen cod fillets including fishery-specific environmental impacts. Int J LCA 8(1) 39–47Google Scholar