Reducing our carbon footprint What role for fisheries and aquaculture?

Transcription

1 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

2 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

3 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 million tonnes of CO 2 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 CO 2 equivalent Global emissions 30,824 Global agriculture 4,650 Capture fishery from fuel use Aquaculture 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 Rome, FAO p. Aquaculture: Hall, S.J., et al Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.

4 GHG emissions is more than CO 2 Use of old systems HCFC strongly impacts ozone On-board refrigerant leakage is ~ half the CO 2 emission equivalents of Norwegian cod

5 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

6 Capture fisheries

7 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

8 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! Production Transport Processing Retail?

9 Where can we reduce emissions? Pond to farm gate boat to port Fisheries Fuel for fishing Onboard refrigeration Trans-shipping Fish farms Pumping & aeration Energy feeds Feed transport Catching / Transportation Suppliers transport Reefers International freight Processing Refrigeration Packaging/processing Factory energy Non-refrigeration boat to plate farm to fork B2B farm gate to factory gate Consumption & disposal Waste disposal Recycling Cradle to grave Retailing & food outlets Retail outlet energy Packaging Retail distribution Delivery Customer transport

10 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 GEAR 2005 Fuel cost as % of revenue Developing countries 2005 Fuel cost as % of revenue Developing countries 43 % Developed countries 20 % Global average 37 % Developed countries Active demersal 52 % 29 % Active pelagic 33 % 11 % Passive gear 39 % 9 %

11 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

12 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 premotorization, 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

13 Diversity of fishing gears Passive Fishing Gear Active (energy hungry?) Hook & Lines Gillnets & entangling nets Pots & Traps Seine Nets Surrounding Fishing Gear Towed Fishing Gear Light jigging Drift Longlines Drifting Gillnets Beach seines Scottish seines Purse seines Dredge Trawl Nets Beam Trawl Fixed longlines Fixed Gillnets Danish seines Midwater Trawls Bottom Trawls

14 Shift from active to passive fishing fleets Active Fishing Gears High Fuel costs Bottom impacts Poorly selective Passive Fishing gears Lower fuel costs Reduced bottom impacts 1 More selective Fuel costs as % of value of landings Beam trawl (UK) 50 Demersal trawl (UK) 17 Pelagic trawl and Seine (Spain) Pelagic trawl and Seine (Spain) Fuel costs as % of value of landings Pots & Traps (UK) 7 Fixed and Drift nets (Spain) Hook and line (Spain) 1 Some passive gears may impact the environment (e.g. ghost fishing) 7 8

15 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

16 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 The Net Benefits of Marine Fisheries Reform World Bank Draft Report Value of catch $Billion Weight catch million tonnes Fuel amount million tonnes Fuel cost $Billion 22.5 From: The Sunken Billions. The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. FAO and The World Bank

17 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

18 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

19 Aquaculture

20 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

21 How does aquaculture contribute to climate change? Relative value Need to look at energy footprint lifecycle analysis Global total of CO 2 from global aquaculture 385 million tonnes ~1% of global total ~ % of agriculture total Some systems use significant amounts of energy Eel aquaculture warmwater recirculation high energy feeds Intensive shrimp aeration, pumping, production intensive feeds Species group Carps Catfish Tilapia Eels Salmonids Other finfish Bivalves Gastropods Crabs & lobsters Shrimp & prawns Other invertebrates Seaweeds & aquatic plants Thousand tonnes CO2/tonne production Source: Hall, S.J., et al Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.

22 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

23 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.

24 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

25 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

26 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 > 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

27 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

28 Economic incentives for mitigation of aquaculture contributions to CO 2 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

29 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

30 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

31 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

32 Thank you